Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File 1 of 5 - Pierside Pavillion Reconstruction - 300 Pacifi
1 ANDREA K. LEISY, 206681 CHRISTOPHER L. STILES, 280816 L 2 REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 ' Sacramento, California 95814 4 Telephone: (916) 443-2745 Facsimile: (916) 443-9017 Email: aleisy@rmmenvirolaw.com 5 estiles@rmmenvirolaw.com 6 Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs PROTECT COASTAL HUNTINGTON BEACH; BILL GARRISI and JEFF SMITH 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE— CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER 11 12 PROTECT COASTAL HUNTINGTON BEACH, ) CASE NO. 30-2012-00606587-CU-PT-CXC BILL GARRISI, and JEFF SMITH 13 ) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER Petitioners/Plaintiffs, ) GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 14 ) AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF V. ) MANDATE ADDING REAL PARTY IN 15 ) INTEREST PIERSIDE PAVILION, LLC CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY ) 16 COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH; and )Assigned for all purposes: DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 17 )Hon. Gail A. Andler Respondents/Defendants. Dept: CX101 18 MICHAEL ADAMS and MICHAEL C. ADAMS )Filed: October 19, 2012 19 AND ASSOCIATES, JOE DAICHENDT and ) 20 THEORY R ENCLAVE, LLC dba THEORY R ) PROPERTIES, LLC, PIERSIDE PAVILION, ) 21 LLC; and ) ROES 1 through 20, ) 22 ) Real Parties in Interest. ) 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER I TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on December 14, 2012, the Court entered its Order 3 granting the parties' STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO ADD REAL 4 PARTY PIERSIDE PAVILION, LLC in the above-entitled matter. A true and correct copy of the 5 Stipulation and Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 6 7 Dated: December 18, 2012 Respectfully Submitted, 8 REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP 9 By: Aq � 10 An re K. Leisyl 11 Attorney for Petitioners/Plaintiffs PROTECT COASTAL HUNTINGTON BEACH, 12 BILL GARRISI and JEFF SMITH 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER Exhib it A s ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED i Superior Court of California, County of grange 12r'00012 at 01:38:48 PW Clerk of the Superior Court By Enrique'velaz,Deputy Clerk I ANDREA K. LEISY,206691 CHRISTOPHER L. STILES, 280916 2 REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP 3 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 GNP pR�1A Sacramento, California 95814 R�OUCOUR��OF 0 Cats�R 4 Telephone: (916)443-2745 c��T �u Facsimile: (916) 443-9017 1 Email; aleisyna rminenvirolaw,com 5 estiles c@rmmenvirolaw,com C1R oltha. �CPRy�psy,, 6 Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs PROTECT COASTAL HUNTINGTON BEACH; 7 BILL GARRISI and JEFF SMITH 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE—CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER 11 12 PROTECT COASTAL HUNTINGTON BEACH, } CASE NO. 30-2012-00606587-CU-1)T-CXC BILL GARRISI,.and JEFF SMITH } 13 14 Petitioners/Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION A.NI) PR-G ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO V. ) AMEND TO ADD REAL PARTY, 15 ) PIERSIDE PAVILION LLC CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY ) 16 COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH; and )(Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1085 and 1094.5; Pub, DOES 1 through 20,inclusive, )Resources Code §§ 21168,21168.5) 17 Respondents/Defendants [California Environmental Quality Act; 1 g . )California Planning and Zoning Law] MICHAEL ADAMS and MICHAEL C. ADAMS ) j 19 AND ASSOCIATES, JOE DAICHENDT and )Assigned for all purposes: 20 THEORY R ENCLAYTE,LLC dba THEORY R )Hon. Gail A. Andler PROPERTIES, LLC, PIERSIDE PAVILION, )Dept: CX101 LLC; and ) 21 ROES 1 through 20, )Filed: October 19, 2012 22 Real Parties in Interest. ) -23 24 I 25 26 27 /Ir' 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 0RDER GRANTING LEAVE To AIvtEND TO ADD REF,L PARTY dab I I This Stipulation is entered into by and between Petitioners and Plaintiffs,PROTECT 2 COASTAL HUNTINGTON BEACH, BILL GARRISI and JEFF SMITH ("Petitioners") through their 3 attorney of record,Andrea R. L,6sy of Remy Moose Manley LLP, Respondents CITY OF 4 HUNTINGTON BEACH and CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH(collectively, "City") 5 through its attorney of record, Scott F. Field,Assistant City Attorney for the City of Huntington Beach i 6 and Real Party-in-Interest,PIERSIDE PAVILION,LLC{"Pierside"} through its attorney of record, 7 Jeffrey M, Oderman, Esq, of Rutan & Tucker. The above mentioned parties may be eoltectively 8 referred to as the"Parties." 9 RECITALS 10 1. WHEREAS, on October 19, 2012, Petitioners filed a Verified Petition for Writ of 11 Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. 12 2. WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012, Petitioners filed a First Amended Petition for Writ 13 of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. 14 3. WHEREAS,Petitioners named as Real Parties in Interest MICHAEL ADAMS and 15 MICHAEL C. ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, JOE DAICHENDT and THEORY R ENCLAVE, LLC 16 dba THEORY R.PROPERTIES,LLC, and ROES 1 through 20 in each of the aforementioned 17 doctunents. 18 4. WHEREAS, on November 14, 2012,Petitioners became aware that PIERSIDE 19 PAVILION,LLC is the legal owner of the property where the challenged project is located: 300 20 Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach, CA 92648. 21 5, WHEREAS,Petitioners now wish to file a Second Amended Petition for Writ of 22 Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injwnctive Relief("Second Amended Petition") for the 23 limited purpose of naming PIERSIDE PAVILION,LLC as a Real Party in Interest. 24 STIPULATION 25 NOW THEREFORE,the undersigned parties, through their respective cotursel,hereby agree 26 and stipulate as follows: 27 1. The above recitals are true and are incorporated by reference, 28 2. Counsel for the Parties have reviewed the proposed Second Amended Petition, filed 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTINo LEAVE TO AMEND TO ADD REAL PARTY I concurrently with this Stipulation,and request an order of the court granting Petitioner leave to file the 2 Second Amended Petition, 3 3. The Parties' stipulation to the filing of the Second Amended Petition is limited to the 4 filing of the document only,not an admission of any allegation therein. 5 4, This stipulation may be signed by faxed or pdf signatures. This stipulation may be b signed in counterparts. 7 S Date. November z7 2012 REMY MOOSE MANLEY,LLP 9 By: 10 ANULO,T EISY Attorneys for Petitioner, 11 PROTECT COASTAL HUNTINGTON BEACH, BILL GARRISI and JEFF SMITH 12 13 Date: November 2012 JENNIFER McGRATH, City Attorney 14 By: 15 SCOTT F.FIELD, 16 Assistant City Attorney Attorneys for Respondents, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH and 17 CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 18 Date: November ZZ 2012 RLITAN&TUCKER,LLP 19 20 By. QAM ODERMAN Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest, 21 PIERSIDE PAVILION, LLC 22 23 [PROPOSED] ORDER 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. i 25 ���•��--f 26 DAT-F a BEC 14 Z01? HONORABLE GAIL A: ANDLER 27 �7�� 28 THE PARTY ELECTRONICALLY FILING THIS;&9T ! THE SUPERIOR COURT IS TO SERVE CONFORMED COPIES ON ALL OTHER PARTIES 3 _ S57PUL,kTI0N AND[PROPOSED] ORDEK GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND TO-ADD PARTY - - i ` 9 0 0 I Protect Coastal Huntington Beach, et al. v. City of Hw2fington Beach, et al. 2 Superior Court of Orange County Case No. 30-2012-00606578-CU-PT-CXC 3 PROOF OF SERVICE 4 1 am a resident of the United States, employed in the City and County of Sacramento. My 5 business address is 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210, Sacramento, California 95814. 1 am over the age of 18 6 years and not a party to the above-entitled action. I am familiar with Remy Moose Manley,LLP's practice whereby the mail is sealed, given the 7 appropriate postage and placed in a designated mail collection area. Each day's mail is collectcd and 8 deposited in a U.S. mailbox after the close of each day's business. 9 On December 6,2012, I served the following: 10 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND TO ADD REAL PARTY IN INTEREST PIERSIDE PAVILION LLC 11 I2 x On the parties in this action by causing a true copy thereof to be placed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail addressed as 13 follows; or i 14 ❑ On the parties in this action by causing a true copy thereof to be delivered via federal Express to the following persons)or their representative at the address(es)listed below; or 15 x On the parties in this action by causing a true copy thereof to be delivered by facsimile inachine 16 number(916) 443-9017 to the following person(s) or their representative at the address(es) and 17 facsimile number(s) listed below; or 18 ❑ On the parties in this action by causing a true copy thereof to be hand-delivered to the following person(s)or representative at the address(es)listed below; or 19 19 X On the parties in this action by causing a true copy thereof to be electronically delivered via the 20 Internet to the following person(s) or representative at the address(es) listed below; 21 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 22 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Proof'of Service was executed this 6th day of December 2012,at Sacramento, California. 23 24 r 25 *Mlatthc_�ww�Tabarangao 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I Protect Coastal Huntington Beach, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. 2 Superior Court of Orange County Case No.30-2012-00606578-CU-PT-CXC 3 SERVICE LIST 4 JOAN FLYNN Agent for Service for Respondent/Dcfcndant 5 City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY 6 City of Huntington Beach COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street 7 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 VIA REGULAR MAIL and FACS.WILE P: 714,536,52271 F: 714.374.5227 8 E:jflynn@surfcity-hb.org 9 JEFFREY M. ODERMAN Attorney for Real Parties in Interest 10 Rutan &Tucker, LLP JOE DAICHENDT and THEORY R ENCLAVE 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor dba THEORY R PROPERTIES,LLC and ! 11 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 PIERSIDE PAVILLION LLC P: 714,641,3441 F: 714.546.9035 12 E:jodennan@rutan.com VIA REGULAR AL41L and T,ACSTMILR 13 � MICHAEL C. ADAMS Agent for Service for Real Parties in Interest 14 Michael C, Adams&Associates MICHAEL ADAMS and MICHAEL C, ADAMS P.O. Box 382 ASSOCIATES 15 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 16 P: 714,969,4939 J F: 714,374.2211 VIA REGULAR PL4IL anti E AIL E: adamsassocr@socal.rr.com 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF oFSGRYICE I Protect Coastal Huntington Beach, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. 2 Superior Court of Orange County Case No. N-2012-00606578-CU-PT-CXC PROOF OF SERVICE 4 I am a resident of the United States, employed in the City and County of Sacramento. My 5 business address is 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210, Sacramento, California 95814. I am over the age of 18 6 years and not a party to the above-entitled action. I am familiar with Remy Moose Manley, LLP's practice whereby the mail is sealed, given the 7 appropriate postage and placed in a designated mail collection area. Each day's mail is collected and 8 deposited in a U.S. mailbox after the close of each day's business. 9 On December 18, 2012, I served the following: 10 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 11 ADDING REAL PARTY IN INTEREST PIERSIDE PAVILION LLC 12 x On the parties in this action by causing a true copy thereof to be placed in a sealed envelope 13 with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail addressed as follows; or 14 ❑ On the parties in this action by causing a true copy thereof to be delivered via Federal Express 15 to the following person(s) or their representative at the address(es) listed below; or 16 ❑ On the parties in this action by causing a true copy thereof to be delivered by facsimile machine 17 number (916) 443-9017 to the following person(s) or their representative at the address(es) and facsimile number(s) listed below; or 18 ❑ On the parties in this action by causing a true copy thereof to be hand-delivered to the following 19 person(s) or representative at the address(es) listed below; or 20 ❑ On the parties in this action by causing a true copy thereof to be electronically delivered via the 21 internet to the following person(s) or representative at the address(es) listed below: 22 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Proof of 23 Service was executed this 18th day of December 2012, at Sacramento, California. 24 25 Matthew Tabarangao 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE i I Protect Coastal Huntington Beach, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. 2 Superior Court of Orange County Case No. 30-2012-00606578-CU-PT-CXC 3 SERVICE LIST 4 JOAN FLYNN Agent for Service for Respondent/Defendant 5 City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY 6 City of Huntington Beach COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street 7 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 VIA REGULAR MAIL P: 714.536.5227 1 F: 714.374.5227 8 E:jflynn@surfeity-hb.org 9 JEFFREY M. ODERMAN Attorney for Real Parties in Interest 10 Rutan& Tucker, LLP JOE DAICHENDT and THEORY R ENCLAVE 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor dba THEORY R PROPERTIES,LLC and 11 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PIERSIDE PAVILION LLC P: 714.641.34411 F: 714.546.9035 12 E:joderman@rutan.com - VIA REGULAR MAIL 13 MICHAEL C. ADAMS Agent for Service for Real Parties in Interest 14 Michael C. Adams & Associates MICHAEL ADAMS and MICHAEL C. ADAMS P.O. Box 382 ASSOCIATES 15 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 16 P: 714.969.48381 F: 714.374.2211 VIA REGULAR MAIL E: adamsassoc@socal.rr.com 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SER 1'ICE 09MGry��yyy[1�19 7 D �i/]yQy,0}L aCG�O p 117G111 o p IJiL°111M3'JdaA4'� s :o m `r- Gt0 e3Cmcxr II I iI r-3 ru Postage $ CO Certified Fee ri O Return Receipt Fee Postmark O (Endorsement Required) Here O Restricted Delivery Fee O (Endorsement Required) O O Total Postage&Fees $ /0/V/1 / rO Sent To � �JV // 'ZS' S.f....__ ' hl�c-__%Q__(`e--••---•------- O Street,OpWNW, _ --p0BoxNo.r }r)C _ //� City$fete,ZIR+��4 JJ'�� � ��,_!S./_771 rer.1m MIYIIL fV"Mr-ram CI]]l�]77�ft:Y7 .f1 K�iBR.St�.7iK� Certified Mail Provides: ❑ A mailing receipt ❑ A unique identifier for your mailpiece ❑ A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years Important Reminders: ❑ Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First-Class Maile or Priority Mail®. ❑ Certified Mail is not available for any class of international mail. ❑ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail. For valuables,please consider Insured or Registered Mail. ❑ For an additional fee,a Retum Receipt may be requested to provide proof of delivery.To obtain Return Receipt service,please complete and attach a Return Receipt(PS Form 3811)to the article and add applicable postage to cover the fee.Endorse mailpiece'Return Receipt Requested".To receive a fee waiver for a duplicate return receipt,a USPS®postmark on your Certified Mail receipt is required. ❑ For an additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee or addressee's authorized agent.Advise the clerk or mark the mailpiece with the endorsement"Restricted Delivery. ❑ If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is desired,please present the arti- cle at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is not needed,detach and affix label with postage and mail. IMPORTANT:Save this receipt and present it when making an inquiry. PS Form 3800,August 2006(Reverse)PSN 7530-02-000-9047 a a o s ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Si a -r item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent X s Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you.Y B. Received by,�(P'rrf�ifl�ame) C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. < v D. Is deliv d rdreYeR �fn.lte �t�? ❑Ye's 1. Article Addressed to: a If YE'e eli ery addres No _ 3. Service Typy 'sf Certified N1eE' ress Mail ❑Registered 07Return Receipt for Merchandise ="96N` 90FOQ ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number 7QQ8 0500 0001 8217 7534 (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-154 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage&Fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 •)Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • AO /5Z 6771, 92-6s ii iEl t/l1l�tl�ttl1;ti tt Jl it I ® A m s � Dr M Lr) zA nj Postage $ ro � Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee Postmark C3 (Endorsement Required) Here I� Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) I� I Lr) Total Postage&Fees ro Sent To / -------- - OStreet,Apt.No.: --------/-/--�-------------------------- It or PO BoxNo,c -- 1S1 _ --------------------- City,$tale.Z1P+4 ! ---- --_�- ~-_ :er er. B 6 ® e 9 O 0 ® Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A..Si a J item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent Ie Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. - ❑Addressee ® Attach this card to the back of the mail lece B. Received b. P`� C. Date f Delivery or on the front if space permits. p r -1. Article Addressed to: D. Is deliv fry t � ❑Yes` If YE",e I addres ❑No jx 3. Service Certified Dif2i J / ❑Registered �Retum Receipt for Merchandise 7`I` 7 7:5D ❑Insured Mail ❑C,O,D, 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number — --- - Mransfer from service labeq 7008 0500 1 8 217 7534 =' PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt '< 102595 02 M 1540Y . , City Of Huntington Beach 20oo Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ♦ www.huntingtonbeachea.gov Office of the City Clerk I7,1999 J Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF ACTION . PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION September 24, 2012 Michael Adams Michael C. Adams Associates P.O. Box 382 Huntington Beach CA 92648 APPLICANT: Michael Adams, Michael C. Adams Associates, P.O. Box 382, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Joe Daichendt, Theory R Properties LLC, 1 Hammond Road, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 REQUEST: Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial - Pierside Pavilion Expansion) LOCATION: 300 Pacific Coast Highway, 92648 (northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street) PROJECT PLANNER: Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner On Monday, September 17, 2012 a public hearing was held to consider an appeal filed by Councilmember Joe Carchio of the Planning Commission's denial of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005. By a vote of 5-2 (Shaw, Boardman-No), the Huntington Beach City Council approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 with findings and mitigation measures, and approved Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005 with findings and conditions of approval. Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan ♦ Waitakere, New Zealand NOA MND 11-007 CDP 11-012 CUP 11-021 EPA 11-007 VAR 11-005 September 24, 2012 Page Two If you have any questions, please contact Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner at (714) 536- 5516. Oro-) Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC City Clerk JF:rI c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner Joe Daichendt, Property Owner Attachments: MND 11-007 Findings and Mitigation Measures; CDP 11-012, CUP 11-021, EPA 11-007 and VAR 11-005 Findings for Approval; CDP 11-012, CUP 11-021, EPA 11-007 and VAR 11-005 Conditions of Approval Pages 7-8, September 17, 2012 City Council Action Agenda 2 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-0071 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-0121 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-0071 VARIANCE NO. 11-005 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-007: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and made available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the City Council prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the project, as mitigated through the attached mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012 to demolish approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four-story, 68 feet high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts, as modified by conditions of approval and revised plans, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project would expand a mixed-use development on a parcel contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The proposed project would develop visitor-serving commercial uses in the City's downtown core area near other established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier; and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The proposed project as modified by the conditions of approval and the approved variance to allow a building height of 68 feet provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, and is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project as modified by the conditions of approval and with the implementation of all mitigation measures and code requirements will provide all necessary infrastructures to adequately 3 service the site and not impact adjacent development. In addition, the project provides the necessary public improvements such as dedications, curb, gutters, and sidewalks. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project maintains all existing and proposed public access and does not conflict with any public recreation policies by the provision of a development consistent with the City's General Plan, Coastal Element, and Downtown Specific Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021: 1. Conditional Use Permit .No. 11-021 to demolish approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four- story, 68 feet high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts, as modified by the conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and with the modifications and conditions of approval imposed, the project will be designed to address the transition and scale of adjacent properties, be designed on a pedestrian scale and character, will provide the required parking to serve the uses on site, and will meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. The conditional use permit as modified by the conditions of approval and revised plans will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as modified is designed to be compatible with the Downtown Design Guidelines and will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. In addition, the project, as modified by the revised plans, incorporates the proper massing and scale, the design features of the contemporary architectural style and the colors and materials recommended by the Design Guidelines for the Downtown. 3. The proposed mixed use development, as modified by the conditions of approval and revised plans, will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project as modified by conditions of approval and revised plans, and with the variance to permit a building height of 68 feet provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvements. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is M->30-d-sp-pd (Mixed- Use —30 du/ac— design overlay— specific plan overlay— pedestrian overlay). The proposed project as modified by the conditions of approval and revised plans is consistent with this designation and the goals, policies, objectives, and implementation program of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal— LU 4: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. 4 Objective— LU 7.1: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that provides for commercial, employment, entertainment, and recreation needs of existing and future residents, and provides employment opportunities for residents of the City and the surrounding region and captures visitor and tourist activity. 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. Obiective— LU 10.1: Provide for the continuation of existing and the development of a diversity of retail and service commercial uses that are oriented to the needs of local residents, serve the surrounding region, and capitalize on Huntington Beach's recreational resources. Policy LU 10.1.4: Require that commercial buildings and sites be designed to achieve a high level of architectural and site layout quality. Policy— 10.1.8: Require that entertainment, drinking establishments, and other similar uses provide adequate physical and safety measures prevent negative impacts on adjacent properties. 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 11.1.7: Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to achieve a consistent and high quality character, including the consideration of architectural treatment of building elevations to convey the visual character of multiple building volumes and individual storefronts. The design of the project as modified by conditions of approval and the revised plans promotes the development of a mixed-use building that conveys a unified, high-quality visual image and character that is intended to expand the existing development pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors and materials and has indicated that it would recommend approval of the design concept, however requested that the sheer massing of the project be modified to further ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The proposed project as modified utilizes mixed-vertical uses in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use within the Land Use Map of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Commercial uses such as retail establishments will be located within the first story as required by the Visitor-Serving Commercial Overlay, restaurant uses on the second floor and rooftop, and office uses on the third and fourth floors. The project's public areas and open space incorporate enhanced hardscape and landscape materials consistent with the DTSP Design Guidelines. The proposed project will provide a wide arrange and diversity of commercial uses and cater to the needs of local residents and residents in the surrounding region. The project will provide additional commercial uses that will encourage tourism to the site and the surrounding area. The project will facilitate employment opportunities and will not impact the subject site and surrounding area. 5 B. Urban Design Element Policies LID 1.1.2: Reinforce Downtown as the City's historic center and as a pedestrian-oriented commercial and entertainment/recreation district by requiring new development be designed to reflect the Downtowns historical structures and adopted Mediterranean theme. Policies- LID 2.1.1: Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in its massing, height, and site orientation. The project is located on Pacific Coast Highway, a scenic corridor in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element. The setting along PCH is characterized by beach facilities, shoreline, the Municipal Pier, and recreational amenities on the south side and a mix of development on the north side. The architecture of the proposed building consists of a contemporary design theme, which includes materials such as light colored smooth stucco finish, tower elements, flat roof and glass railing systems. The applicant submitted a public view analysis consisting of renderings of the completed project at varying angles. The renderings illustrate that existing public views, such as views looking north and south along PCH, will not be impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project will be located across PCH, away from nearby scenic vistas (i.e., pier and beach), and will not have a substantial adverse effect to these scenic resources. C. Coastal Element Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Policy C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs" of tourist and community activity. The development as modified by the conditions of approval and revised plans consists of the expansion of a mixed-use project, which includes visitor-serving commercial located on the ground floor for retail establishments. The proposed project would develop a mix of visitor-serving commercial and office uses on a parcel including and contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project site is also located near established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. 6 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL— ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007: 1. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 for the relocation of 18 commercial carts and kiosks within the Pierside Pavilion development as modified by the conditions of approval will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. As conditioned, the parallel orientation of carts and kiosks with Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway will not impede pedestrian access and will maintain public views. The location of the carts and kiosks are designed to complement existing businesses and activate pedestrian corridors while remaining cognizant of adjacent residences by minimizing placement in close proximity to adjacent residential uses (i.e., Pier Colony). Based upon the conditions imposed, including compliance with the requirements of CUP No. 10-17, the operation will not impact pedestrian circulation, nor will the operation impact the surrounding businesses and residential uses. 2. The entitlement plan amendment as modified by the conditions of approval will be compatible with surrounding uses because the ancillary operation of commercial carts and kiosks is consistent with the zoning designation and does not represent a significant change from the existing commercial use. The site currently includes carts and kiosks and the conditional use permit will allow for the modified continuation of this ancillary use as modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The proposed entitlement plan amendment will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. As conditioned, the project complies with all aspects of the Downtown Specific Plan including parking, onsite circulation, and setbacks. Carts and kiosks are permitted within the Downtown Specific Plan with the approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the entitlement plan amendment as modified by the conditions of approval will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of M->30-d-sp-pd (Mixed-Use—30 du/ac—design overlay— specific plan overlay — pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Land Use Element Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain a City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Policy LU 7.1.1 Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. 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 15.2.2 Require that uses in the Pedestrian Overlay District be sited and designed to enhance and stimulate pedestrian activity along the sidewalks. Assure that areas between building storefronts and public sidewalks are visually and physically accessible to pedestrians. 7 The proposed carts and kiosks as modified by the conditions of approval increases the economic viability of the downtown by providing additional shopping opportunities, additional employment opportunities and captures visitor and tourist activity within the downtown. The project site is located in a mixed-use district of the downtown area and within walking distance of several downtown parking facilities as well as residential uses thus reducing the need for automobile use and increasing the need for pedestrian amenities. The carts and kiosks will further stimulate pedestrian activity along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. As conditioned, the carts will comply with the approved conditions of approval that relate to customer queuing, 10-foot wide clear passage area adjacent to any customer queuing areas, and other restrictions limiting the placement of carts to ensure that the area is physically accessible to pedestrians which is consistent with other cart and kiosk locations in the downtown. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—VARIANCE NO. 11-005: 1. The granting of Variance No. 11-005 to allow a height of 68 feet for the new, expanded portion of the building in lieu of the maximum of 45 feet will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. This variance would allow for the proposed design to match floor plates and provide efficient internal circulation. The proposal to deviate from the maximum height will not result in the development being disproportionate to the size and scale of surrounding developments due to the existing height of surrounding buildings. Therefore, granting of the variance request will not result in a grant of special privilege because it allows the expansion project to remain consistent with the existing and surrounding structures. Thus, approval of the request will not constitute a grant of special privilege as the variance will allow further improvement to the site consistent with the surrounding area. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, and location, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The expansion project is constrained by special circumstances which include the existing building height. The existing building is approximately 68' high and the 4-story expansion building would match existing height of 68 feet. This would allow for the proposed design to match floor plates and provide efficient internal circulation. The inability to match floor plates is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 3. The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The variance is necessary in order to allow floor plates to match and ensure construction feasibility and adequate internal circulation. The DTSP requires a maximum height of 45 feet. In this case, the project cannot provide efficient circulation and construction feasibility without the granting of a variance. Consequently the strict application of the DTSP would deprive the property owner of the right to improve the property and meet the objectives for community character and compatibility. 4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification and is consistent with the General Plan. The development of a connecting four-story, 68 feet high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending 8 existing storefronts will not be materially detrimental to area due to existing height existing onsite buildings and of surrounding buildings. The granting of the variance would allow for the proposed design to match floor plates and provide efficient internal circulation. The proposal to deviate from the maximum height will not result in the development being disproportionate to the size and scale of surrounding developments due to the existing height of the existing building as well as surrounding buildings. The variance to maximum height will not result in detrimental impacts, but rather improve construction feasibility and internal circulation. The granting of the variance will not adversary affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of M->30-d-sp-pd (Mixed-Use —30 du/ac— design overlay— specific plan overlay— pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11- 0121CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11- 007/VARIANCE NO. 11-005: 1. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, and section elevations dated May 4, 2012 and revised building footprint and elevations submitted September 17, 2012 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The roof element of the eastern stairwell shall contrast with the existing building roof design (DRIB). b. The height of the 4-story building expansion shall be a maximum of 68 feet to the top of the roof deck. c. Full height (floor to ceiling) glass window shall be provided at the eastern elevation of the outdoor dining area of located on the 2"d floor. d. Rooftop deck walls shall not be less than or exceed 42 inches in height. e. Revise existing property lines (locations, dimensions and geometry) to accurately portray the subject property and to be consistent with recorded Final Tract Map No. 13722. (PW) f. Accurately dimension all existing and proposed public improvements (i.e. sidewalk widths, curb return radii, bus turnout geometry, curb-to-building face dimensions, driveway width, etc.). (PW) g. Reference to new office area on the 1s' floor plan shall be removed. Only visitor- serving commercial uses shall be allowed anywhere on the ground floor. h. Revise the cart locations to comply with all applicable conditions of approval and code requirements for Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 (Pierside Pavilion Carts) except for compliance with condition of approval number 1.c. 2. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/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. 3. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: 9 a. One set of project plans, revised pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 1 shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director. A revised set of plans shall be submitted for inclusion in the entitlement file. b. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval, code requirements identified herein and code requirements identified in separately transmitted memorandum from the Departments of Planning and Building, 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. 4. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. b. Use low sulfur (0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. c. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 5 minutes. d. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. e. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. f. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. 5. The structure cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following have been completed: a. All improvements must be completed in accordance with approved plans, except as provided for by conditions of approval. b. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to the Planning Division. c. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department. d. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. e. A shared parking agreement shall be executed via an amended Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) providing a minimum of 234 parking spaces off-site. A copy of the agreement shall be submitted for inclusion in the entitlement file. 6. Prior to the sale of alcoholic beverages, a license shall be obtained from the Alcoholic Beverage control (ABC). All conditions contained in the ABC license shall be adhered to. (PD) 7. Use of the rooftop deck shall be prohibited until a revised noise study is submitted that demonstrates compliance with the City's noise ordinance and the design of the deck is 10 compatible with the surrounding uses. The noise study shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to occupancy and use of the roof top deck. 8. Restaurant uses within the new 4-story expansion building shall comply with the following: a. Restaurant hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight), Sunday through Thursday; and between 7:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. b. Outdoor dining with alcohol service hours of operation within the 2"d floor patio area and rooftop deck area shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 11 p.m., Sunday through Thursday; and between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight), Friday and Saturday. c. A minimum of 70 percent of the net floor area of the establishment shall be designated as dining area excluding back of house areas (such as areas used for cooking, kitchen preparation, office, storage, and restrooms) and outdoor dining areas to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. d. Full food service menus shall be served, at a minimum, until one (1) hour before closing, and a cook and food server shall be on duty during these times to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. e. Alcoholic drinks shall not be included in the price of admission to any establishment to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. f. There shall be no requirement for patrons to purchase a minimum number of alcoholic drinks to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. g. All alcohol shall remain on the establishment's premises, including outdoor dining areas to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. h. An employee of the establishment must be present at all times in areas within the establishment where alcohol is served to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. i. All areas of the business that are accessible to patrons shall be illuminated to make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all people in the business to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. j. Dancing and/or dance floor and/or live entertainment shall be prohibited unless a Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit are approved by the City to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. 11 k. Games or contest requiring or involving consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. I. The establishment shall follow all conditions of the alcohol license issued by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, as well as all other relevant portions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Huntington Beach Municipal Code to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales.. m. There shall be no public or private restaurant use of the proposed rooftop by anyone other than in conjunction with an approved 2-story restaurant and maintenance personnel for the purpose of maintaining or repairing the building. (PD) n. Any existing restaurant shall separately amend their current CUP before expanding their business. CUP amendments shall include security plans, locations where alcohol is permitted, and types and permitted areas of allowed entertainment. (PD) o. Restaurants shall employ a video surveillance security system with a 1-month video library. The minimum requirements for the cameras shall be: color, digital recording to DVR and able to record in low light. All entrances, exits and perimeter areas shall be under video surveillance. Electronic copies of video shall be made available to the Huntington Beach Police Department within 24 hours of a request. Digital recordings shall be made available for viewing on-scene upon request by police officers conducting investigations. (PD) p. Additional security for the building and parking areas shall be provided. The number of required security officers shall be determined by the Police Department upon completion of the project. The number of required security officers shall be modified at the discretion of the Police Department based on crime rates, number of patrons visiting the Pierside Pavilion, types of businesses, hours of operation, and during special events such as 4th of July and US Open of Surfing. (PD) q. A review of the use shall be conducted by City Council within 12 months of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 1st restaurant occupant to verify compliance with the HBZSO, DTSP, and conditions of approval. At that time the City Council may consider modifications to the conditions of approval. 9. The square footage of uses within Pierside Pavilion shall be limited to as follows: 25,433 of retail, 74,501 of office, and 26,654 of restaurant (and 9,550 sq. ft. of outdoor dining); for a total building area of 126,588 sq. ft. (136,138 with outdoor dining). 10. The existing fire lane on the east side of the project shall be limited to access for emergency vehicles only. No other service or commercial vehicles shall be permitted. 11. Tree replacement of any existing mature trees on-site shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 232—Landscape Improvements. For the trees to be relocated, an arborist report shall be submitted and include the following: 12 a. Trees shall be transplanted by a qualified tree service to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. b. Detailed specifications and procedures for the translocation of the identified trees. c. The relocated trees shall be maintained and guaranteed to be alive and thriving after four years by a qualified tree service or arborist to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The trees shall be surveyed every six months for a period of four years as to their viability. The survey shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. In the event that any tree is not surviving, it shall be replaced with the same type and size of tree. d. A letter from the developer stating that the recommendations of the Consulting Arborist will be followed. 12. The development services departments (Planning & Building, Fire, and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning and Building 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 action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. 13. Incorporating sustainable or "green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http://www.us_ bq c.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CateaorylD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=guidelines). INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant 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 applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 13 County Grand Jury report on "The Dissolution of Redevelopment: Where have we been? What Lies Ahead?" Approved 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING 13. Public Hearing to consider adopting Resolution No. 2012-65 to adopt a Budget for the City for Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Recommended Action: A) Open the Public Hearing on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2012/2013 City Budget appropriation of$294,654,838 as outlined in the Proposed Budget document and all revisions contained in the Exhibits of the Budget Resolution; and, B) Adopt Resolution Number 2012-65, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting a Budget for the City for Fiscal Year 2012/2013;" and, C) Authorize the Professional Services included in the Fiscal Year 2012/2013 budget to be representative of the services projected to be utilized by departments in Fiscal Year 2012/2013; and, D) Accept revisions to the Proposed Budget Document received by City Council on July 16, 2012, as described in the Staff Report. Public Hearing Opened, Continued Open to Special Meeting on September 24, 2012 1 Speaker 2 Supplemental Communications Approved 5-2 (Shaw, Boardman no) 14. Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial - Pierside Pavilion Expansion) Staff Recommended Action: A) Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 with findings and mitigation measures; and, B) Approve as amended Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005 with revised findings and conditions of approval. 1. Remove suggested modification on any setback of rooftop mechanical equipment(and all associated screening) 2. Allow mechanical screening up to 10'in height per DTSB 3. amend suggested maul Gatien YegaFding another !RB review and replan Mth iFeGte-�s reyiew. City Council/PFA Regular Meeting Successor Agency Special Meeting September 17, 2012 -7- 4. Amend new restaurant hours of operations Sunday through Thursday. 10:00 PM patio closure, 12:00 AM restaurant closure; Friday-Saturday. 12:00 AM patio, and restaurant 1:00 AM closure with a one-year review (conditional) - alcohol only with food service 5. Variance No. 11-005 to follow the applicant's request per the drawings, which are as follows: Top of roof deck = 68'- 0" at edge; Top of Parapet = 71'- 6"; Top of Mechanical Screen Wall = 76'- 0" 6. EPA 11-007 revise and approve cart locations per the applicant's submitted plan. Remove conditions regarding spacing between trees and carts. 7. Modify building elevations and footprint per plans submitted 9117112 by the applicant at the public hearing. Planning f omm:c.c.,,:yeIr�,�Reee r�menderl ArAien.: Din,ry_Mitigated-Negative D al Dee rim t PeFFAit No 11 017 Gendi4ienal Use D 11 021 Entitlem t Pall Am dmen� r� o'�cmvrsrorrar- i-ef�+t���e. , ef�r�-�a�mL'RanTcrt'c 23 Speakers 12 Supplemental Communications Approved as amended 5-2 (Shaw, Boardman no) 15. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2012-61 revising the City's Emergency Medical Services Fee Schedule Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2012-61, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Setting Advanced Life Support, Basic Life Support, Emergency Ambulance Transportation, Medications and Specialized Supply Fees to be Charged by the Fire Department of the City of Huntington Beach." Approved 4-2-1 (Harper, Dwyer no, Bohr out of room) 16. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2012-62 approving an Annual Assessment within the Huntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District (BID) for Fiscal Year 2012-13 Recommended Action: A) Conduct the Public Hearing; and, B) Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2012- 62, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving an Annual Assessment Within the Huntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2012-13." 1 Speaker Approved 7-0 City Council/PFA Regular Meeting Successor Agency Special Meeting September 17, 2012 -8- 12. Approve Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report on "The Dissolution of Redevelopment: Where Have We Been? What Lies Ahead?" Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter to The Honorable Thomas J. Borris, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County, in response to the findings and recommendations in the 2011-2012 Orange County Grand Jury report on "The Dissolution of Redevelopment: Where have we been? What Lies Ahead?" Approved 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING 13. Public Hearing to consider adopting Resolution No. 2012-65 to adopt a Budget for the City for Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Recommended Action: A) Open the Public Hearing on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2012/2013 City Budget appropriation of$294,654,838 as outlined in the Proposed Budget document and all revisions contained in the Exhibits of the Budget Resolution; and, B) Adopt Resolution Number 2012-65, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting a Budget for the City for Fiscal Year 2012/2013;" and, C) Authorize the Professional Services included in the Fiscal Year 2012/2013 budget to be representative of the services projected to be utilized by departments in Fiscal Year 2012/2013; and, D) Accept revisions to the Proposed Budget Document received by City Council on July 16, 2012, as described in the Staff Report. Public Hearing Opened, Continued Open to Special Meeting on September 24, 2012 1 Speaker 2 Supplemental Communications Approved 5-2 (Shaw, Boardman no) 14. Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial - Pierside Pavilion Expansion) Staff Recommended Action: A) Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 with findings and mitigation measures; and, City Council / PFA Regular Meeting Successor Agency Special Meeting September 17, 2012 -7- B) Approve as amended Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005 with revised findings and conditions of approval. 1. Remove suggested modification on any setback of rooftop mechanical equipment(and all associated screening) 2. Allow mechanical screening up to 10'in height per DTSB 4. Amend new restaurant hours of operations Sunday through Thursday: 10:00 PM patio closure, 12:00 AM restaurant closure; Friday-Saturday: 12:00 AM patio, and restaurant 1:00 AM closure with a one-year review (conditional) - alcohol only with food service 5. Variance No. 11-005 to follow the applicant's request per the drawings, which are as follows: Top of roof deck = 68'- 0" at edge; Top of Parapet = 71'- 6"; Top of Mechanical Screen Wall = 76'- 0" 6. EPA 11-007 revise and approve cart locations per the applicant's submitted plan. Remove conditions regarding spacing between trees and carts. 7. Modify building elevations and footprint per plans submitted 9117112 by the applicant at the public hearing. Planning Commission ReGommended AGtion; Deny Mitigated NegativeDenlaration No 11_007, Coastal Development Permit No 11 012, GOO di�nal Use Permit Ne 11 021, Entitlement Plan Amendment T'fQ'TT 7"fQTVJGTGTI"I'TT GTI'fGl"frl-IgT'IT CITI GTfC7T'1'fG7TC 23 Speakers 12 Supplemental Communications Approved as amended 5-2 (Shaw, Boardman no) 15. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2012-61 revising the City's Emergency Medical Services Fee Schedule Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2012-61, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Setting Advanced Life Support, Basic Life Support, Emergency Ambulance Transportation, Medications and Specialized Supply Fees to be Charged by the Fire Department of the City of Huntington Beach." Approved 4-2-1 (Harper, Dwyer no, Bohr out of room) 16. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2012-62 approving an Annual Assessment within the Huntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District (BID) for Fiscal Year 2012-13 City Council/ PFA Regular Meeting Successor Agency Special Meeting September 17, 2012 -8- /P Council/Agency Meeting Held:_ Deferred/Continued to: Approv d Q Co dition ly Approve ❑ D nied ity Cler s Sig ure Council Meeting Date: September 17, 2012 Department ID Number: PL 12-019 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial - Pierside Pavilion Expansion) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Council Member Joe Carchio, of the Planning Commission's denial of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11- 007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005. The project proposes to modify and expand the existing Pierside Pavilion development. The project includes demolition of approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure, construction of a new connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 sq. ft. mixed-use, visitor serving/office building, and approximately 9,401 sq. ft. of new building floor area by extending existing ground floor storefronts within existing arcades. Additionally, the project includes a variance request to allow a height of 68 feet (plus up to 90 feet for mechanical housing) for the new, expanded portion of the building in lieu of the maximum of 45 feet. Also, an entitlement plan amendment to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 is proposed to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property. Lastly, the project includes the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the proposed restaurant areas and a request for off-street parking based on a shared parking concept. Financial Impact: Not Applicable. Recommended Action: A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1), and Item 14. - 1 HB -400- 2. Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005 with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion to: Deny Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11- 012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005 with findings for denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) Planning Commission Action on August 14, 2012: The motion made by Bixby, seconded by Peterson, to deny Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 with revised findings for denial carried by the following vote: AYES: Peterson, Bixby, Ryan NOES: Mantini ABSENT: Shier Burnett ABSTAIN: Delgleize MOTION PASSED The motion made by Bixby, seconded by Ryan, to deny Coastal Development Permit No. 11- 012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007, and Variance No. 11-005 with findings for denial, carried by the following vote: AYES: Peterson, Bixby, Mantini NOES: Ryan ABSENT: Shier Burnett ABSTAIN: Delgleize MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motions: 1. "Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11- 007 and Variance No. 11-005 and direct staff accordingly." 2. "Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11- 007 and Variance No. 11-005 with modified findings and modified conditions of approval." HB -401- Item 14. - 2 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Michael Adams, Michael C. Adams Associates, P.O. Box 382, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Appellant: Council Member Joe Carchio Property Owner: Joe Daichendt, Theory R Properties LLC, 1 Hammond Road, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 Location: 300 Pacific Coast Highway, 92648 (northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street) The project proposes to modify and expand the existing Pierside Pavilion development. The site is currently developed with a 4-story, 90 foot high, mixed use building consisting of approximately 89,415 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant and office uses; and 296 parking spaces within two subterranean levels with access from Walnut Avenue. The site consists of one lot with a total gross lot area of approximately 76,650 sq. ft. The requested project entitlements are as follows: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project (ATTACHMENT NO. 6). Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012 and Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021 represent a request for the following: A. To permit the demolition of approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a new connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and approximately 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts pursuant to Chapter 245 Coastal Development Permit of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). B. To permit the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the proposed restaurant areas (5,705 sq. ft. plus 6,146 sq. ft. of outdoor dining area) pursuant to Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses of the DTSP. The new restaurant area includes: minor expansion of existing building restaurants, new restaurant proposed to occupy the second story of the addition and the rooftop deck outdoor dining area. C. To permit the expansion of the allowable uses within the Pierside Pavilion development from the previously approved limits established by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01 and the Owner Participation Agreement (executed in 2009 and amended in 2011) by adding 10,527 sq. ft. of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurant (plus 6,146 sq. ft. of outdoor dining area), and 21,441 sq. ft. of office pursuant to Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses of the DTSP. Item 14. - 3 xB -402- D. To permit shared parking pursuant to Chapter 231 Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the HBZSO and Section 3.2.26.9 Other Parking Considerations of the DTSP. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007, represents a request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property pursuant to Chapter 241.18 Changed Plans of the HBZSO. Variance No. 11-005, represents a request to permit a maximum height of 68 ft. (plus up to 90 ft. for mechanical housing) in lieu of a maximum height of 45 ft. pursuant to Section 3.3.1.8, Maximum Building Height, of the DTSP. Project plans for Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11- 021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007, and Variance No. 11-005 are provided in ATTACHMENT NO. 4. The project request will expand the overall square footage on the site from 90,000 sq. ft. to 126,588 sq. ft. Parking for the project will be provided within an existing two-level subterranean parking garage including 296 parking spaces on-site and share up to 234 parking spaces in the Municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street. The site currently shares up to 300 parking spaces within the Municipal parking structure (See Planning Commission Staff Report page 19, Shared Parking — ATTACHMENT NO. 5). Also, up to 5,705 sq. ft. (and 6,146 sq. ft. of outdoor dining) of new restaurant area with alcohol sales is proposed; live entertainment/dancing is not included. Specific restaurants have not been identified at this time. The following is a breakdown of uses: Pi rside Tianocta e Existing S.F. Proposed Infill New Building S.F. Total S.F. S.F. Retail 15,406 4,501 5,526 25,433 Office 54,182* 3,323* 18,118 74,501 Restaurant 19,829 1,577 4,128** 26,654 TOTAL 89,415 9,401 27,772 126,588 *includes 400 sq. ft. demo area **does not include outdoor dining area B. BACKGROUND: In 1988, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 88-07 with Special Permits and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-03 to develop a mixed-use project with a 90,000 square foot entertainment complex, including retail, office and a 6- plex movie theater (Pierside Pavilion) in addition to a 130-unit condominium project (Pier Colony). The developer and the City's Redevelopment Agency entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) to develop the property. In 1990 the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37 and Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 to modify the original mix of uses by reducing the square footage of retail uses and increasing the square footage of restaurant uses. In 2009, the Planning HB -403- Item 14. - 4 Commission approved Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01 to eliminate the theater use and increase retail, office and restaurant square footage. Most recently, the Planning and Building Director approved Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-05 (minor amendment) to amend the mix of uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37 and Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 (and subsequently amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001) by increasing the maximum office square footage. The modifications to the mix of uses were to allow additional capacity in each land use category to allow flexibility to meet future market demands provided that the project total square footage did not exceed the existing building square footage (90,000 sq. ft.). C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission heard the proposed project at their regular meeting on August 14, 2012. Staff gave an overview presentation of the project and the applicant gave verbal testimony in support. Staff's analysis of the project is detailed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 14, 2012 (ATTACHMENT NO. 5). Four people spoke in support of the project and 11 people spoke in opposition. Speakers primarily expressed concerns regarding noise, safety, reduced property values, and visual impacts. Additionally, staff indicated that there was late communication to the Commission including: printed PowerPoint presentation slides by staff, letter in opposition by Mauriello Law Firm representing the adjacent Pier Colony residential community dated August 13, 2012 (addressed below under Environmental Status), and staff's response to Commissioner Bixby's emails (view corridor issue) dated August 14, 2012 (ATTACHMENT NO. 8). Due to concerns raised at the meeting, the Planning Commission denied MND No. 11- 007 with the finding that potential environmental impacts to the public view corridor (vacated 3rd Street) between Pier Colony and the proposed Pierside Pavilion expansion had not properly been analyzed and addressed in the MND; and, denied CDP No. 11- 012, CUP No. 11-021, EPA No. 11-007, and VAR 11-005 because the project will impact the public view corridor (vacated 3 d Street) between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion as it was not properly analyzed and mitigated by the MND, is inconsistent with the General Plan's Coastal Element policies to project visual resources and is inconsistent with the requirements for street vacations identified in the DTSP (ATTACHMENT NO. 2). D. APPEAL: On August 17, 2012, Council Member Carchio filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed project (ATTACHMENT NO. 3). The primary reason for the appeal is to review the proposed project and the applicant's request to permit the expansion of Pierside Pavilion. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: A complete project analysis and overview is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (ATTACHMENT NO. 5). The analysis below briefly focuses on the appeal filed by Council Member Joe Carchio including the design of the proposed expansion, restaurants Item 14. - 5 HB -404- with alcohol sales, and shared parking concept. Based on the Planning Commission's discussion and denial of the project, the analysis also discusses the primary issue raised during the August 14, 2012 Planning Commission public hearing (also see Environmental Status below for discussion on MND issues). Appeal by Council Member Joe Carchio Overall, the project would develop a mix of visitor-serving commercial and office uses including and contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. The design of the project, if modified, promotes development of a mixed-use building that conveys a unified, high-quality visual image and character that is intended to expand the existing development pattern of downtown Huntington Beach. Although the project is conceptually consistent with the City's vision for the downtown, as noted in the Planning Commission staff report, there are several suggested project modifications to bring the project into compliance with the DTSP (including the Design Guidelines), General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The suggested modifications are listed below and discussed in more detail in the Planning Commission staff report (ATTACHMENT NO. 5): • Redesign rooftop deck walls (including parapet, mechanical screening, glass screening, etc.) so they are 42 inches in height. Rooftop walls greater than 42 inches in height constitutes as a 5th story and is not permitted (See Planning Commission Staff Report page 15, General Plan —ATTACHMENT NO. 5). • Setback rooftop mechanical equipment (and all associated screening) 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building (See Planning Commission Staff Report page 16, Downtown Specific Plan —ATTACHMENT NO. 5). • Create a full height (floor to ceiling) glass window at the eastern elevation (facing Pier Colony) of the outdoor dining area located on the 2"d floor to ensure noise attenuation (See Planning Commission Staff Report page 18, Alcohol Sales/Restaurants —ATTACHMENT NO. 5). • Require the roof element of the eastern stairwell to contrast with the existing building roof design pursuant to the Design Review Board's recommendation. Contrasting roof design should include different colors, materials, or pitch (See Planning Commission Staff Report page 12, Design Review Board —ATTACHMENT NO. 5). • Decrease the building height from top of parapet of 68' to 62' to match the height of the existing building. Staff can support a Variance request that matches the existing building (See Planning Commission Staff Report page 18, Variance — Maximum Height—ATTACHMENT NO. 5). • Revise the proposed four story building elevations, colors, and materials to: address building mass issues which can be achieved by providing additional upper-story setbacks; improve architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings and overall Design Guidelines; and, address anti-bird strike solutions. Because of the above suggested modifications that result in design/elevation xB -405- Item 14. - 6 changes, it is recommended that the DRB review the overall redesign (See Planning Commission Staff Report page 16, Design Guidelines —ATTACHMENT NO. 5). • Require that the reference to new office area on the 1 St floor plan be removed. Only visitor-serving commercial uses are allowed anywhere on the ground floor (See Planning Commission Staff Report page 15, Downtown Specific Plan — ATTACHMENT NO. 5). • Require a revision to the proposed cart locations to comply with Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 (Pierside Pavilion Carts) conditions of approval and code requirements. Compliance will yield approximately 6 carts (See Planning Commission Staff Report page 20, EPA-Retail Carts —ATTACHMENT NO. 5). • Prohibit the use of the rooftop deck until a revised noise study is submitted that demonstrates compliance with the City's noise ordinance and the design of the deck is compatible with the surrounding uses. The noise study shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to occupancy and use of the roof top deck (See Planning Commission Staff Report page 17, Alcohol Sales/Restaurants — ATTACHMENT NO. 5). The project, with staff's suggested modifications, is consistent with the scope and intent of development in the downtown and supported by the Downtown Specific Plan, General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. The applicant agrees with most of the suggested modifications except for the requirement to limit the maximum building height and requirement for the DRB to review the overall design and building massing of the proposed project. The applicant requests a maximum top of parapet height of 68' instead of staff's recommendation of 62'; and does not agree that an additional review by the DRB is necessary as recommended by staff. Restaurants with Alcohol Sales The proposed restaurant areas are located on the 2nd story of the proposed 4-story expansion with outdoor patio dining and a roof top deck. The applicant provided a noise study that concludes that impacts related to noise will be less than significant based on screen walls on the roof top deck at 8 feet high. However, staff suggests a modification to reduce the roof deck walls (including parapet, glass and mechanical screening walls) to not less than and a maximum of 42" inches to comply with the maximum height required in the General Plan. If the roof deck walls exceed 42", then the roof deck is considered a 5th story and would not be allowed. The submitted noise study anticipated noise attenuation from the proposed 8-foot deck walls, a reduction of these walls will necessitate a revised study to verify compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and compatibility with surrounding uses. Therefore, staff suggests a condition of approval that prohibits the use of the rooftop deck for occupancy use (i.e. outdoor dining) until a revised noise study is submitted that demonstrates compliance with the City's noise ordinance. Additionally, the noise study analyzed restaurant areas as described in the project description, which only includes the 2"d floor and rooftop deck areas. Therefore, staff suggests a condition of approval limiting restaurant uses to the 2"d floor area and rooftop deck area only. Item 14. - 7 H B -406- The proposed restaurant use with alcohol is subject to comply with standardized conditions of approval pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2011-06. These standard conditions pertain to limiting the scope of operations to ensure that any proposed establishment functions primarily as a bona fide restaurant and to assure that potential impacts to the surrounding properties are minimized. Some of the standard conditions include: the restaurant will be conditioned to close at 12:00 AM (midnight), a minimum of 70% of the net floor area shall be designated as dining area, full food service menus shall be served until 1 hour before closing, alcoholic drinks shall not be included in the price of admission, no minimum drink requirement, alcohol shall remain on the premises, etc. Additionally, the Police Department suggests several conditions of approval to ensure public safety such as: requiring the rooftop use to be in conjunction with the 2nd floor restaurant, and enhanced surveillance and security. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the Police Department is recommending that the outdoor dining areas on the 2"d floor patio and roof top deck of the addition building close by 10 PM. Shared Parking Concept A total of 516 parking spaces are required for the proposed project and the existing development as follows: lerstvi� c� Parc►n Existing S.F. Proposed Infill New Building Total S.F. Required y Parking S.F. S.F. Parking Provided Retail 15,406 4,501 5,526 25,433 3/1000=77 296 Office 54,182* 3,323* 18,118 74,501 211000=149 spaces onsite. Restaurant 19,829 1,577 4,128 26,654 8/1000=213 300 City o/d Dining 3,404 0 6,146 9,550 8/1000=77 Parking 18 carts Structure Carts 18 carts n/a (proposed) n/a n/a TOTAL 92,821 9,401 33,918 136,138 516 596 *includes 400 sq. ft. demo area The project requires 77 spaces for retail uses, 213 spaces for restaurant uses, 77 spaces for outdoor dining and 149 spaces for office use pursuant to Section 3.2.26 of the DTSP. The property currently shares up to 300 of the 826 parking spaces within the adjacent municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street pursuant to prior entitlements and an existing Owner Participation Agreement (OPA). A total of 296 parking spaces will be provided on-site within the existing subterranean parking area and a minimum of 220 parking spaces are required; however to remain consistent with the previous shared parking concept, a minimum of 300 parking spaces will be utilized via shared parking within the adjacent municipal parking structure pursuant to Section 3.2.26.11 District 1 Special Parking Standards of the DTSP. The Pierside Pavilion development was originally permitted in 1988 with a shared parking concept that allowed the mix of uses (including the former theater use) to be satisfied xB -407- Item 14. - 8 through a combination of onsite parking and other public downtown parking. The current request will continue to function similarly; however because the theater no longer exists and the proposed mix of uses include a significant office use allocation, the total required parking is reduced and will not impact the downtown. The requested shared parking is consistent with the provisions of the DTSP, and with execution of a shared parking agreement, will have sufficient parking spaces. Planning Commission Discussion Issue The Planning Commission denied the project due to concerns related to the public view corridor (vacated 3rd Street) between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion. The original conceptual site plan for Pierside Pavilion was approved via CUP 88-7/CDP 88-3/TTM 13478 in 1988. This site plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 7) depicted an approximately 40' wide separation between Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony (in the location of the then proposed 3rd Street vacation). At the same time this project was being considered, the City was in the final phase of revising the DTSP through Code Amendment No. 88-3 (Ordinance 2942). The staff report acknowledged there were revisions to the DTSP and the project conformed with the proposed changes. The only stipulation was that CUP 88-7/CDP 88-3 not take effect until the revisions (Ordinance 2942) to the DTSP were approved by the City Council. This condition only limited when the permits take effect and did not address the 40' separation. By not modifying the CDP/CUP condition, staff concluded that the 40' separation was contemplated and consistent with both versions of the DTSP, including the view corridor requirement. Final Map Nos. 13478 and 13722 for Pierside Pavilion were recorded in 1989 which vacated 3rd Street between Walnut Ave. and Pacific Coast Highway. Building permits were issued and the project was constructed as approved via the entitlements and conditions of approval with an approximately 40' wide separation between Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony. The proposed project maintains the existing width of approximately 40' (ATTACHMENT NO. 7) and the proposed square footage is within the maximum development thresholds analyzed in the DTSP Program EIR and adopted for the October 2011 DTSP Update. As noted in the Planning Commission staff report, the applicant submitted a public view analysis consisting of renderings of the completed project at varying angles. The renderings illustrate that existing public views will not be impacted by the proposed project. The proposal includes elimination of the high planters over the parking structure entryway off of Walnut Avenue which will improve the public view from Walnut Avenue. The proposed project will be located across PCH, away from nearby scenic vistas (i.e., pier and beach), and will not have a substantial adverse effect to these scenic resources. F. SUMMARY: Staff is recommending approval with the suggested modifications and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) because the proposed uses, including restaurants with the sale of alcoholic beverages and outdoor dining, amendment to cart locations and variance to maximum height will not result in increased parking demands, safety, or noise issues, above that expected in a typical mixed-use environment. The project, with staff's Item 14. - 9 HB -408- suggested modifications, is consistent with the scope and intent of development in the downtown and supported by the Downtown Specific Plan, General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and mitigation measures. Subsequently, draft MND No. 11-007 was prepared with mitigation measure pursuant to Section 240.04 Environmental Review of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The mitigation measure identifies tree replacement requirements for removal of any existing mature trees. Draft MND No. 11-007 was advertised and made available for a 30 day public review and comment period, which commenced on June 14, 2012 and ended on July 16, 2012. A total of 13 comment letters were received during the review period. A Response to Comments and Errata were prepared and is included as part of the August 14, 2012 Planning Commission staff report (ATTACHMENT NO. 5). Additionally, late communication to the Commission was received on August 14, 2012 including a letter in opposition by Mauriello Law Firm representing the adjacent Pier Colony residential community dated August 13, 2012 (ATTACHMENT NO. 8). The commenter in this letter believes that the project's environmental review is inadequate, in particular as to aesthetics, views, and noise impacts. In section 1.A. of the Mauriello letter, the commenter suggests that the MND analyzes the incremental height of the proposed new structure as compared to the existing structure only. However on page 6 of the MND, Land Use and Planning section I.a states that, "The proposal to deviate from the maximum height, as conditioned, will not result in the development being disproportionate to the size and scale of surrounding developments due to the existing height of surrounding buildings." Additionally, this section states, "As discussed in the various impact sections (II-XVIII) the project scope and design would ensure that environmental impacts are minimized to a less than significant impact." Therefore, the analysis is based on the size and scale of surrounding developments and existing height of surrounding buildings and not a comparison of the existing structure only. In section 1.13. of the Mauriello letter, the commenter suggests that the conclusion of no significant height impacts is not supported by substantial evidence. As noted above, on page 6 of the MND, Land Use and Planning section La states that, "As discussed in the various impact sections (II-XVIII) the project scope and design would ensure that environmental impacts are minimized to a less than significant impact." The commenter addresses only part of the CEQA analysis and not the full evaluation as addressed in various sections of the MND. In section 1.C. of the Mauriello letter, the commenter suggests that the conclusion of no significant aesthetic impacts is not supported by substantial evidence. It is unclear which CEQA threshold in the MND the commenter is referring to and why it is not supported by substantial evidence. Nevertheless, there is no specific CEQA threshold for views. However, the applicant did provide a public views analysis and substantiates that public views will not be impacted. Additionally, issues regarding aesthetics, views, and design are addressed in various sections of this staff report, the HB -409- Item 14. - 10 Planning Commission Staff Report (ATTACHMENT NO. 5), and also addressed in the MND response to comments (ATTACHMENT NO. 6). In section 1.2 of the Mauriello letter, the commenter suggests that the conclusion of no significant noise impacts is not supported by substantial evidence. The commenter suggests that the noise analysis did not include additional restaurant space and the roof top deck. However, the analysis did include these areas and concluded that less than significant impacts are anticipated. The commenter did not provide any data or evidence to substantiate that the project would in fact exceed noise thresholds resulting in significant noise impacts. Lastly, in section 1.3 of the Mauriello letter, the commenter suggests that an EIR is required with an alternatives analysis. As discussed in Sections I to XVII of the MND, the project with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, standard code requirements, conditions of approval, and applicable mitigation measures adopted for the DTSP Program EIR, the project will have a less than significant impact on the environment and a MND is the appropriate CEQA documentation. Prior to any action on Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007, and Variance No. 11-005, the City Council must review and act on MND No. 11-007. Based on the initial study of the project, staff is recommending that the MND be approved with suggested findings and mitigation measure. Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance Economic Development. The project furthers the General Plan goals, polices, and objectives which encourages development of a mixed- use building that will provide additional commercial uses that will encourage tourism to the site and surrounding area. Attachment(s): 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval (Staff Recommendation)— MND No. 11-007, CDP No. 11-012, CUP No. 11-021, EPA No. 11-007, and VAR No. 11-005 2• Suggested Findings for Denial (PC Recommendation) — MND No. 11-007, CDP No. 11- 012, CUP No. 11-021, EPA No. 11-007, and VAR No. 11-005 3. Appeal Memo dated August 17, 2012 4 Site Plans, Floor Plans, and Elevations received and dated May 4, 2012 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 14, 2012 6. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, including response to comments and errata. 7. View Corridor Comparison — 1988 Conceptually Approved Site Plan & Proposed 2012 Site Plan 8. Late Communications dated August 14, 2012 (including staff's responses to Commissioner Bixby's email dated August 14, 2012 9. 1 PowerPoint Presentation Slides Item 14. - 11 HB -410- H B -411- Item 14. - 12 ATTACHMENT # 1 „ems _ „ HB . _ ATTACHMENT NO. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-007/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007/ VARIANCE NO. 11-005 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-007: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and made available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the City Council prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the project, as mitigated through the attached mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012 to demolish approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts, as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project would expand a mixed-use development on a parcel contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The proposed project would develop visitor-serving commercial uses in the City's downtown core area near other established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier; and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor- serving district. HB -413- Item 14. - 14 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code The proposed project as modified and conditioned and with the variance provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, and is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructures to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. In addition, the project provides the necessary public improvements such as dedications, curb, gutters, and sidewalks. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project maintains all exiting and proposed public access and does not conflict with any public recreation policies by the provision of a development consistent with the City's General Plan, Coastal Element, and Downtown Specific Plan. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11- 021: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021 to demolish approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four- story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts, as modified, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and with the modifications and conditions of approval imposed, the project will be designed to address the transition and scale of adjacent properties, be designed on a pedestrian scale and character, will provide the required parking to serve the uses on site, and will meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. The conditional use permit as modified will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as modified is designed to be compatible with the Downtown Design Guidelines and will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. In addition, the project, as modified, incorporates the proper massing and scale, the design features of the contemporary architectural style and the colors and materials recommended by the Design Guidelines for the Downtown. 3. The proposed mixed use development, as modified, will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project as modified and conditioned, and with the variance provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible Item 14. - 15 HB -414- with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvements. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is M->30-d-sp-pd (Mixed- Use —30 du/ac — design overlay— specific plan overlay— pedestrian overlay). The proposed project as modified is consistent with this designation and the goals, policies, objectives, and implementation program of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal—LU 4: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Objective—L U 7.1: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that provides for commercial, employment, entertainment, and recreation needs of existing and future residents, and provides employment opportunities for residents of the City and the surrounding region and captures visitor and tourist activity. Goal LU8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Objective—L U 10.1: Provide for the continuation of existing and the development of a diversity of retail and service commercial uses that are oriented to the needs of local residents, serve the surrounding region, and capitalize on Huntington Beach's recreational resources. Policy LU 10.1.4: Require that commercial buildings and sites be designed to achieve a high level of architectural and site layout quality. Policy— 10.1.8: Require that entertainment, drinking establishments, and other similar uses provide adequate physical and safety measures prevent negative impacts on adjacent properties. 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 11.1.7: Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to achieve a consistent and high quality character, including the consideration of architectural treatment of building elevations to convey the visual character of multiple building volumes and individual storefronts. The design of the project as amended by staff s suggested modifications promotes the development of a mixed-use building that conveys a unified, high-quality visual image and character that is intended to expand the existing development pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors and materials and has indicated that it would recommend approval of HB -41 s- Item 14. - 16 the design concept, however requested that the sheer massing of the project be modified to further ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The proposed project as modified utilizes mixed-vertical uses in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use within the Land Use Map of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Commercial uses such as retail establishments will be located within the first story as required by the Visitor-Serving Commercial Overlay, restaurant uses on the second floor and rooftop, and office uses on the third and fourth floors. The project's public areas and open space incorporate enhanced hardscape and landscape materials consistent with the DTSP Design Guidelines. The proposed project will provide a wide arrange and diversity of commercial uses and cater to the needs of local residents and residents in the surrounding region. The project will provide additional commercial uses that will encourage tourism to the site and the surrounding area. The project will facilitate employment opportunities and will not impact the subject site and surrounding area. B. Urban Design Element Policies UD 1.1.2: Reinforce Downtown as the City's historic center and as a pedestrian-oriented commercial and entertainment/recreation district by requiring new development be designed to reflect the Downtowns historical structures and adopted Mediterranean theme. Policies - UD 2.1.1: Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in its massing, height, and site orientation. The project is located on Pacific Coast Highway, a scenic corridor in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element. The setting along PCH is characterized by beach facilities, shoreline, the Municipal Pier, and recreational amenities on the south side and a mix of development on the north side. The architecture of the proposed building consists of a contemporary design theme, which includes materials such as light colored smooth stucco finish, tower elements, flat roof and glass railing systems. The applicant submitted a public view analysis consisting of renderings of the completed project at varying angles. The renderings illustrate that existing public views, such as views looking north and south along PCH, will not be impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project will be located across PCH, away from nearby scenic vistas (i.e., pier and beach), and will not have a substantial adverse effect to these scenic resources. To ensure architectural compatibility, staff recommends that the building massing be reviewed by the Design Review Board. The recommendation is to review the additions building massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, review the proposed colors/materials to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings and overall Design Guidelines conformance. C. Coastal Element Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Item 14. - 17 HB -41 6- Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Policv C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs" of tourist and community activity. The development as amended by staff s suggested modifications consists of the expansion of a mixed-use project, which includes visitor-serving commercial located on the ground floor for retail establishments. The proposed project would develop a mix of visitor-serving commercial and office uses on a parcel including and contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project site is also located near established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007: 1. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 for the relocation of 18 commercial carts and kiosks within the Pierside Pavilion development as modified will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. As conditioned, the parallel orientation of carts and kiosks with Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway will not impede pedestrian access and will maintain public views. The location of the carts and kiosks are designed to complement existing businesses and activate pedestrian corridors while remaining cognizant of adjacent residences by minimizing placement in close proximity to adjacent residential uses (i.e., Pier Colony). Based upon the conditions imposed, including compliance with the requirements of CUP No. 10-17, the operation will not impact pedestrian circulation, nor will the operation impact the surrounding businesses and residential uses. 2. The entitlement plan amendment as modified will be compatible with surrounding uses because the ancillary operation of commercial carts and kiosks is consistent with the zoning designation and does not represent a significant change from the existing commercial use. The site currently includes carts and kiosks and the conditional use permit will allow for the modified continuation of this ancillary use. 3. The proposed entitlement plan amendment as modified will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. As conditioned, the project complies with all aspects of the Downtown Specific Plan including parking, onsite circulation, and setbacks. Carts and HB -4 17- Item 14. - 18 kiosks are permitted within the Downtown Specific Plan with the approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the entitlement plan amendment as modified will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of M->30-d-sp-pd (Mixed-Use —30 du/ac — design overlay— specific plan overlay — pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Land Use Element Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain a City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Policv L U 7.L I Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. 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 15.2.2 Require that uses in the Pedestrian Overlay District be sited and designed to enhance and stimulate pedestrian activity along the sidewalks. Assure that areas between building storefronts and public sidewalks are visually and physically accessible to pedestrians. The proposed carts and kiosks as modified increases the economic viability of the downtown by providing additional shopping opportunities, additional employment opportunities and captures visitor and tourist activity within the downtown. The project site is located in a mixed-use district of the downtown area and within walking distance of several downtown parking facilities as well as residential uses thus reducing the need for automobile use and increasing the need for pedestrian amenities. The carts and kiosks will further stimulate pedestrian activity along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. As conditioned, the carts will comply with the approved conditions of approval that relate to customer queuing, 10- foot wide clear passage area adjacent to any customer queuing areas, minimum 8-foot wide clear separation between carts, and other restrictions limiting the placement of carts. to ensure that the area is physically accessible to pedestrians which is consistent with other cart and kiosk locations in the downtown. SUGGESTED FINDING FOR APPROVAL—VARIANCE NO. 11-005: 1. The granting of Variance No. 11-005 to allow a height of 68 feet (plus up to 90 feet for mechanical housing) for the new, expanded portion of the building in lieu of the maximum of 45 feet will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Staff recommends a condition of approval to decrease the building height from top of parapet of 68 feet to 62 feet. This would allow for the proposed design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, Item 14. - 19 HB -418- limit the extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum height. The proposal to deviate from the maximum height, as conditioned, will not result in the development being disproportionate to the size and scale of surrounding developments due to the existing height of surrounding buildings. Therefore, granting of the variance request will not result in a grant of special privilege because it allows the expansion project to remain consistent with the existing and surrounding structures. Therefore, approval of the request will not constitute a grant of special privilege as the variance will allow further improvement to the site and surrounding area. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, and location, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The expansion project is constrained by special circumstances which include the existing building height. The existing building has a 4tb floor top plate height of 59'-6" and staff recommends a condition of approval to decrease the building height from top of parapet of 68 feet to 62 feet. This would allow for the proposed design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, limit the extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum height. The inability to match floor plates is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 3. The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The requested variance as modified is necessary in order to allow floor plates to match and ensure construction feasibility and adequate internal circulation. The DTSP requires a maximum height of 45 feet. In this case, the project cannot provide efficient circulation and construction feasibility. Consequently the strict application of the DTSP would deprive the property owner of the right to improve the property to meet the objectives for community character and compatibility. 4. The granting of the variance as modified will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification and is consistent with the General Plan. The development of a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts will not be materially detrimental to area due to existing height of surrounding buildings and recommended condition of approval to decrease the building height from top of parapet of 68 feet to 62 feet. This would allow for the proposed design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, limit the extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum height. The proposal to deviate from the maximum height, as conditioned, will not result in the development being disproportionate to the size and scale of surrounding developments due to the existing height of surrounding buildings. The variance in maximum height will not result in detrimental impacts, but rather improve construction feasibility and internal circulation. The granting of the variance will not adversary affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of M->30-d-sp-pd (Mixed-Use —30 du/ac — design overlay— specific plan overlay —pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. xB -419- Item 14. - 20 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007NARIANCE NO. 11-005: 1. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, and section elevations dated May 4, 2012, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The roof element of the eastern stairwell shall contrast with the existing building roof design (DRB) b. The Design Review Board (DRB) to review the overall design and building massing of the proposed project. The recommendation is to review the additions building massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, review the proposed colors/materials (including anti-bird strike solutions) to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings and overall Design Guidelines conformance. c. The height of the building expansion shall be decreased from top of parapet height of 68' to 62' feet to match the height of the existing building d. Full height (floor to ceiling) glass window shall be provided at the eastern elevation of the outdoor dining area of located on the 2°d floor. e. Rooftop deck walls (including parapet, mechanical screening, glass screening, etc.) shall not be less than or exceed 42 inches in height. f. Revise existing property lines (locations, dimensions and geometry) to accurately portray the subject property and to be consistent with recorded Final Tract Map No. 13722. (PW) g. Accurately dimension all existing and proposed public improvements (i.e. sidewalk widths, curb return radii, bus turnout geometry, curb-to-building face dimensions, driveway width, etc.). (PW) h. Reference to new office area on the I" floor plan shall be removed. Only visitor- serving commercial uses shall be allowed anywhere on the ground floor. i. Rooftop mechanical equipment (and associated screening) shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. j. Revise the cart locations to comply with Conditional Use permit No. 10-017 (Pierside Pavilion Carts) conditions of approval and code requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/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. 3. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: Item 14. - 21 HB -420- a. One set of project plans, revised pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 1, including the recommendation by the Design Review Board shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director. A revised set of plans shall be submitted for inclusion in the entitlement file. b. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval, code requirements identified herein and code requirements identified in separately transmitted memorandum from the Departments of Planning and Building, 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. 4. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. b. Use low sulfur(0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. c. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 5 minutes. d. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. e. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. f. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. 5. The structure cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following have been completed: a. All improvements must be completed in accordance with approved plans, except as provided for by conditions of approval. b. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to the Planning Division. c. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department. d. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. e. A shared parking agreement shall be executed via an amended Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) providing a minimum of 234 parking spaces off-site. A copy of the agreement shall be submitted for inclusion in the entitlement file. xB -421- Item 14. - 22 6. Prior to the sale of alcoholic beverages, a license shall be obtained from the Alcoholic Beverage control (ABC). All conditions contained in the ABC license shall be adhered to. (PD) 7. Use of the rooftop deck shall be prohibited until a revised noise study is submitted that demonstrates compliance with the City's noise ordinance and the design of the deck is compatible with the surrounding uses. The noise study shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to occupancy and use of the roof top deck. 8. Restaurant uses shall comply with the following: a. Hours of restaurant and alcohol sales shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m midnight to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. b. Hours of outdoor dining with alcohol service within the 4-story addition building 2nd floor area and rooftop deck area shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. (PD) c. A minimum of 70 percent of the net floor area of the establishment shall be designated as dining area excluding back of house areas (such as areas used for cooking, kitchen preparation, office, storage, and restrooms) and outdoor dining areas to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. d. Full food service menus shall be served, at a minimum, until one (1) hour before closing, and a cook and food server shall be on duty during these times to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. e. Alcoholic drinks shall not be included in the price of admission to any establishment to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. f. There shall be no requirement for patrons to purchase a minimum number of alcoholic drinks to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. g. All alcohol shall remain on the establishment's premises, including outdoor dining areas to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. Item 14. - 23 HB -422- h. An employee of the establishment must be present at all times in areas within the establishment where alcohol is served to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. i. All areas of the business that are accessible to patrons shall be illuminated to make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all people in the business to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. j. Dancing and/or dance floor and/or live entertainment shall be prohibited unless a Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit are approved by the City to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. k. Games or contest requiring or involving consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. 1. The establishment shall follow all conditions of the alcohol license issued by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, as well as all other relevant portions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Huntington Beach Municipal Code to comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales.. in. There shall be no public or private restaurant use of the proposed rooftop by anyone other than in conjunction with an approved 2-story restaurant and maintenance personnel for the purpose of maintaining or repairing the building. (PD) n. Any existing restaurant shall separately amend their current CUP before expanding their business. CUP amendments shall include security plans, locations where alcohol is permitted, and types and permitted areas of allowed entertainment. (PD) o. Restaurants shall employ a video surveillance security system with a 1-month video library. The minimum requirements for the cameras shall be: color, digital recording to DVR and able to record in low light. All entrances, exits and perimeter areas shall be under video surveillance. Electronic copies of video shall be made available to the Huntington Beach Police Department within 24 hours of a request. Digital recordings shall be made available for viewing on-scene upon request by police officers conducting investigations. (PD) p. Additional security for the building and parking areas shall be provided. The number of required security officers shall be determined by the Police Department upon completion of the project. The number of required security officers shall be HB -423- Item 14. - 24 modifed at the discretion of the Police Department based on crime rates, number of patrons visiting the Pierside Pavilion, types of businesses, hours of operation, and during special events such as 4th of July and US Open of Surfing. (PD) 9. All applicable conditions of approval pursuant to Conditional Use permit No. 10-017 (Pierside Pavilion Carts) shall remain in effect. 10. The restaurant square footage within Pierside Pavilion shall be limited to as follows 26,654 of building area and 9,550 sq. ft. of outdoor dining area. Restaurant area in the 4- story addition building shall be limited to the 2nd floor area and rooftop deck area only. 11. The existing fire lane on the east side of the project shall be limited to access for emergency vehicles only. No other service or commercial vehicles shall be permitted. 12. Tree replacement of any existing mature trees on-site shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 232—Landscape Improvements. For the trees to be relocated, an arborist report shall be submitted and include the following: a. Trees shall be transplanted by a qualified tree service to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. b. Detailed specifications and procedures for the translocation of the identified trees. c. The relocated trees shall be maintained and guaranteed to be alive and thriving after four years by a qualified tree service or arborist to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The trees shall be surveyed every six months for a period of four years as to their viability. The survey shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. In the event that any tree is not surviving, it shall be replaced with the same type and size of tree. d. A letter from the developer stating that the recommendations of the Consulting Arborist will be followed. 13. The development services departments (Planning & Building, Fire, and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning and Building 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 action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. 14. Incorporating sustainable or "green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryfD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems Item 14. - 25 HB -424- (http://www.builditgreen.org/index.cfin?fuseaction=muidelines).Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant 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 applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof HB -425- Item 14. - 26 ATTACHMENT #2 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-007 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021 ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007 VARIANCE NO. 11-005 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-007: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; however potential impacts to the public view corridor (vacated 3rd Street) between Pier Colony and the proposed Pierside Pavilion expansion were not properly analyzed and addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. It was advertised and made available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the City Council prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Mitigation measures do not avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. The Mitigated Negative Declaration did not include mitigation measures to address the potential impacts to views by the proposed project. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the project, as mitigated through the attached mitigation measures, will not have a significant effect on the environment. FINDING FOR DENIAL — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-0071VARIANCE NO. 11-005: The proposed project will impact the public view corridor (vacated 3rd Street) between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion because it was not properly analyzed and mitigated by the MND, is inconsistent with the General Plan's Coastal Element policies to protect visual resources and is inconsistent with the requirements for street vacations identified in the Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed project does not adequately address the requirements for street vacations, does not protect visual coastal resources and does not address the environmental impacts to existing views and the view corridor established by the vacation of 3rd Street. l B -427- Item 14. - 28 ATTACHMENT #3 ® City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 m (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachca.gov FfB I7,1904,P� ® Office of the City Clerk ® Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Date: August 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: Councilmember Joe Carchio Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11- 007/Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021/Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007/Variance No. 11-005 (Pierside Pavilion Expansion) Date for Public Hearing: TBD Copy of appeal letter attached: Yes Fee collected: none Completed by: Patty Esparza,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 -429- Item 14. - 30 CITY OF H NTIN City Council nteroff® a Communication TO: Joan Flynn, City Clerk FROM: Joe Carchio, City Council e ber DATE: August 16, 2012 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLAN ING C MISSION'S DENIAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -007/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007/VARIANCE NO. 11-005 (PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION) I hereby appeal the Planning Commission's denial of MND No. 11-007/CDP No. 11-012/CUP No. 11-021/EPA No. 11-007NAR No. 11-005 to permit the expansion of Pierside Pavilion. The Planning Commission denied the request with findings on August 14, 2012. The primary reason for my appeal is to have the City Council review the proposed project including staffs issues and the applicant's request to permit the expansion of Pierside Pavilion. The entitlements are proposed to permit: a) the demolition of approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four- story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and approximately 9,401 sq. ft, infill expansion by extending existing storefronts; b) the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the restaurant areas; c) to expand the allowable uses within the Pierside Pavilion development from the previously approved limits established by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01 and the Owner Participation Agreement (executed in 2009 and amended in 2011) by adding 10,527 sq. ft. of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurant, and 21,441 sq. ft. of office; and, d) permit shared parking. Also an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property is proposed; and a variance to permit a maximum height of 68 ft. (plus up to 90 ft. for mechanical housing) in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. is requested. The proposed project includes an MND that analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. 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. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Chair and Planning Commission Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager Fred A.Wilson,City Manager Robin Lugar, Deputy City Clerk Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager Ethan Edwards,Associate Planner Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Kim DeCoite,Administrative Secretary Travis Hopkins, Director of Public Works Item 14. - 31 HB -430- ATTAC H M E N T #4 Hd -431- Item 14 - 32 III I!t II 1■■Ik [ '" ��_ ,; u■■�'1/ice �,. �.>_.,= �� ' is ....■:`,.. I■ OMNI No ADJACENT q■■���rl BUILDINGSp■■loom1 . • =1■■■OEM 1 I iil■■■L� dNE MEN . tee!■■■I ,:. :., ... : ,:.::._ ■Il�hl„ n.... ■ ■ll�ihillll I ■■■\ MIN ..■.�n � 11� ■■■■ E®.....■�■Yl■1 - . ONE Ion�i ®� IIIIII ■I: ■■■� OW IKy■I, _ ,11111111� ,uiiil ■ ® ® + loll I OR I�\■m■Y■Immiaidl Effilml ORE. MON �■■IILiNONNINONNI - I■�■■Zr�l ■INONNI MEN "M I I���`�����.. Jq■ilk ■■■1� . ���� a! l� „SIA� i iiii�i:i' I IE HAW�l� ��`w.•.�l�o��������l�I�i01��1\n���'i�.�J■J'�r�rr���.�€'�l��l■. s �0 5 8 N _ NOR 0FE 0 0 0 0 0 FwM Horc ❑ Mpd3 lg025 Lre T.910A883f00 F.910A360faz ❑ �, ywN Nwelm_�x Q Q Q LIIKmAIK o El ❑y E a �-i a T J J ❑❑ 01Qp fl IEEEn9l zEl ° =z� 9 LEGEND ❑y O ❑a Iwm xtxmwux ❑ Q �� we x .Nx,• HH. 1N 11E] El ❑ ❑ 711 OWn.El z &❑U 1 L ❑y L L L V❑ L e❑ J Q Q ❑s NE191[Ii®PAILLLIN6 rtLe di Eeacer 18f11L w BTALLB rk � O ❑O O O H O O - O ❑N NEOTA 1WI! M WALL8 anLLT� MP LErALIa 0 oaa 000a HE :D-1 o El El El ❑O L J ❑ ❑ O C PARKING COUNT NOTESy1� 151� sns+ 1,THERE AREL.FAISTING TANOEM PARKING SPACES ONU is 89 PARKING LEVEL P3. 3. APPROVED PARKING LAYOUT]8AOOIO- Q Q y ❑y Q y❑ Q A❑ ❑y ❑y Q y Q L i x❑ O j ❑ W VALET PARKING ONTHEFIRST1P11LEVELAND36CARS N GVI BEPARKEOONTHESECONO(P2)1EVELFDBATOTALDF THERE ARE 3005PACESIN THE PUBLIC-E PER THE OPA, p PORATOTALOFSHEPARKINGSPACES l09 A IL Q a Ric s CIO Nor F CTION �d i . 5 6 N 'oN51R� Pz PARKING PLAN A-1 5 7 8 9 NOR I Ec c kruN arI-, ❑" ❑e O D ❑n SpedBiProJecls 0 18R0 sFPs��w. L LffiAnONm,asaczs n❑ F.310.H380162 ryJ ryry wxw nWelucmm L u C7 101 l C7 O O F C7 O O EHl JAE[m]l O C7 O O C7 O O J J mA"�`"xww 4 5393 ✓�°ve 0 »� 0 0 0 a�:' ,A� E`T LEGEND C C'A I', S u❑ O ❑ ❑� LJ xEwmu"x L' 8 U F ❑ ❑ F e uomwmw." O'W r� ❑x ❑v W$,a v o o �m�PAP9016 xzw�� z;rc T T T T T E y ❑ y ❑x ❑ y 0 ❑° F E seiw ~ a 0 000 ooao as a o N o a o O r6� O © c "NG DNNrND x 1 I"THEREARE10M LNG TANDEM PARKING 3PAI ES. N O 0 LD�L 1 y -L �� 1 J {--� PAR.NGLEVELP3 G7m x.wITHAPPR DVALEr PARKINGIAr L—ADDNIONAL AN BE PARKED DN rHE PIRSr(P1)LEVEL AND M CALLS O m❑ u� x❑ ❑ Q '❑' O ❑ MVa ET PAPASNG SPAE�ss. lPzI LEVEL Eoanroru or LJ 3THEREARiOF596PA0.KINGSPACESCGAMGEPEnTnEDP0. 6 EDRATorA Ul A A d NOT F��ON d PLANTRH P1 P !A-2 GDNSARKING " Inr-r-m � --....WALNUT AVENUE -----------�---- Rik kd ft I- - --- I Spedel Pro I MP.Jeds l 18805 1 F,.o.93G1t00 i I to.azG.otez I I Iyay� nD.ono I me[n�•� I I � I I E31 ADJACENT BUILDINGS o tom zi I W I �pI y L -1WWWV��� O a i �� Mnmerexuna uimErtx.xrs I m,wx Y� '�� 655 mRr.nonaa _- nwn a C) 13 ADJACENT U BUILDING I /,un O--- I Ld 0 I LEGEND ,o x, !�i E.e LD G..(I3,,sSFGR0ss) - !�3 auRnA.nu.FRS k;l`�` `{ I, Sf yfz' I xewlARI (9.%7SF) xFlunRu l9,oE�s Fl � i nli sf1Em mL rar" j ® EXISTING GUiDOOR DINING(Ro35.F) L. _.._ _I mm „r �. z L J R 'a w cc O FOR C(IpN EM. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY cpNSTµU xo. WALNUT AVENUE o _ I Ardit Inc. ID--j- I 189D8f Bugv br. ®+I� 12a% b2,Q) Ip%ft .v51 —'lI I —ALLEY — I, box - I , ® T =-- UJI Z t. u Ap a 0, s s 1 sue.„ Di a , pQ mz -p1 cis 1.Loesr EX.SERVICE J six. s ,o J I � I Ld W 2 Q.L , I _ _ SyW4�^f]R SuftM,� � OmiPatb of oovDvire I tOmi SMOENNUX - - - - _z W6e PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY =d z� �O O ` NojRL)CTjON u�i EXISTM Fwsr FLOOR PLAN Arddtncte I- T. . 99G BF.W�0. m N.�.GA9�b -- 3,OR262,0G 0000000 an nnn DOO9 nn > O 'at3a I! LEGEND e a e ® OPENSPA¢ 6,067s.E. +e..y I OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM , xewn `� zI.1�A ,{. I Z, ..l QU'6 J LL l JW LL o e F L w LL _= O W L ADJACENT = O ax,x LL { - BUILDING {- d Hx r; l' LL LEGEND L NEW BUIMINGASEA(4.911116P0551 LL L ;y. ..-, ® NEW—OF owrttG l;nzaP.l LL `'y`:' E%ISTINGOUTOOORMNING 19.—Y) LL N:,B,tl vW I .—TERRACEAREA 166 412.z,o61 S.E.) LL L aw �_. -1—TE—AREA IB.9B65.EI a LLL o LLLL LLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLLL ' LLLLLLI LLL `L E!r-iTM--L=L-.LL s Q J �d Ic V Q C NS1R��ION M SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-4 v,r-r-r I�DDEd i Sa BUMv R. LmM T.310,Y38018 a G flWBW F 3 1 �� xwx.neleWc.am Y 0 ' I �e �a U; ab Z;m 4 V Bi p d 3 3 � �I LL ADJACENT �J LL J 'E; °I BUILDING `}w LLL I F -LL "Ewe"ER�wEWE .°w O W L _ I.� N-wLa Lj.1 a 0 6na -LL LEGEND IL I LL - ''; : :; O NEWBU-lN-EA)6,-.FGl-) —LL IN FILLABEA(16—) _LL L ',BI •. NEWiEBBA MEA(—.F) LL -L © E%ISIINGiERRACE ABFA)l,5BI5F) O s I LLLLLLL LLLLM61T"-LLLLLLLLLL L ••• Nwww 9c ®, w O r.Vr J a-w IR U. in z is Q NpI ION I—d CONSTRUE n,OW FLOOR aLM A-5 R110Hk ��W. SpsdRl Protects 199D sI MIX. auM Roor Loa M9tlw.G 86035 r.at-6ztao F.af0A36 O103 iwvlx.neUeWc.can j( 7 V earnxa poor i Nid,X� ADJACENT �9F BUILDING g O'w LLj IL s x 0 i- 1— w m LEGEND G{� n � NEW BNILOINGAREA�6,6]OSF GROss� IN NUAREA(as]s Ft E.-NG TERRAR AREA(1,196IS) O t r � z �raNaM�ar,ow J O C NSTR� jO" EWIF U. _ W FOURTH FLOOR PLAN tiir_i.b. M-6 Rk s�R,�D ,ADS W r.3,DAmz,DD F.310AMFl1az I o i I I Fti I cif dl 1 LIF G.� dLL nV' D ADJACENT BUILDING O w W OL z LEGEND L—J wE;f xw.,xuwn� �wzn sa,ui w^u � HFW BURDIHG AREA(1,132 sF) / // ® OMDOOR DINING(3,$1-) COMMON tt�ts;ri'rtt;a//; I W tttt F %tt " z J d U. of TM o 0 C N57RU�ION �►-a ROOF PLAN ,ir.,•o � �3=18M2 I I I IAZY HL---Ju- U- 0 —P .,.FmlfB I I GLASS SCREEN WALL 4 ffl FR ffl 6 irw Fw c GLASS RALM 6ETAL 3 SOUTH ELEVATM 0 0 w rL -——----------------- M -I 'I + co go Z 0 co id NOT FOR ION CONSTROCT L,T EAST ELEVATM ^ Ar eiteas Imo. (ciy Sped I Pro�aCts iSF.e�MU. ! ! os Mgala+.G90025 F 3;lm o;1. ELEVATION AT ATM ' yr-ro 2A 1 �. 1 - I JJ fivil F-o:J- WEST ELEVATION r.-0. 2 U �J rah �I� Ld!0 w. «.m..ro®m t aP711 bNftA In tt S C Ic NOT FOR ON zc W CpNSTROCTI NORTH ELEVATION 'y` MI MHUR m mm WEST SEcTiONIELEVATION 2 0 w w IL A- ,�Ag 10. 'e co UA 2E 0 IE IM 0 A Nio-r FOR ON z -us CoNsTROCTI NORTH SECTION A-10 r ` _ `x V A�� III -� IIIlI�1■!� !��.i II {IIIIIII� �' y IT 0 . corvu 00 1 � - E 1a a { � �Nlj ......... ,. IS il 'I Ij'••• ir• ainii� L-L f x. I� NBDEL Architects Inc. S=11 P9ro��jecpts So flow FauTh f Lca Mptlea.GfIW45 F.1t0.8R60t81 •ww.roltivc mn Q uxwre rsw _1 - - L_ �rjEj - -1T1E� - E _v� on ------- -- s�.. - I T. - _ _f. E �zr 11- - _- _ - - _ i_ 1I - - - - - N T 77 xr'i �_..._ - - - - -- - -T "1 r I� �iJF _ _ - �n� VTTT.�II i__�i z TLt R _ n I- _ - _ -- - on - _�_ LU .- - W a y M 4 W NOTCONSTR,C1 oN VIEW FROM PCH AND MAIN �`, l A-12 �YDD�. a� La Mpelae.G900]5 F.0108]601B} __ �v�.w.re�alac ovm tt '_� Q I r714 - - c AL Tff- L ---_- -- 1 -- - --1 71_j_ -- ---------- ,, II IL - - __ _ -_----_ - - - z N I` -- a 9=uj - --- -' - 1 � - -- — •i - -- - - -- - - -�--- :d xa ---------- — --- -- - Z U! --------------------- CO) Q W c NOTRUCTION Co> A-13 VIEW OF MAIN ENTRY NROU arnneas Inc. S=FP1- iwnire��.L4fr103a 3tU%d2100 F,a10.8160181 ww.natlelmc wn Q Rtvr9Y6 Pam` — s J-. - - 1 .,�_ - IJ l - r r f - T , �_ -� T_ - _- - _, �- -� _ (_ ._1_ 1---- -- ---�- --- LJ f� �I 1 f y IJ— - - - 0 � I z�°� IjIl�rr� l 1- - —' -- --- --- — me - ?� -� o NIP uw .y e� s— � ---------- ------------- ---------— : 3 W NOT FOR ON CONSTguci A-14 VIEW FROM PCH NODE[ [ Inc SP�aI ProJecls io:a�s.cnmou Faioezc z,ao .o+o ezo Diaz ww.�oeiar�on, Q u..v�ns 0� 0 s I � ZI I� L' '—_-.- I _ I —1_ IKJA (� _ __ _- _— #O IL - r�� '= \ _ O a -- -_ -- a LU ts- „_ -- .rY LLI EL CA Co- - - - --- -- --- - �N VIEW FROM PIER A-15 Rik II nL nl � _ 11 F •T•T"T2 rr . . P�P•II�P�LP1P�Ln.f SOUTH ELEVAMN 4al • III—• . =all■■■i'�II al. ■�1�� 1 ® ' '; "fie"� e�i'. ' .� �3 �a �.= '°..3�i'se: Irm 00 NNOEL 0 a I I � �e ii WEST ELEVATION 14-' f! J LL J N Y W C 6 I p r_ { IL --------------- ELI cc oo� U S W NORTH ELEVATION A-17 ATTACHMENT #5 �� ty of Unt� ta Bich JPlaning � �� di�n De �-trrrneull, IIH i r; HUNTINCTON BEACH _: s 5':. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building BY: Ethan Edwards, AICP, Associate Planner �� DATE: August 14, 2012 SUBJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-007/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11- 021/ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007NARIANCE NO. 11-005 (PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION) APPLICANT: Michael Adams,Michael C.Adams Associates,P.O.Box 382,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Joe Daichendt,Theory R Properties LLC, l Hammond Road,Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 LOCATION: 300 Pacific Coast Highway, 92648 (northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021 represent a request for the following: To permit the demolition of approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and approximately 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts; To permit the expansion of the allowable uses within the Pierside Pavilion development from the previously approved limits established by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01 and the Owner Participation Agreement (executed in 2009 and amended in 2011) by adding 10,527 sq. ft. of retail, 5,705 sq_ ft. of restaurant, and 21,441 sq. ft. of office; To permit the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the restaurant areas; and, To permit shared parking. • Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 represents a request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property. • Variance No. 11-005 represents a request to permit a maximum height of 68 ft. (plus up to 90 ft. for mechanical housing) in lieu of a maximum height of 45 ft. HB -453- #FItem 14. - 54 L MENNEN moommmon",n MENEM , , Ism � IS NONE 40 _ _ r�4 Z, ..1 - `^_ TT�_ --••mot gong i . -mac er"�.-- .c e��-'� .� :.��. 'zi ,:i�X,r•' '.._� _ 9 0,111)41 w I al h.46-3 11 mill LIN a Staff's Recommendation: ® Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 based on the project, with mitigation, will have no significant adverse environmental impacts. o Approve Coastal Development Permit No. I1-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005 with modifications based upon the following: - Conformance to applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and the provisions of the DTSP and Zoning Ordinance; and, - The development complies with all minimum development standards with exception of the requested variance. o Staffs Suggested Modifications: Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012 and Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021 • Require rooftop deck walls (including parapet, mechanical screening, glass screening, etc.) not to be less than or exceed 42 inches in height. • Rooftop mechanical equipment (and all associated screening) shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. • Require a full height (floor to ceiling) glass window at the eastern elevation of the outdoor dining area located on the 2nd floor. • Require that the reference to new office area on the 1st floor plan be removed. Only visitor- serving commercial uses are allowed anywhere on the ground floor. • Require the Design Review Board(DRB)to review the overall design and building massing of the proposed project. The recommendation is to review the additions building massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, review the proposed colors/materials (including anti- bird strike solutions) to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings and overall Design Guidelines conformance. • Require the roof element of the eastern stairwell to contrast with the existing building roof design(DRB) • Require that the use of the rooftop deck shall be prohibited until a revised noise study is submitted that demonstrates compliance with the City's noise ordinance and the design of the deck is compatible with the surrounding uses. The noise study shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to occupancy and use of the roof top deck. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 • Revise the proposed cart locations to comply with Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 (Pierside Pavilion Carts) conditions of approval and code requirements. Variance No. 11-005 • Require that the maximum building height is decreased from top of parapet height of 68' to 62' to match the height of the existing building. PC Staff Report—8/14/12 HB -455 2sr" CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Piersid Item 14. - 56 RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 with findings and mitigation measure (Attachment No. 1);" B. "Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007, and Variance No. 11-005 as modified with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007, and Variance No. 11- 005 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007, and Variance No. 11- 005 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012 and Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021 represents a request for the following: A. To permit the demolition of approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and approximately 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts pursuant to Chapter 245 Coastal Permit of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses of the Downtown Specific Plan(DTSP). B. To permit the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the restaurant areas pursuant to Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses of the DTSP. C. To permit the expansion of the allowable uses within the Pierside Pavilion development from the previously approved limits established by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01 and the Owner Participation Agreement (executed in 2009 and amended in 2011) by adding 10,527 sq. ft, of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurant, and 21,441 sq. ft. of office pursuant to Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses of the DTSP. D. To permit shared parking pursuant to Chapter 231 Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the HBZSO and Section 3.2.26.9 Other Parking Considerations of the DTSP. Item 14. - S To"—1114/12 HB -456-2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007, represents a request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 10- 017 to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property pursuant to Chapter 241.18 Changed Plans of the HBZSO. Variance No. 11-005, represents a request to permit a maximum height of 68 ft. (plus up to 90 ft. for mechanical housing) in lieu of a maximum height of 45 ft. pursuant to Section 3.3.1.8, Maximum Building Height Ildght of the DTSP. The project proposes to modify and expand the existing Pierside Pavilion development. The site is currently developed with a 4-story, 90 foot high, mixed use building consisting of approximately 89,415 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant and office uses; and 296 parking spaces within two subterranean levels with access from Walnut Avenue. The site consists of one lot with a total gross lot area of approximately 76,650 sq. ft. The project proposes to demolish approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing ground floor storefronts within existing arcades. The table below describes the existing area, proposed infill area, new building area, and total building area for the project: Existing S.F. Proposed Infill S.F. New Building S.F. Total S.F. Retail 15,406 4,501 5,526 25,433 Office 54,182* 3,323* 18,118 74,501 Restaurant 19,829 1,577 4,128 26,654 TOTAL 89,415 9,401 27,772 126,588 *includes 400 sq,ft.demo area The project proposes to expand the allowable uses within the Pierside Pavilion development from the previously approved limits established by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-0.1 by adding 10,527 sq. ft. of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurant, and 21,441 sq. ft. of office. The changes required entitlement plan amendment applications (discussed in the Background section below) to modify the mix of allowable uses; however the overall square footage never exceeded the maximum cap of 90,000 sq. ft. The current request will expand the overall square footage and establish a new cap of approximately 126, 588 sq. ft., thus requiring a new conditional use permit and coastal development permit for review and approval. Approximately 10,027 sq. ft. of retail area is proposed on the first level facing the perimeter of the building, approximately 5,508 sq. ft. of office space and approximately 1,577 sq. ft. of restaurant infill area is located behind or within the interior portions of the first level. Approximately 4,967 sq. ft. of restaurant area is proposed on the second level and approximately 7,135 sq. ft. of office area is proposed on the third level and approximately 6,837 sq. ft. of office area is proposed on the forth level. Approximately 3,069 sq. ft. of outdoor terraces are proposed on the second and third levels; and approximately 6,146 sq. ft. of outdoor dining is proposed on the second floor and rooftop deck. Parking will be provided within an existing two-level subterranean parking garage including 296 parking spaces on-site and share up to 234 parking spaces in the Municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street. PC Staff Report-8/14/12 HB_ 457-2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Piersid Item 14. - 5 8 The project includes a variance request to allow a height of 68 feet (plus up to 90 feet for mechanical housing) for the new, expanded portion of the building in lieu of the maximum of 45 feet. Also, an entitlement plan amendment to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 is proposed to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property. The project will be constructed in three overlapping phases over an approximately 12 month period with all existing businesses to remain open. Phase I includes the construction of an elevator tower to service the existing and proposed building areas. During the above ground construction of the tower, work will continue in the lower level of the parking structure preparing column footings. The entire work of this phase will continue for approximately four months, with two months of this time devoted to constructing the elevator within the new tower. Phase II will commence with the demolition of the existing tower and stairs and the placement of steel columns and beams through the roof and floor of the first level of the parking structure. The parking structure will continue to operate during construction; however some existing parking spaces may be temporarily unavailable. The property will continue to share up to 300 parking spaces within the adjacent municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street during the construction phases. The entire Phase 11 will encompass seven months of construction time with the use of an on-site crane/hoist and scaffolding to accomplish interior and exterior construction. Phase III will commence upon completion of the addition with renovations to the walkways along PCH, the alleyway adjacent to Pier Colony and the renovations to the stairwell at Main Street. Following the completion of this work, the storefronts along Main and PCH will be extended to the `drip line'; and minor cosmetic changes will be made to the building. These include painting of the entire building, painting the glazing metals to match the new addition, patching and repairing stucco, and upgrading the lighting systems and landscape around the property. This phase will continue for three months. The project is located on Pacific Coast Highway, a scenic corridor in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element. The setting along PCH is characterized by beach facilities, shoreline, the Municipal Pier, and recreational amenities on the south side and a mix of development on the north side. The architecture of the proposed building consists of a contemporary design theme, which includes materials such as light colored smooth stucco finish, tower elements, flat roof and glass railing systems. Barckground: The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 88-07 with Special Permits and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-03 to develop a mixed-use project with a 90,000 square foot entertainment complex, including retail, office and a 6-plex movie theater (Pierside Pavilion) in addition to a 130-unit condominium project (Pier Colony). The developer and the City's Redevelopment Agency entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) to develop the property. In 1990 the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37 and Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 to modify the original mix of uses by reducing the square footage of retail uses and increasing the square footage of restaurant uses. In 2009, the Planning Commission approved Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01 to eliminate the theater use and increase retail, office and restaurant square footage. Most recently, the Director approved Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-05 (minor amendment)to amend the mix of uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37 and Coastal Development Permit Item 14. - 59?ort-8/I4/12 HB -458-2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc. (Pierside Expansion) No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 by increasing the maximum office square footage. A comparison of the changes over time is shown in the table below. _.«- y:1.?-`-'II•���.fG_:..'•� ��' ��.5«��-"-::+'•-�"[.^•~`•:;:Y:.��.1:.-.".•.� � :.S_..Y.Y..-:t•�.-�t .FE'�.--.n......:_ '!'',.. .._—�.`_•-_r!•:-yi•i.-_,-_...... .r, _�. _:t. -_-.ik..• P= �.:`: ='.`.�r-iE:'E: Theater 30,000 sq.ft. 30,000 sq.ft. N/A N/A Retail 23,575 sq.ft. 12,624 sq.ft. 19,000 sq.ft. 19,000 sq.ft. Office 15,925 sq.ft. 15,925 sq.ft. 51,000 sq.ft. 55,000 sq.ft. Restaurant 16,500 sq.ft. 26,731 s -ft. 29,000 s .ft. 29,000 sq.ft. Subtotal 86,000 sq.ft. 85,280 sq.ft. 99,000 sq.ft. 103,000 sq.ft. Total Gross 90,000 sq.ft. 90,000 sq.ft. 90,000 sq.ft. 90,000 sq.ft. Area Cap The modifications to the mix of uses shown above were to allow additional capacity in each land use category to allow flexibility to meet future market demands provided that the project total square footage did not exceed the existing building square footage (90,000 sq. ft.). Public Meetings: The applicant held two public neighborhood meetings to engage surrounding neighbors and anyone interested in the proposed project. The first meeting was held on July 10, 2012, (11:30 AM) at Spark Woodfire Grill located on the subject property. Approximately 30 people were in attendance including residents/owners of Pier Colony, downtown business owners, Planning Commissioners and staff. The applicant gave an overview of the project including the display of plans and renderings. Several attendees asked questions and commented in opposition to the proposal. Common opposition issues included the proposed height, design compatibility, increased noise, decreased views, decreased property value, and safety. A second meeting was held on July 10, 2012 (6:00 PM) at Harbour View Clubhouse, located at 16600 Saybrook Lane. Three people were in attendance. Again the applicant gave an overview of the project and answered questions. Study Session Summary: The project was presented at the Planning Commission study session on July 24, 2012. The Planning Commission asked if any design issues were raised by the Design Review Board (DRB) and if staff will respond to the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration comments. Staff responded that the DRB did review the design and recommended one condition of approval; and that staff would provide a response to comments as an attachment in the public hearing staff report. Additionally, there were a few members of the public who commented on issues related to the proposed design including lack of compatibility, increased pedestrian congestion and noise. No further questions or follow up items were asked of staff. PC Staff Report-8/14/12 HB -459 2sr33 11 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Piersid Item 14. - 60 ISSUES: Subject Property And Surrounding Land U Use. Zoning And General Plan Designations: "U" WJ!411A.E'-� E AN Subject Property M->30-d-sp-pd (Mixed-Use—30 DTSP (Downtown Retail/Office/Restaurants du/ac—design overlay—specific Specific Plan- /Parking plan ove ay—pedestrian overlay) District 1) North of Subject Property M->30-d-sp-pd DTSP(District 1) Retail/Restaurants/ (across Walnut Avenue) Parking Structure South of Subject Property CV-d-sp(Commercial Visitor— DTSP (District 6) Pier/Restaurants/Beach (across Pacific Coast Hwy) design overlay—specific plan overlay) West of Subject Property M->30-d-sp-pd DTSP (District 1) Retail/Office (across Main Street) East of Subject Property M->30-d-sp-pd DTSP(District 1) Residential I I , Condominiums General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is M->30-d-sp-pd (Mixed-Use —30 du/ac — design overlay— specific plan overlay — pedestrian overlay). The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals, policies, objectives, and implementation program of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal —LU 4: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Obiective—LU7.1: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that provides for commercial, employment, entertainment, and recreation needs of existing and future residents, and provides employment opportunities for residents of the City and the surrounding region and captures visitor and tourist activity. 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. Objective—LU10.1: Provide for the continuation of existing and the development of a diversity of retail and service commercial uses that are oriented to the needs of local residents, serve the surrounding region, and capitalize on Huntington Beach's recreational resources. Policy L U 10.1.4: Require that commercial buildings and sites be designed to achieve a high level of architectural and site layout quality. Policy— 10.1.8: Require that entertainment, drinking establishments, and other similar uses provide adequate physical and safety measures prevent negative impacts on adjacent properties. Z:� Item 14. - 6 1 port-8/14/12 1113 -460_2sr33 CDP 11-0 12,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) 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 11.1.7: Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to achieve a consistent and high quality character, including the consideration of architectural treatment of building elevations to convey the visual character of multiple building volumes and individual storefronts. The design of the project as amended by staff's suggested modifications promotes the development of a mixed-use building that conveys a unified, high-quality visual image and character that is intended to expand the existing development pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors and materials and has indicated that it would recommend approval of the design concept, however requested that the sheer massing of the project be modified to further ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The proposed project as modified utilizes mixed-vertical uses in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use within the Land Use Map of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Commercial uses such as retail establishments will be located within the first story as required by the Visitor-Serving Commercial Overlay, restaurant uses on the second floor and rooftop, and office uses on the third and fourth floors. The project's public areas and open space incorporate enhanced hardscape and landscape materials consistent with the DTSP Design Guidelines. The proposed project will provide a wide arrange and diversity of commercial uses and cater to the needs of local residents and residents in the surrounding region. The project will provide additional commercial uses that will encourage tourism to the site and the surrounding area. The project will facilitate employment opportunities and will not impact the subject site and surrounding area- B. Urban Design Element Policies UD 1.1.2: Reinforce Downtown as the City's historic center and as a pedestrian-oriented commercial and entertainment/recreation district by requiring new development be designed to reflect the Downtowns historical structures and adopted Mediterranean theme. Policies - UD 2.L I' Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in its massing, height, and site orientation. The project is located on Pacific Coast Highway, a scenic corridor in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element. The setting along PCH is characterized by beach facilities, shoreline, the Municipal Pier, and recreational amenities on the south side and a mix of development on the north side. The architecture of the proposed building consists of a contemporary design theme, which includes materials such as light colored smooth stucco finish, tower elements, flat roof and glass railing systems. The applicant submitted a public view analysis consisting of renderings of the completed project at varying angles. The renderings illustrate that existing public views, such as views looking north and south along PCH, will not be impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project will be located across PCH, away from nearby scenic vistas (i.e.,pier and beach), and will not have a substantial adverse effect to these scenic resources. To ensure architectural compatibility, staff recommends that the building massing be reviewed by PC Staff Report—8/14/12 HB -461-2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Piersic Item 14. - 62 the Design Review Board. The recommendation is to review the addition's building massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, review the proposed colors/materials to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings and overall Design Guidelines conformance. C. Coastal Element Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Policy C 3_3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs" of tourist and community activity. The development as amended by staff s suggested modifications consists of the expansion of a mixed-use project, which includes visitor-serving commercial located on the ground floor for retail establishments. The proposed project would develop a mix of visitor-serving commercial and office uses on a parcel including and contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project site is also located near established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in District No. 1, Downtown Core Mixed-Use of SP5 - CZ (Downtown Specific Plan— Coastal Zone), which establishes the area as the downtown for the City by creating a more urban atmosphere, encouraging relatively higher intensity development, and promotes visitor-serving mixed-use commercial, office, and residential developments. With the exception of the variance and incorporation of the suggested modifications and conditions of approval the project complies with the minimum requirements of the base zone. In addition, a list of City Code Requirements, Policies, and Standard Plans of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code has been provided to the applicant(Attachment No. 4) for informational purposes only. Urban Design Guidelines Confonnance: The project is subject to the DTSP — Design Guidelines which provide the minimum qualitative design expectations for the downtown. All development is required to comply with the spirit and intent of the design guidelines. Building forms and facades influence cohesiveness, comfort, and aesthetic pride and at the same time promote general pedestrian activity, encourage shopping, and increase a sense of security. Item 14. - 63:)01t—8/14/12 HB 462 2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) Where commercial mixed-use buildings are neighbors to residential buildings or where infill buildings are being constructed, consideration of scale, detail, and materials is very important. The massing and scale of structures should remain in harmony with the surrounding natural setting and existing structures. Tall buildings should be made less imposing by stepping back from the street level on elevations above the ground floor; and monolithic facades should be broken by horizontal and vertical articulation. The most intense development and activity occurs at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, across from the Municipal Pier, Pier Plaza, and the beach. Two large developments — the subject Pierside Pavilion and the Oceanview Promenade project are developed on the two corners of the intersection with 4 stories each and heights that reach up to 71 feet high and architectural features that are 90 feet high. Additionally, to the east of Pierside Pavilion is Pier Colony, a 4 story, 130-unit residential condominium building. All three buildings share a common theme that includes Mediterranean architectural elements, and exceed the maximum height of 45 feet allowed by the DTSP. Additionally, they all provide multiple setbacks on upper stories creating a "wedding-cake" effect to increase variation and to minimize the vertical emphasis of the buildings. Furthermore, this design approach fosters a high level of articulation, visual interest, and enhances public and private views. The proposed building is an expansion of the existing Pierside Pavilion development. The intent of the design is to contrast with the existing and surrounding buildings by providing a more contemporary architectural theme that includes materials such as light colored smooth stucco finish with horizontal reveals, large window glazing systems, tower elements, a flat roof and glass railing systems. The building provides one upper-story setback at 13'-4" for the 2nd story (10' average setback required by the DTSP) and then the fagade runs vertically and continuously without offset to the top of the building. The project includes a variance request to exceed the maximum height of 45 feet. The project proposes four stories with a building height of 68 feet topped with an 8-foot glass screen wall and an architectural tower (mechanical housing) up to 90 feet high. The design intent is to match the existing building height and floor plates to allow for more efficient access and internal circulation. However, the 4th floor top plate exceeds the minimum required floor height and as such, staff recommends a condition of approval to decrease the building height from top of parapet of 68 feet to 62 feet. This would allow for the proposed design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, limit the extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum height. Additionally, the DTSP limits the height of walls on a rooftop deck to 42" in height, if the wail is greater than 42", the area is then considered a story (5'11) and would not comply with the General Plan. Staff is suggesting a condition of approval to limit the overall height of rooftop deck walls to not less than or greater than 42"in height. The project currently includes large proportions of glazing which may become a bird-strike issue. Bird strikes can be a result of large areas of glass or other reflective/transparent materials; however this issue was not previously reviewed. The project was reviewed by the City's Design Review Board(DRB), who is charged with reviewing projects for consistency with community design standards and objectives. The DRB made recommendations to address the building's size and scale to ensure further compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood (see discussion under Design Review Board below) and staff recommends that the Planning Commission condition the project to have it reviewed by the DRB to review the massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, and review colors/materials (including anti-bird strike solutions) to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings. PC Staff Report—8/14/12 HB -463-2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Piersk Item 14. - 64 The project as proposed does not fully comply with the DTSP — Design Guidelines with regard to building design. Continuity among individual buildings in the area contributes to community identity, levels of pedestrian activity, and economic vitality. Design solutions for the proposed building should take into account the physical scale of the area and adjacent buildings and their architectural design, colors and materials. However, with staff s suggested modifications, the design would be brought into greater conformance with the DTSP Design Guidelines. Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and mitigation measures. Subsequently, draft MND No. 11-007 (Attachment No. 5) was prepared with mitigation measure pursuant to Section 240.04 Environmental Review of the 14BZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act(CEQA). The mitigation measure identifies tree replacement requirements removal of any existing mature trees (Attachment No. 1). Draft MND No. 11-007 was advertised and made available for a thirty (30) day public review and comment period, which commenced on June 14, 2012 and ended on July 16, 2012. A total of 13 comment letters were received during the review period. A Response to Comments and Errata was prepared and is included as Attachment No. 6. Prior to any action on Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007, and Variance No. 11-005, the Planning Commission must review and act on MND No. 11-007. Based on the initial study of the project, staff is recommending that the MND be approved with suggested findings and mitigation measure. Coastal Status: The proposed project is located within the non-appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012 is being processed concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 11- 021, and Variance No. 11-005. The proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the zoning code (with exception to the requested variance) and Coastal Zone requirements, and is consistent with the Coastal Element of the General Plan. RedeveloymentStatus: Not Applicable. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board (DRB) originally reviewed the proposed design on May 12, 2011 and indicated that it would recommend approval of the design concept, however requested that the sheer massing of the project be modified to further ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The project came back before the DRB for their official recommendation at the June 14, 2012 meeting. The DRB reviewed the project and supported the overall design including the same massing and height originally reviewed. Staff recommended that additional offsets including upper-story setbacks are incorporated to deemphasize the sheer massing; consider alternative colors, materials and finishes to provide additional articulation; and to incorporate the same or similar window design and/or canopies of the existing Item 14. - 65"'8/14/12 HB -464 2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) building into the proposed expansion. The DRB took action on the project and recommended approval with only one modification to change the roof element of the eastern stairwell to contrast with the existing building roof design. The DRB recommendation has been made suggested condition of approval No. La for the proposed project. The applicant concurs with the DRB recommended modification above; however, staff recommends that the Planning Commission condition the project to have it reviewed by the DRB to review the massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, and review colors/materials (including anti-bird strike solutions) to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings. This would potentially allow an opportunity for greater design compatibility with the existing building and adjacent/nearby buildings such as Pier Colony and Oceanview Promenade. The project as proposed does not fully comply with the DTSP — Design Guidelines with regard to building design_ Continuity among individual buildings in the area contributes to community identity, levels of pedestrian activity, and economic vitality. Design solutions for the proposed building should take into account the physical scale of the area and adjacent buildings and their architectural design, colors and materials. However, with staff s suggested modifications, the design would be brought into greater conformance with the DTSP—Design Guidelines (See discussion under Urban Design Guidelines Conformance) Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Planning & Building, Economic Development, Community Services, Fire, Police, anal Public Works have reviewed the application and identified comments and applicable code requirements (Attachment No. 4). The Police Department included typical conditions of approval that includes limiting the use of the rooftop deck to the proposed 2nd floor restaurant only and enhanced surveillance and security for the building. Public Notircation: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach./Fountain Valley Independent on August 2, 2012, and notices were sent to property owners of record (and tenants) within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Division's Notification Matrix), applicant, and interested parties. As of August 6, 2012, no communication regarding the project has been received. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): March 28, 2012 September 28, 2012 (Within 6 months of complete application) Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-02 1/Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007/Variance No. 11-005 were fled on October 14, 2011. Environmental Assessment No. 11-007 was deemed complete on March 28, 2012 and the project is required to be processed within 6 months after the application(including environmental review) is deemed complete. PC Staff Report—8/14/12 HB -465-2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Piersic Item 14. - 66 ANALYSIS: The primary issues to consider with this request are the suggested project modifications, consistency with the General Plan, compliance with the DTSP, and compatibility with the surrounding land uses. The major site plan issues are the variance request to exceed the maximum height, and design compatibility. Staffs Suggested Modifications Staff is suggesting the following modifications to support the proposed project, and in some instances to ensure compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan including Design Guidelines and General Plan. • Require rooftop deck walls (including parapet, mechanical screening, glass screening, etc.) not to be less than or exceed 42 inches in height. (Condition of Approval No. Le) — See discussion under General Plan, Land Use Compatibility and Variance below. • Rooftop mechanical equipment (and all associated screening) shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. (Condition of Approval No. Li) — See discussion under Downtown Specific Plan below. • Require a full height (floor to ceiling) glass window at the eastern elevation of the outdoor dining area located on the 2nd floor. (Condition of Approval No. Ld) — See discussion under Alcohol Sales/Restaurants below. • Require that the reference to new office area on the 1" floor plan be removed. Only visitor- serving commercial uses are allowed anywhere on the ground floor. (Condition of Approval No. Lh)—See discussion under Downtown Specific Plan below. • Require the Design Review Board (DRB)to review the overall design and building massing of the proposed project. The recommendation is to review the additions building massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, review the proposed colors/materials (including anti- bird strike solutions) to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings and overall Design Guidelines conformance. (Condition of Approval No. Lb)— See discussion under Design Guidelines below. • Require the roof element of the eastern stairwell to contrast with the existing building roof design. (DRB) (Condition of Approval No. La) — See discussion under Design Guidelines below. • Revise the proposed cart locations to comply with Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 (Pierside Pavilion Carts) conditions of approval and code requirements. (Condition of Approval No. l.j)—See discussion under EPA-Retail Carts below. • Require that the maximum building height is decreased from top of parapet height of 68' to 62' to match the height of the existing building. (Condition of Approval No. Lc) — See discussion under Downtown Specific Plan and Variance-Maximum Height below. • Prohibit the use of the rooftop deck until a revised noise study is submitted that demonstrates compliance with the City's noise ordinance and the design of the deck is compatible with the surrounding uses. The noise study shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to occupancy and use of the roof top deck. (Condition of Approval No. 7) — See discussion under Alcohol Sales/Restaurants below. Item 14. - 67POr —8/14/12 HB -466-2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) Discussion of each is included in several sections of the analysis below: General Plan The project is located within the Main Street/PCH "Core" Community District and Subarea of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which has a maximum density/intensity of 4-stories. As proposed, the use does not comply with the General Plan because the height of the roof deck parapet, glass & mechanical screen walls exceed 42", and therefore constitutes as a 5th story. However, with staff s suggested modification to lower the roof deck walls to a maximum and not less than 42", the proposed project will comply by utilizing mixed-vertical uses in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use within the Land Use Map of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, and not exceed the 4-story maximum. Commercial uses such as retail establishments will be located within the first story as required by the Visitor-Serving Commercial Overlay, restaurant uses on the second floor and rooftop, and office uses on the third and fourth floors. The proposed project would develop a mix of visitor-serving commercial and office uses on a parcel including and contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. Downtown Specific Plan The design of the project as modified promotes development of a mixed-use building that conveys a unified, high-quality visual image and character that is intended to expand the existing development pattern of downtown Huntington Beach. The project's public areas and open space incorporate enhanced hardscape and landscape materials consistent with the DTSP Design Guidelines. The proposed project would, therefore, be consistent with this policy of the Land Use Element. The project will improve an existing underutilized plaza area by expanding the existing development and utilizing the development potential established by the DTSP. Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses of the DTSP requires that visitor-serving commercial uses are required for all ground floor square footage in the District 1 Visitor Serving Commercial Overlay. The submitted plans indicate that new office is proposed on_the ground floor. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that would require any reference to new office area on the I"floor to be removed from the plans. While the use complies with the base zoning district and all applicable land use plans,the project includes a request for a variance to exceed the maximum height of 45 feet. The project proposes four stories with a building height of 68 feet topped with an 8-foot glass screen wall and an architectural tower(mechanical housing) up to 90 feet high_ The proposed project would not, therefore, comply with the height requirement of the Specific Plan. However, the design intent is to match the existing building height (which was permitted pursuant to the regulations of the 1988 DTSP) and floor plates to allow for more efficient access and internal circulation. However, the existing 4th floor top plate exceeds the minimum required floor height and as such, staff recommends a condition of approval to decrease the building height from top of parapet of 68 feet to 62 feet. This would allow for the proposed design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, limit the extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum height. The proposal to deviate from the maximum height, as conditioned, will not result in the development being disproportionate to the building height of surrounding developments due to the existing height of PC Staff Report—8/14/12 HB -467-2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc. (Piersic Item 14. - 68 surrounding buildings. This deviation will not result in significant environmental impacts such as increased noise, aesthetics, and lighting. Lastly, all exterior mechanical equipment is required to be screened from view on all sides and rooftop mechanical equipment is required to be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the exterior edges of a building. The plans show mechanical equipment with screening within the minimum setback. Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval to require that all rooftop mechanical equipment (and associated screening)be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Design Guidelines As mentioned previously, the Design Review Board (DRB) originally reviewed the proposed design on May 12, 2011 and indicated that it would recommend approval of the design concept, however requested that the sheer massing of the project be modified to further ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The project came back before the DRB for their official recommendation at the June 14, 2012 meeting. The DRB reviewed the project and supported the overall design including the same massing and height originally presented. Staff recommended that additional offsets including upper-story setbacks are incorporated to deemphasize the sheer massing; consider alternative colors, materials and finishes to provide additional articulation; and to incorporate the same or similar window design and/or canopies of the existing building into the proposed expansion. The DRB took action on the project and recommended approval with only one modification to change the roof element of the eastern stairwell to contrast with the existing building roof design. The DRB recommendation has been made a suggested condition of approval No. La for the proposed project. The applicant concurs with the DRB recommended modification above; however, staff recommends that the Planning Commission condition the project to have the DRB review the massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, and review colors/materials (including anti-bird strike solutions) to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings. This would potentially allow an opportunity for greater design compatibility with the existing building and adjacent/nearby buildings such as Pier Colony and Oceanview Promenade and bring the project into closer conformance with the DTSP—Design Guidelines. Land Use Compatibility Staff supports the proposed project, as modified based on the stated purpose of District 1- Downtown Core Mixed-Use of the DTSP, which is to establish the area as the downtown for the City by creating a more urban atmosphere, encouraging relatively higher intensity developments with viable visitor-serving, coastal dependent and coastal-related commercial and residential uses that are consistent with the Coastal Act. This district is a prime mixed-use location within the Downtown and provides visitors and residents with numerous opportunities for visitor-serving as well as year round commercial uses. The addition of a mix of uses including commercial, restaurant with alcohol sales and consumption, and office uses will enhance and support the district in this high intensity urban part of Downtown. An existing Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) executed in 2009 and amended in 2011 specifies allowable land uses and maximum buildout square footages for the Pierside Pavilion development. While the proposed project generally reflects the intensity of development contemplated in the OPA; the OPA would need to be modified (in progress) to meet the specific project configuration of uses and overall development square footage. It should be noted that the square footage of the proposed project is within Item 14. - 69'ort-8/14/12 HB -468 2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) the maximum development thresholds analyzed in the DTSP Program EIR and adopted for the October 2011 DTSP Update. View Analysis The applicant submitted a public view analysis consisting of renderings of the completed project at varying angles (See Attachment No. 2). The renderings illustrate that existing public views, such as views looking north and south along PCK will not be impacted by the proposed project. The project proposes to maintain the existing corridor width between Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony; however with the proposed location of the expansion building, some private views may be obstructed. Protection of private views is not required pursuant to the DTSP. Nevertheless, staff recommends that the Planning Commission condition the project to have the DRB review the massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings. This would not only potentially allow an opportunity for greater design compatibility with the existing building and adjacent/nearby buildings such as Pier Colony and Oceanview Promenade, but will ensure that existing views are maintained and enhanced through compatible building design and bring the project into closer conformance with the DTSP — Design Guidelines. The proposed project is located across PCH, away from nearby scenic vistas (i.e., pier and beach), and will not have a substantial adverse effect to these scenic resources. Alcohol Sales/Restaurants The proposed restaurant areas are located on the 2nd story with outdoor patio dining and a rooftop deck. The applicant provided a noise study that concludes that impacts related to noise will be less than significant based on screen walls on the roof top deck at 8 feet high. However, staff suggests a modification to reduce the roof deck walls (including parapet, glass and mechanical screening wails) to not less than and a maximum of 42" inches to comply with the maximum height of the General Plan. The submitted noise study anticipated noise attenuation from the proposed 8-foot deck walls. A reduction of these walls will invalidate the noise study and necessitate a revised study to verify compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and compatibility with surrounding uses. Therefore, staff suggests a condition of approval that prohibits the use of the rooftop deck until a revised noise study is submitted that demonstrates compliance with the City's noise ordinance. The proposed restaurant use with alcohol is subject to comply with standardized conditions of approval pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 (Attachment No. 8). These standard conditions pertain to limiting the scope of operations to ensure that any proposed establishment functions primarily as a bona fide restaurant and to assure that potential impacts to the surrounding properties are minimized. Some of the standard conditions include: the restaurant and outdoor dining area will be conditioned to close at 12:00 AM (midnight), a minimum of 70% of the net floor area shall be designated as dining area, full food service menus shall be served until 1 hour before closing, alcoholic drinks shall not be included in the price of admission, no minimum drink requirement, alcohol shall remain on the premises, etc. Additionally, the Police Department suggests several conditions of approval to ensure public safety such as: requiring the rooftop use to be in conjunction with the 2nd floor restaurant, and enhanced surveillance and security. PC Staff Report--8/1.4112 HB -469 2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Piersk Item 14. - 70 Additionally staff recommends a condition of approval that requires a full height (floor to ceiling) glass window at the eastern elevation of the outdoor dining area located on the 2r'a floor. This was described in the noise study; however the submitted elevations do not accurately reflect this design feature. Staff is also suggesting a condition of approval to address noise issues as a result of non-emergency vehicles accessing the existing fire lane on the east side of the project (adjacent to Pier Colony). The proposed condition would limit the access to emergency vehicles only. No other service or commercial vehicles would be permitted. Moreover, the use is subject to noise regulations to further ensure compatibility with surrounding properties. With the suggested modifications and conditions of approval, the proposed uses, including restaurants with the sale and service of alcoholic beverages and outdoor dining area will not result in increased parking, safety, or noise issues, above that expected in a typical mixed-use environment. The project, with staffs suggested modifications, is consistent with scope and intent of the development in the downtown and supported by the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. Variance—Maximum Height The project includes a request for a variance to exceed the maximum height of 45 feet. The project proposes four stories with a building height of 68 feet topped with 8-foot glass screen and mechanical equipment walls and an architectural tower(housing for elevator and stairwell) up to 90 feet high. The design intent is to match the existing building height (which was permitted pursuant to the regulations of the 1988 DTSP) and floor plates to allow for more efficient access and internal circulation. However, the existing 4th floor top plate exceeds the minimum required floor height and as such, staff recommends a condition of approval to decrease the building height from top of parapet of 68 feet to 62 feet. This would allow for the proposed design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, limit the extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum height. Also, as mentioned previously,the roof top walls including glass &mechanical screen walls exceed 42" and therefore constitutes as a 5tv story which is inconsistent with the DTSP and General Plan. However, staff suggests a modification to lower the roof deck walls to a maximum and not less than 42", this will further reduce the overall height of the building. Although not requested, it should be noted that a variance to a General Plan requirement (i.e. 4-story maximum) cannot be applied for. The applicant submitted a public view analysis consisting of renderings of the completed project at varying angles. The renderings illustrate that existing public views, such as views looking north and south along PCH, will not be impacted by the proposed project. However, staff recommends that the DRB review (again) the massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, and review colors/materials (including anti-bird strike solutions) to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing connecting structure and adjacent buildings. This would not only potentially allow an opportunity for greater design compatibility with the existing connecting building and adjacent/nearby buildings such as Pier Colony and Oceanview Promenade, but will ensure that public views are maintained and enhanced through compatible building design and bring the project into closer conformance with the DTSP — Design Guidelines. The proposed project will be located across PCH, away from nearby scenic vistas (i.e., pier and beach), and will not have a substantial adverse effect to these scenic resources. The proposal to deviate from the maximum height, as modified, will not result in the development being disproportionate to the building height of surrounding developments due to the existing height of surrounding buildings. This deviation will not result in significant environmental impacts such as Item 14. - 71 port—8/14/12 HB -470-2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) increased noise, aesthetics, and lighting. Therefore, staff supports the request for the variance as modified, to facilitate floor height consistency and access/internal circulation efficiency between the existing building and proposed addition. Shared Parking A total of 530 parking spaces are required for the proposed project and the existing development. The project requires 90 spaces for retail uses, 288 spaces for restaurant uses, and 152 spaces for office use pursuant to Section 3.2.26 of the DTSP. The property currently shares up to 300 of the 826 parking spaces within the adjacent municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street pursuant to prior entitlements and an existing Owner Participation Agreement (OPA). A total of 296 parking spaces will be provided on-site within the existing subterranean parking area and a minimum of 234 parking spaces will be utilized via shared parking within the adjacent municipal parking structure pursuant to Section 3.2.26.11 District 1 Special Parking Standards of the DTSP. The Pierside Pavilion development was originally permitted in 1988 with a shared parking concept that allowed the mix of uses (including the former theater use) to be satisfied through a combination of onsite parking and other public downtown parking. The current request will continue to function similarly; however because the theater no longer exists and the proposed mix of uses include a significant office use allocation,the total required parking is reduced and will not impact the downtown. The requested shared parking is consistent with the provisions of the DTSP, and with execution of a shared parking agreement, will have sufficient parking spaces. EPA—Retail Carts The applicant is requesting an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 approved December 13, 2010 which permitted the establishment and operation of 18 carts and kiosks within the Pierside Pavilion development. The request is to replace the previously approved layout (referenced in Condition of Approval.No. 1)with the current site plan dated May 4, 2012. Below is a chronology of entitlement actions for cart and kiosks at Pierside Pavilion: ■ CDP No. 00-22/EPA No. 00-12/DR No. 00-45 —Request to permit 2 carts on public property and 4 carts on private property along Main, 4 carts on private property along PCH, and 12 carts within the southeastern plaza area. On October 12, 2000, the DRB recommended approval to the ZA with conditions to remove all carts & kiosks along Main and PCH. On November 15, 2000, the ZA approved 2 carts on private property along PCH and 16 clustered within the southeasterly plaza area for a total of 18 carts. ■ EPA No. 03-14/DR No. 03-38 — Request to relocate two of the previously approved carts within the plaza area to a new location on private property along PCH (total of 4). On October 9, 2003, the DRB recommended approval to the ZA of one additional cart on private property along PCH. On November 12, 2003, the ZA denied the request to relocate two additional carts on private property along PCH based on impacts to pedestrian circulation and public views. ■ CUP No. 10-017/DR No. 10-011 — On June 16, 2010 the ZA considered, the request to locate six carts along Main, six carts along PCH and the remaining six carts within the plaza area fronting PCH. The primary issues discussed during the ZA meeting included impacts to pedestrian circulation, intensification of uses (i.e. cumulative effects of Downtown events, approved outdoor sales onsite, and existing vending carts), and maintaining public views along Main and PCH. The PC Staff Report—8/14/12 HB -471 2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Piersid Item 14. - 72 ZA conditionally approved the request to include only two carts along Main, four along PCH and the remaining 12 within the plaza area. On June 24, 2010 the applicant appealed the ZA's decision to the Planning Commission; contesting condition of approval no. 1, which limits the number of cart locations along Main and PCH o The Planning Commission heard the appeal of the proposed project at their regular meeting on March 9, 2010. Due to concerns raised at the meeting by the Commission including past actions, increased pedestrian traffic and temporary activities in the vicinity, the Commission conditionally approved the request with no carts along Main, 6 carts along PCH, and 8 carts within the plaza. area. The Commission unanimously approved the applicant's request with revised findings and revised conditions of approval. On March 18, 2010, Council Member Carchio filed an appeal of the Commission's approval. The primary reason for the appeal was to review the applicant's request to permit carts on Main. o The City Council heard the appeal at their regular meeting on December 6, 2010. Due to the previous concerns raised at previous meetings, staff s recommendation remained consistent with the Planning Commission's approval consisting of no carts along Main, 6 carts along PCH, and 8 carts within the plaza area. The City Council approved 4 carts on Main, 6 carts on PCH and 8 carts within the plaza area. The Notice of Action approved by City Council on December 6, 2010 is included as Attachment No. 7. The current request to replace the approved site plan with the current layout does not comply with the approved conditions of approval that relate to customer queuing, 10-foot wide clear passage area adjacent to any customer queuing areas, minimum 8-foot wide clear separation between carts, and other restrictions limiting the placement of carts. Staff suggests a.modification to amend the site plan showing the location of carts in compliance with Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 to ensure compatibility with the proposed expansion. This suggestion will yield approximately 6 carts in compliance with the requirements of CUP No. 10-017. Summary With the suggested modifications and conditions of approval, the proposed uses, including restaurants with the sale and service of alcoholic beverages and outdoor dining, amendment to cart locations and variance to maximum height will not result in increased parking, safety, or noise issues, above that expected in a typical mixed-use environment. The project, with staffs suggested modifications, is consistent with scope and intent of development in the downtown and supported by the Downtown Specific Plan, and General Plan including the Local Coastal Program. ATTACiTMENTS 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval—Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007, and Variance No. 11-005 94-2- 3. Project Narrative dated May 4, 2012 4. Code Requirements Letter(revised) dated August 6, 2012 (for informational purposes) Item 14. - 73Port—8/14/12 HB -472-2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) -5.. n r 6. R-espo P 7. Notice of Action—Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 (Pierside Carts) 8. Downtown Standard Condition of Approval—City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 SH:HF:EE:kd PC Staff Report—8/14/12 HB -473 2sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Piersid Item 14. - 74 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NUTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-007/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007/ VARIANCE NO. 11-005 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - MTI'IGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-007: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and made available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the attached mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11- 012: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012 to demolish approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts, as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project would expand a mixed-use development on a parcel contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The proposed project would develop visitor-serving commercial uses in the City's downtown core area near other established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier; and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code The proposed project as modified and conditioned and with the variance provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, and is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development. Item 14. - 753Ort-8/14/12 HB -474- Attachment No. 1.1 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructures to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. In addition, the project provides the necessary public improvements such as dedications, curb, gutters, and sidewalks. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project maintains all exiting and proposed public access and does not conflict with any public recreation policies by the provision of a development consistent with the City's General Plan, Coastal Element, and Downtown Specific Plan. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDMONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021 to demolish approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts, as modified, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and with the modifications and conditions of approval imposed, the project will be designed to address the transition and scale of adjacent properties, be designed on a pedestrian scale and character, will provide the required parking to serve the uses on site, and will meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. The conditional use permit as modified will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as modified is designed to be compatible with the Downtown Design Guidelines and will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. in addition, the project, as modified, incorporates the proper massing and scale, the design features of the contemporary architectural style and the colors and materials recommended by the Design Guidelines for the Downtown. 3. The proposed mixed use development, as modified, will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project as modified and conditioned, and with the variance provides a development that is consistent with the design guidelines, is compatible with the scale and transition of surrounding development, and provides consistent public improvements. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is M->30-d-sp-pd (Mixed-Use —30 du/ac --- design overlay -- specific plan overlay — pedestrian overlay). The proposed project as modified is consistent with this designation and the goals,policies, objectives, and implementation program of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal LU 4: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. PC Staff Report--8/14/12 HB -475- Attach Item 14. - 76 Objective—LU7.1: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that provides for commercial, employment, entertainment, and recreation needs of existing and future residents, and provides employment opportunities for residents of the City and the surrounding region and captures visitor and tourist activity. Goal LU8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Objective—LU 10.1: Provide for the continuation of existing and the development of a diversity of retail and service commercial uses that are oriented to the needs of local residents, serve the surrounding region, and capitalize on Huntington Beach's recreational resources. Policy LU 10,1.4: Require that commercial buildings and sites be designed to achieve a high level of architectural and site layout quality. Policv--10.1,8: Require that entertainment, drinking establishments, and other similar uses provide adequate physical and safety measures prevent negative impacts on adjacent properties. 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 11.1.7: Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to achieve a consistent and high quality character, including the consideration of architectural treatment of building elevations to convey the visual character of multiple building volumes and individual storefronts. The design of the project as amended by staffs suggested modifications promotes the development of a mixed-use building that conveys a unified, high-quality visual image and character that is intended to expand the existing development pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors and materials and has indicated that it would recommend approval of the design concept, however requested that the sheer massing of the project be modified to further ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The proposed project as modified utilizes mixed-vertical uses in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use within the Land Use Map of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Commercial uses such as retail establishments will be located within the first story as required by the Visitor-Serving Commercial Overlay, restaurant uses on the second floor and rooftop, and office uses on the third and fourth floors. The project's public areas and open space incorporate enhanced hadscape and landscape materials consistent with the DTSP Design Guidelines. The proposed project will provide a wide arrange and diversity of commercial uses and cater to the needs of local residents and residents in the surrounding region. The project will provide additional commercial uses that will encourage tourism to the site and the surrounding area. The project will facilitate employment opportunities and will not impact the subject site and surrounding area. Item 14. - 77:)ort 8/14/12 FIB -476- Attachment No. 1.3 B. Urban Design Element Policies UD 1.1.2: Reinforce Downtown as the City's historic center and as a pedestrian-oriented commercial and entertainment/recreation district by requiring new development be designed to reflect the Downtowns historical structures and adopted Mediterranean theme. Policies- UD 2.1.1: Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in its massing,height, and site orientation. The project is located on Pacific Coast Highway, a scenic corridor in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element. The setting along PCH is characterized by beach facilities, shoreline, the Municipal Pier, and recreational amenities on the south side and a mix of development on the north side. The architecture of the proposed building consists of a contemporary design theme, which includes materials such as light colored smooth stucco finish, tower elements, flat roof and glass railing systems, The applicant submitted a public view analysis consisting of renderings of the completed project at varying angles. The renderings illustrate that existing public views, such as views looking north and south along PCH, will not be impacted by the proposed project. The proposed project will be located across PCH, away from nearby scenic vistas (i.e.,pier and beach), and will not have a substantial adverse effect to these scenic resources. To ensure architectural compatibility, staff recommends that the building massing be reviewed by the Design Review Board. The recommendation is to review the additions building massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, review the proposed colors/materials to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings and overall Design Guidelines conformance. C. Coastal Element Policy C 1.1.4: Where feasible,locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor-serving commercial uses for a range of cost and market preferences Policy C 3.2.3: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. Policy C 3.4.2: Enhance the Municipal Pier and surrounding area to function as the "hubs" of tourist and community activity. The development as amended by staff s suggested modifications consists of the expansion of a mixed-use project, which includes visitor-serving commercial located on the ground floor for retail establishments. The proposed project would develop a mix of visitor-serving commercial and office uses on a parcel including and contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the PC staff Report—8n4n2 HB -477- Attac'Item 14. - 78 surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation. The project site is also located near established points of attraction, including the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and is intended to reinforce the vicinity as a major visitor-serving district. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11- 007: 1. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 for the relocation of 18 commercial carts and kiosks within the Pierside Pavilion development as modified will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. As conditioned, the parallel orientation of carts and kiosks with Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway will not impede pedestrian access and will maintain public views. The location of the carts and kiosks are designed to complement existing businesses and activate pedestrian corridors while remaining cognizant of adjacent residences by minimizing placement in close proximity to adjacent residential uses (i.e., Pier Colony). Based upon the conditions imposed, including compliance with the requirements of CUP No. 10-17,the operation will not impact pedestrian circulation, nor will the operation impact the surrounding businesses and residential uses. 2. The entitlement plan amendment as modified vvxll be compatible with surrounding uses because the ancillary operation of commercial carts and kiosks is consistent with the zoning designation and does not represent a significant change from the existing commercial use. The site currently includes carts and kiosks and the conditional use permit will allow for the modified continuation of this ancillary use. 3. The proposed entitlement plan amendment as modified will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. As conditioned, the project complies with all aspects of the Downtown Specific Plan including parking, onsite circulation, and setbacks. Carts and kiosks are permitted within the Downtown Specific Plan with the approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the entitlement plan amendment as modified will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of M->30-d-sp-pd (Mixed-Use —30 du/ac — design overlay — specific plan overlay — pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Land Use Element Goal L U 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain a City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Policy LU 7.L I Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. 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. Item 14. - 79port—8/14/12 HB -478- Attachment No. 1.5 Policy LU 15.2.2 Require that uses in the Pedestrian Overlay District be sited and designed to enhance and stimulate pedestrian activity along the sidewalks. Assure that areas between building storefronts and public sidewalks are visually and physically accessible to pedestrians. The proposed carts and kiosks as modified increases the economic viability of the downtown by providing additional shopping opportunities, additional employment opportunities and captures visitor and tourist activity within the downtown. The project site is located in a mixed-use district of the downtown area and within walking distance of several downtown parking facilities as well as residential uses thus reducing the need for automobile use and increasing the need for pedestrian amenities. The carts and kiosks will further stimulate pedestrian activity along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. As conditioned, the carts will comply with the approved conditions of approval that relate to customer queuing, 10-foot wide clear passage area adjacent to any customer queuing areas, minimum 8-foot wide clear separation between carts, and other restrictions limiting the placement of carts. to ensure that the area is physically accessible to pedestrians which is consistent with other cart and kiosk locations in the downtown- SUGGESTED FINDING FOR APPROVAL.—VARIANCE NO. 11-005: 1. The granting of Variance No. 11-005 to allow a height of 68 feet (plus up to 90 feet for mechanical housing) for the new, expanded portion of the building in lieu of the maximum of 45 feet will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. Staff recommends a condition of approval to decrease the building height from top of parapet of 68 feet to 62 feet. This would allow for the proposed design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, limit the extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum height. The proposal to deviate from the maximum height, as conditioned,will not result in the development being disproportionate to the size and scale of surrounding developments due to the existing height of surrounding buildings. Therefore, granting of the variance request will not result in a grant of special privilege because it allows the expansion project to remain consistent with the existing and surrounding structures. Therefore, approval of the request will not constitute a grant of special privilege as the variance will allow further improvement to the site and surrounding area. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, and location, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The expansion project is constrained by special circumstances which include the existing building height. The existing building has a 4th floor top plate height of 59'-6" and staff recommends a condition of approval to decrease the building height from top of parapet of 68 feet to 62 feet. This would allow for the proposed design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, limit the extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum height. The inability to match floor plates is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 3. The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The requested variance as modified is necessary in order to allow floor plates to match and ensure construction feasibility and adequate internal circulation. The DTSP requires a maximum PC Staff Report--8/14/12 HB -479- Attad Item 14. - 80 height of 45 feet. In this case, the project cannot provide efficient circulation and construction feasibility. Consequently the strict application of the DTSP would deprive the properly owner of the right to improve the property to meet the objectives for community character and compatibility. 4. The granting of the variance as modified will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification and is consistent with the General Plan. The development of a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq. ft. infilI expansion by extending existing storefronts will not be materially detrimental to area due to existing height of surrounding buildings and recommended condition of approval to decrease the building height from top of parapet of 68 feet to 62 feet. This would allow for the proposed design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, limit the extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum height. The proposal to deviate from the maximum height, as conditioned, will not result in the development being disproportionate to the size and scale of surrounding developments due to the existing height of surrounding buildings. The variance in maximum height will not result in detrimental impacts, but rather improve construction feasibility and internal circulation. The granting of the variance will not adversary affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of M->30-d-sp-pd (Mixed-Use —30 du/ac—design overlay—specific plan overlay—pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. Item 14. - 81)ort—8/1 ant HB -480- Attachment No. I.7 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PER1 HT NO. 11- 012/CONDITIONAL USE PER117IT NO. 11-021/ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11- 0071VARIANCE NO. 11-005: 1. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, and section elevations dated May 4, 2012, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. The roof element of the eastern stairwell shall contrast with the existing building roof design (DRB) b. The Design Review Board (DRB) to review the overall design and building massing of the proposed project. The recommendation is to review the additions building massing and consider additional upper-story setbacks, review the proposed colors/materials (including anti-bird strike solutions) to ensure architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings and overall Design Guidelines conformance. c. The height of the building expansion shall be decreased from top of parapet height of 68' to 62' feet to match the height of the existing building d. Full height (floor to ceiling) glass window shall be provided at the eastern elevation of the outdoor dining area of located on the 2nd floor. e. Rooftop deck walls (including parapet, mechanical screening, glass screening, etc.) shall not be less than or exceed 42 inches in height. f. Revise existing property lines (locations, dimensions and geometry) to accurately portray the subject property and to be consistent with recorded Final Tract Map No. 13722. (PW) g. Accurately dimension all existing and proposed public improvements(i.e. sidewalk widths, curb return radii, bus turnout geometry, curb-to-building face dimensions, driveway width, etc.). (PW) h. Reference to new office area on the I' floor plan shall be removed. Only visitor-serving commercial uses shall be allowed anywhere on the ground floor. i. Rooftop mechanical equipment(and associated screening) shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. j. Revise the cart locations to comply with Conditional Use permit No. 10-017 (Pierside Pavilion Carts) conditions of approval and code requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: a. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/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. 3. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: PC Staff Report—8/14/12 xB -481- Attad Item 14. - 82 a. One set of project plans, revised pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 1, including the recommendation by the Design Review Board shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director. A revised set of plans shall be submitted for inclusion in the entitlement file. b. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval, code requirements identified herein and code requirements identified in separately transmitted memorandum from the Departments of Planning and Building, 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. 4. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. b. Use low sulfur(0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. c. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 5 minutes. d. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. e. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. f. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. 5. The structure cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following have been completed: a. All improvements must be completed in accordance with approved plans, except as provided for by conditions of approval. b. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to the Planning Division. c. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department. d. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. e. A shared parking agreement shall be executed via an amended Owner Participation Agreement (OPA)providing a minimum of 234 parking spaces off-site. A copy of the agreement shall be submitted for inclusion in the entitlement file. 6. Prior to the sale of alcoholic beverages, a license shall be obtained from the Alcoholic Beverage control (ABC). All conditions contained in the ABC license shall be adhered to. (PD) 7. Use of the rooftop deck shall be prohibited until a revised noise study is submitted that demonstrates compliance with the City's noise ordinance and the design of the deck is compatible Item 14. - 83)ort-8/14/12 1HB -482- Attachment No. 1.9 with the surrounding uses. The noise study shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to occupancy and use of the roof top deck. 8. Restaurant uses shall comply with the following: a. Restaurants with sale and service of alcohol shall comply with City Council Resolution No. 2011-06 — Standard Conditions of Approval for Eating and Drinking Establishments with Alcoholic Beverage Sales. (PD) b. There shall be no public or private restaurant use of the proposed rooftop by anyone other than in conjunction with an approved 2-story restaurant and maintenance personnel for the purpose of maintaining or repairing the building. (PD) c. Any existing restaurant shall separately amend their current CUP before expanding their business. CUP amendments shall include security plans, locations where alcob.ol is permitted, and types and permitted areas of allowed entertainment. (PD) d. Restaurants shall employ a video surveillance security system with a 1-month video library. The minimum requirements for the cameras shall be: color, digital recording to DVR and able to record in low light. All entrances, exits and perimeter areas shall be under video surveillance. Electronic copies of video shall be made available to the Huntington Beach Police Department within 24 hours of a request. Digital recordings shall be made available for viewing on-scene upon request by police officers conducting investigations. (PD) e. Additional security for the building and parking areas shall be provided. The number of required security officers shall be determined by the Police Department upon completion of the project. The number of required security officers shall be modifed at the discretion of the Police Department based on crime rates, number of patrons visiting the Pierside Pavilion, types of businesses, hours of operation, and during special events such as 4th of July and US Open of Surfing. (PD) 9. All applicable conditions of approval pursuant to Conditional Use permit No. 10-017 (Pierside Pavilion Carts) shall remain in effect. 10. The existing fire lane on the east side of the project shall be limited to access for emergency vehicles only. No other service or commercial vehicles shall be permitted. 11. Tree replacement of any existing mature trees on-site shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 232----Landscape Improvements. For the trees to be relocated, an arborist report shall be submitted and include the following: a. Trees shall be transplanted by a qualified tree service to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. b. Detailed specifications and procedures for the translocation of the identified trees. c. The relocated trees shall be maintained and guaranteed to be alive and thriving after four years by a qualified tree service or arborist to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The trees shall be surveyed every six months for a period of four years as PC Staff Report—8/14/12 1113 -483- AuachrItem 14. - 84 to their viability. The survey shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. In the event that any tree is not surviving, it shall be replaced with the same type and size of tree. d. A letter from the developer stating that the recommendations of the Consulting Arborist will be followed. 12. The development services departments (Planning & Building, Fire, and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning and Building 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 action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. 13. Incorporating sustainable or "green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification hM://w��,,w.usgbc.org/DisplayPaQc.aspx?CategoryfD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgeen.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=,guidelines).Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant 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 applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Item 14. - 8 Sport—8/l4/J 2 H B -484- Attach went No_ 1.11 REVISED Pierside Pavilion NARRATIVE New Conditional Use Perma and Coastal Development Permit and (05/04/2012) other Entitlements DECEIVED Location: 300 Pacific Coast Highway KAY 0 4 201? Business: Pierside Pavilion Expansion C`ept.Of Ps art-Ili rG thew retail, restaurant&office uses) '"ettiir�'r=g Request: To expand the allowed uses in the Pierside Pavilion project from the previously approved limits(Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01), in order to create new in-fill square footage on the existing building and construct a new building to expand the overall project as follows: i New CUP Proposal Existing En6tlament Ch2nge (EPA No.07-01 Rota][ 30,000 sf. 10,000 sf. +11 000 sf. Restaurant' 36 000 sf. 29 000 st +7,000 sf. Office 76,000 sf 51 000 sf. +25,000 sf. Totat 142,000 A 99,000 sf. 1 +43 000 sf. Wtf t alcohol and outdoor dinky The following items are being requested: « New Conditional Use Permit &Coastal Development Permit o Expanded Uses retail, restaurant and office o Restaurants with alcohol o Shared parking o Special Permits for reduction of front yard setback along PCH a Variance o Building height deviation from four stories 45' plus 10' mechanical housing and rooffine variation, to four stories 68' plus IG' roofline variation and a mechanical housing element up to 90' to match the existing Phase I building Entitlement Plan Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No, 10- t7 o Outdoor vending cart. The previously approved layout needs to be modified to accommodate the proposed project layout, The existing number of approved carts Will not be increased Planed Sign Program Amendment(To be submitted at a later date) a To amend the existing sign program to accommodate the new proposal .(PSP 90-7(R)) Design Review Board � o Revised building elevations o Design Guidelines checklist o Colors and Materials pallet o Landscape Plans with vending carts and street furniture ATTACHMENT NO--L.� - x13 -485- Item 14. - 86 o Amended Planned Sigh Program. The request will require a further Amendment to the new Owner Participation Agreement approved by City Council in July, 2009. Project Description, To create a new four level building adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway, on the eastern side of the project site, as an expansion to i the existing Pierside Pavilion development. In addition the existing building proposes modifications to create additional square footage by in-filling portions of the current structure, in closing the arcade areas and other areas all within the footprint of the existing building. The new project will be a combination of in-fill development and new construction added to the existing building_ The new project as currently designed will result in the following: IN-FELL NEW EX1srrNG TOTAL Reta7 4,501 sf. 8,045 sf. 15,406 sf. 27,952 sf. Restaurant" 1 577 sf. 11,113 sf. 23,230 sf. 35 920 sf. Oflioe 45 323sf 15,574 sf. 55,617 sf. 74, 49 9,401 sf. 34,672 sf. 94,Z53 sf. 138,326 sf_ 'With ak,o and outdoor dining However anticipating that some modifications may occur through the design review process the request is to establish an allowance for each use as identified in the project request, The new Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit are to allow the additions to the current mix of uses. The new retail activities are proposed on the first level with additional office space- located on the interior portions of the first level and the upper two levels. New restaurant space,with alcohol, is also proposed can the second level. Existing retail uses will be expanded with the proposed ire-fill square footage along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Shared parking is being requested consistent with the provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan. 'Two or more land uses or business with hours of operation that do not substantially coincide",(for example office vs. restaurant). A shared parking agreement has been approved with the owner Participation Agreement(July 2009). The project may use up to 300 parking spaces in the municipal parking structure (200 Main Street). The proposed project will provide 296 par dng spares on site and share 234 spaces in the City's facility. The shared parking for the projection and is located within 350 feet of the project site_ The project has also been approved for valet parkng (Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37). ATTACM ENT NO Item 14. - 87 Hip -486- A Special Permit is being requested to address the reduction in front setback along Pacific Coast Highway_ The request Is to encourage a continuation of the building facade along Pacific Coast Highway and create an aesthetically pleasing appearance facilitating a more innovative architectural design and allowing the development to better adopt to the unique surroundings environment. The minimum 15 foot of sidewalk area will be provided with a combination of public properties (Caltrans ROW W. and new dedication to the City)along PCH (4r)and Main Street(25). However the setback from the property line will be = reduced to 630. This request will allow for a continuation of the new building line with the existing building. The original CUP No. 88-7 was granted a Spacial Permit for front yard setback adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway with the following findings: 'For deviations to the requirements of the Downtown Specific i Plan to promote a better living environment and provide maximum use of the land in terms of sits layout and design." This request will allow the new construction to match the: setback line of the condominiums to the south. A Variance is being request to allow the proposed building to match the floor plate elevations with the existing structure. In order to accommodate a compatible architectural design with the new portions of the project and the existing building. The in-fill type development proposed has a physical hardship related to ; limitations cfthe project site size, location and the need to be designed compatible with the existing development and adjacent protects. The new expansion will be limited to four stories and match the elevations with the existing building with similar roof top design features and mechanical housings. The Variance is necessary to allow a design concept that will combine two buildings to appear as one integrated development. Site History: Pierside Pavilion was the first Redevelopment Project in downtown Huntington Beach. The project was approved in 1988 with Conditional Use Permit No. 88-7 and Coastal Development Permit 88-3. The project was amended in 1990 with Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37 and Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21. In 2009 it was further Amended with Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01, Outdoor dining and vending carts were approved with Conditional Use Permit No 10-17. TT CHMENT . HB -487- Item 14. - 88 L Zoning and General Plan: The property Is zoned Downtown Specific Plan No.5(Planning Area 3) and the General Plan designation is MV-F12-sp-pd. The proposed project has been analyzed by the standards in the Amended Downtown Specific Plan(1119/2010). Surrounding Uses: North-Parking StructuretRestaurantsJRetail East-RetaiVResidential South-Residential Condominiums West-Retail/Restaurants ' Environmental Status: There are no significant environmental impacts associated Mth this project. The project site is not within a known i hazardous waste and substance site. An Environmental Assessment has been submitted with supplemental special studies. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed project is compatible with existing businesses in the area and will complywith the City's noise ordinance and the hours of operation will be consistent with other businesses within the downtown area. i 1 i i i 3 j 3 f ATT G NAE T N'0.-La- Item 14. - 89 xB -488- Pierside Pavilion Lases USES CUP 88-7 CUP 90-37 ENTITLEMENT PLAN NEW CUP PROPOSED EXISTING CDP 88-3 CDP 90-21 AMENDMENT REQUEST NEW PROJECT NO. 07-001 TOTALS Retail 15,406 sq. ft. 23,575 sq,ft. 12,624 sq. ft. 19,000 sq, ft, 30 000 sq, ft. 27,962 s . ft, Restaurant* 19, 787 sq.ft. 16,500 sq. ft. 26,731 sq, ft. 29,000 sq.ft. 36,000 sq.ft. 35,920 sq. ft. Office 54 182 s . ft. 15,925 sq. ft. 16,925 s . ft. 51,000 sq. ft. 76,000 s .ft. 74,454 sq. ft, Theater" 30,000 sq, ft. 30,000 sq. ft, 0 sq, ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq, ft, Subtotal 89 375 sq,fL 86,000 sq.ft. 85,280 sq.ft. 99,000 sq. ft. 142,000 s , ft- 138,326 sq. ft, Total Grass Area 90,000 sq, ft. 90,000 sq,ft.*** 90,000 sq. ft,*** Insite 296 sp. 297 sp. 296 sp. 296 sp. 296 sp. 296 sp. Offslte 300 sp 624 sp. 624 sp, 150 sp. 300 sp. 300 sp. Valet 56sp . 56 s Total 596 s , 921 sp. 920 sp. 446 an. 652 sp. .[ fi52s . 05/4/2012 1,750 seats ***Approved gross sq. ft. Is greater than the sum of the Individual uses. 41 rn -p 0 CD -P Pierside Pavilion Required Parking USES CUP 88-7 CUP 90-37 ENTITLEMENT PLAN NEW CUP EXISTING CDP 88-3 CDP 90-21 AMENDMENT NO, 07-001 REQUEST* Retail 94 s 1/250 51 sp. 1/250 57 s 1/333 90 s . 11333 Restaurant TO s 1i150 178 s 1/150 290 s 11100 288 s .(1/125) Office 16 s 1/1000 16 s 111400 102 s 11500 152 s 1/500 Theater 583 s 1/3 seats 583 sp. 1/3 seats - - Total Parking Required 803 sp. 828 sp. 449 sp. 530 sp. 85/04/2012 Surnmary of DeVPAopment Standards District 1 Commercial or Mixed-Use Section REQUIRED PROPOSED Minimum Parcel Size 25'street frontage& 140'street frflntage& 33.1.5 2,500 sf net area 76,650 sf net area Maximum Site Coverage None required 3.3.1.6 Maximum Dansity 50 duJac NIA 3.3.1-7 Minimum Building Height 25' NIA 3-3-1-8 Maximum Building Height •�8,000 sf net site area: 68'&4 stories plus 3.3.1.8 45'.&4 stories,plus 10' rocfline variation& j mechanical housing & mechanical tower _ roofline variation Lipper Story Setback(3 -4 story) 10' average 10' avg. (3d&4m 3.3.1-9 stories Front Yard Setback 0'-Max.5'115'PCH 5' Min. 3.3-1.10 Interior Side yard Setback 0' 10, 3.3.1.11 Exterior Side yard Setback Equal to front setback=5' 28' 3.3.1.11 ; Corner Setback 25 48' 13.1-12 Rear Yard Setback 3' 7-5' 3.3.1.13 Public Open Space 5% =3,834 sf 116,3T4 sf 21% 3.3.1.14 08/2512011 4 lb ArIT �,t3i:it's'sn� AC ENT 3 xB -491- Item 14. - 92 Proposed lnfdl S.F S.F. New Building Area Total S.F. First Flab(' I Retail Suite 101 6,900 Suite 106A 955 i Suite 106B 650 Suite 107A 1,215 Suite 107E 1,008 4,501 5,526 Suite 108 3,225 Misc 367 Commissary 1 088 l 15,406 4,501 5,526 25,433 Restaurant Suite 112 5,344 1,577 i Suite 113 3,978 9,322 1,577 0 10,899 Office # Suite 109 790 }Y,°Suits 110 960 Suite 111 706 +. Suite 114 680 2,989 .,M! Suite 118 1,405 Suite 120 350 Misr- 739 Cornmordlobby 5,630 2,999 ,,jai : 11,136 Sub Total 30,358 9,067 ...a 5; 47.470 Second Floor RECEIVED Restaurant Suite 201 5,489 4,128 Suite 202 5,017 10,505 0 4,128 14,633 &Building Offl C,e Suite 203 6,442 Suite 204 18,385 Common 839 24,827 0 839 25,6661 Sub Total 35,332 0 4,957 40,299 i Third Floor Office -Suite 303 4,018 Suite 304 957 Suite 305 %039 5,173 Suite 310 2,570 167 Wme 231 Common 1,795 16,815 167 6,969 n229%50 Sub Total 16,615 167 6,968 Fourth Floor Office Suite 405 3,092 Suite 408 2,673 1G7 5,173 Wiso 1,145 Common 1,497 6,910 167 6,670 93,747 Sub Total 6,910 167 6,870 13.747 0. Item 14. - 93 HB -492- Rod Deck Common 1,122 1,122 0 0 1,122 1,122 Sub Total 0 0 1,122 1,122 i Sub Total Retail 15,406 4,501 5,526 25,433 Sub Total Office 64,182 3,323 1%118 74,501 Sub Total Restaurant 19,827 4,577 4,128 29,654 Total $9,416 9A" 27,772 126,588 Terraces First Floor 0 0 0 0 Second Floor 39W 1412 663 6067 Third Fbor 2581 0 993 3589 Fourth Floor 1196 0 0 1196 Roof 0 0 0 0 Total Terraces 7763 1412 1657 10832 Outdoor Dining First Floor 302 0 0 302 Second Floor 3403 0 7222 5625 Third Floor 0 0 0 a Fourth Floor 0 0 0 0 Roof 0 C 3924 3924 Total Outdoor Dining 3705 0 8146 9851 j HB -493- Item 14. - 94 Citv of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92640 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Planning Division Building Division 714,536.5271 714.536.5241 August 6, 2012 Michael Adams PO Box 382 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-0211VARIANCE NO. 11-005 /ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 11-007 (PIERSIDE EXPANSION) — Code Requirements Letter(REVISED) Dear Mr. Adams, In order to assist you with your development proposal, staff has reviewed the project and identified applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements, excerpted from the City of Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes. This list is intended to help you through the permitting process and various stages of project implementation should the Planning Commission approve your project. It should be noted that this requirement list is in addition to any "conditions of approval" adopted by the Planning Commission if the project is approved. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change, the list may also change. The Director of Planning and Building has interpreted the relevant Sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to require that your project satisfy the following development standards. If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements, an explanation of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance 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 714-536-5561 or at ethan,edwards@surfcity-hb.org and/or the respective source department (contact person below). Sincerely, Ethan Edwards, AICP Associate Planner Enclosure xc: Khoa Duong,Building and Safety Division—714-872-6123 Steve Bogart, Public Works—714-536-1692 Arvar Elkins,Police Department—714-960-8825 Joe Morelli, Fire Department—714-536-5531 Steven Fong, Police Department—714-536-5960 Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Jason Kelley, Planning Department Project File dslPlamiing CommissioaTierside Pavilion ExpansionlComments\Code Letter Final 2.docxr> 5 4°;' 1 Item 14. - 95 HB -494- tF � . : FIB CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL. COMMUNICATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: AUGUST 3, 2012 PROJECT NAIVE: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANISION ENTITLEMENTS: CDP 11-012, CUP 11-021, DRIB 11-015, VAR 11-005, EAX 11-007 PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2011-0131 DATE OF PLANS: MAY 4, 2012 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PROJECT PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-536-5561 1 ETHAN.EDWARDS(c)SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 71 4-374-1 692 1 SBOGART(c7SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUP/CDP: a) To permit an approximately 27,700 sq. ft., 4-story mixed-use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone; b) to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas; c) to expand the allowable uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment, No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-005 by adding 9,000 sq_ ft. retail, 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 21,000 sq. ft. office; and, c) to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) approved in 2009 is required. EAX: To review environmental impacts and determine level of CEQA documentation. VAR, To permit a maximum height of 73 ft. and 90 ft. architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX: to permit a 5 ft. minimum front yard setback in lieu of a minimum of 15 ft. DRB: To review the design, colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing building to remain and proposed building. 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 Arboricultural 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. GAEngineering 20121PCH,00 on Improvemcnts)1August 3 20121 PCH 300(Pierside P, xB -495- <Item 14. - 96 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 the City and to the State of California shall 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. A 2.5-foot wide right-of-way dedication for pedestrian access and public utilities along the Main Street frontage is required. (ZSO 230.84, DTSP) b. A 10-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be provided through the development generally parallel to the vacated T'J Street. (DTSP) 3. The following dedications to the State of California shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. (ZSO 230.084A) a. A right-of-way dedication (varying in width, from 5-foot wide adjacent to the existing bus turnout to 4-foot wide at the site's easterly end) for pedestrian access and public utilities along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage is required. The subject dedication shall provide for a total minimum sidewalk dedication pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan, Section 3.3.1.10. (ZSO 230.84, DTSP) 4. All proposed improvements along Pacific Coast Highway shall be reviewed and approved by Caltrans. (GP CE 3, Caltrans) 5. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05fZSO 230.84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. The existing curb and gutter along the project's Main Street frontage where the additional sidewalk area is proposed shall be removed. b. The proposed additional curb and gutter along the project's Main Street frontage shall be constructed consistent with Public Works Standard Plan Nos_ 202 and 207. (ZSO 230.84) c. The existing sidewalk along the project's Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway frontages shall be removed and replaced with enhanced paving per the guidelines of Downtown Specific Plan. (DTSP) d. Twenty six (26) feet wide enhanced sidewalk consistent with guidelines specified in the Downtown Specific Plan Update shall be constructed along the project's Main Street frontage. (DTSP) e. Any lost on-street parking (resulting from Code Requirement No_ 5.d above) shall be replaced at a one-to-one ratio within walking distance of the existing site pursuant to HBZSO Section 231.28. (DTSP) f. The existing non-conforming ADA access ramp at the southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street shall be removed and replaced with an ADA compliant access ramp, per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 230.84, ADA) g. The existing half-width street paving at the project's Main Street frontage shall be removed and reconstructed with enhanced concrete consistent with the special paving guidelines as specified in the Downtown Specific Plan. (DTSP) Item 14. - 97 HB -496- ATTA C',H 0,E N T N 0, •3 -- Page 3 of 7 fi. 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) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. The existing sewer lateral may potentially be utilized if it is of adequate size, conforms to current Public Works Standards and is determined to be in serviceable condition by submitting a video of the lateral. If the sewer is determined to be inadequate, a new sewer lateral shall be installed, connecting to the main in the alley, per Public Works Standards. (ZSO 230.84) b. The existing domestic water service(s) currently serving the existing development may potentially be utilized if it is (they are) of adequate size, conform to current standards, and are in working condition as determined by the Water Inspector. If the property owner elects to utilize the existing water service(s), any non-conforming water service(s), meter(s), and backflow protection device(s) shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards. Alternatively, a new separate domestic water service(s), meter(s) and backflow protection device(s) may be installed per Water Division Standards and shall be sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). (ZSO 230.84) c. The existing irrigation water service(s) currently serving the existing development may potentially be utilized if they are of adequate size, conform to current standards, and are in working condition as determined by the Utilities Division. if the property owner elects to utilize the existing water service(s), all non-conforming water meters and backflow protection devices shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards. Alternatively, a new separate irrigation water service(s), meter(s) and backflow protection device(s) may be installed per Water Division Standards. (ZSO 232) d. The existing fire water service currently serving the existing development may potentially be utilized if it is of adequate size, conforms to current standards, and is in working condition as determined by the Utilities Division. If property owner elects to utilize the existing fire water service, any non-conforming backflow protection devices shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards. (ZSO 230.84) 7. The developer shall submit for approval by the Eire Department and Water Division, a hydraulic water analyses to ensure that existing fire service from the point of connection to City water main to the backflow protection device satisfies Water Division standard requirements. 8. The City has approved the Downtown Specific Plan, which will ultimately require that a 12-inch waterline to be constructed along the northeasterly side of Pacific Coast Highway. While the existing water mains in the area may provide adequate water service and fire flow protection to the property at this time, the ultimate construction of the public 12-inch waterline will require some form of impact fees to be paid by the property owner for the proposed development. The impact fees have yet to be determined at this time. (Downtown Specific Plan) 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-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) HB -497- 6 `�A C 1IMEN N(Item 14. - 98 Page 4 of 7 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 1 V 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 Water Quality Management Plan Preparation Guidance Manual dated June 2006. The WQMP shall be submitted with the first submittal of the Grading Plan. 13.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. The project's existing trash enclosure shall be restored to the satisfaction of the Item 14. - 99 HB -498- AT TnAC'"r rE N T N0.� 4.5 Page 5 of 7 City, including operational doors and being fully enclosed by impermeable walls. Runoff from the trash bins shall not enter the storm drain system that flows directly onto the beach. (DAMP) 14.A soils report, prepared by a Licensed Engineer shall be submitted for reference only. (MC 17.05.150) 15.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) 16. 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- CUTSMOGn in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. 17. 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. 18.Traffic Impact Analysis for the project shall be reviewed and accepted by the City of Huntington Beach. 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 12.38.0101MG 14.36.030) 20. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within Caltrans' right-of-way. 21. The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck 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 WE-1) 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-1/MG 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) 1413 -499- ��'"�,����- ���EN"item 14. - 100 Page 6 of 7 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.Traffic impact fees shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance. The current rate of $172 per net new added daily trip. The following Trip Generation Rates shall be used to determine the number of new added daily trips: retaii/restaurant, 42.9411000 sf, mode shift (15%), and internal capture (20%/20%/19%); general office, 11.01/1000 sf, mode shift (15%), and internal capture (15%/15%/13%). The fee rate per net new added daily trip is subject to an annual adjustment on December 1st. (MC 17.65) 33.A License Agreement and Maintenance Agreement, including use fees, shall be executed with the City for outdoor dining located in the public right-of-way_ The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of the License and Maintenance Agreement from the Public Works Director prior to improvements or use of public easement. (DTSP 3.2.24.2) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: 34.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. 35. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading and street improvement plans. (MC 17.05) 36. All new utilities shall be undergrounded. (MC 17.64) 37.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.surfoity-hb.org/files/users/public works/fee schedule.pdf. (ZSO 240.06/ZSO 250.16) 38. 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: Item 14. - 101 HB -500- AT A 1.1ME-T NO Page 7 of 7 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. HB -501- TA �; 1E "Item 14. - 102 FtB CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: AUGUST 3, 2012 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANISION ENTITLEMENTS: CDP 11-012, CUP 11-•021, DRB 11-015, VAR 11-005, EAX 11-007 PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2011-0131 DATE OF PLANS: MAY 4, 2012 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PROJECT PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5561 / ETHAN.EDWARDS(@SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-374-16921 SBOGART(a7SURFClTY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUPICDP: a) To permit an approximately 27,700 sq. ft., 4-story mixed-use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone; b) to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas; c) to expand the allowable uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11--005 by adding 9,000 sq. ft. retail, 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 21,000 sq. ft. office; and, c) to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) approved in 2009 is required" EAX: To review environmental impacts and determine level of CEQA documentation. VAR: To permit a maximum height of 73 ft, and 90 ft. architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX: to permit a 5 ft, minimum front yard setback in lieu of a minimum of 15 ft. DRB: To review the design, colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing building to remain and proposed building. The site plan dated May 4, 2012 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: 1. Revise existing property lines (locations, dimensions and geometry) to accurately portray the subject property and to be consistent with recorded Final Tract Map No. 13722. 2. Accurately dimension all existing and proposed public improvements (i.e. sidewalk widths, curb return radii, bus turnout geometry, curb-to-building face dimensions, driveway width, etc.). vV 'L VI • Yir ion'J3EV"LAP\7i N"[^,Condition;20121PCH 3 3� ion Int ratiement G � lY aj si av lien Item 14. - 103" HIS -so?- FEHUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: AUGUST 3, 2012 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 11-131 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PCH, 92648 (APN: 024-154-17), HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 536-5561/ Ethan.Edwards@surfcity-hb.org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: JOE MORELLI; FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5531/ Joe.Morelli(d),surfcity-hb.orq PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUPICDP: A) TO PERMIT AN APPROXIMATELY 27,700 SQ. FT., 4- STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING AT THE SOUTHEAST AREA OF THE PIERSIDE PAVILION SITE WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE; B) TO PERMIT THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL WITHIN THE RESTAURANT AREAS; C) TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE USES ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90- 37/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-21 AND AMENDED BY ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 07-001 AND ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-005 BY ADDING 9,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL, 3,000 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND 21,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE; AND, C) TO PERMIT SHARED PARKING. AN AMENDMENT TO THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (OPA)APPROVED IN 2009 IS REQUIRED. EAX: TO REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND DETERMINE LEVEL OF CEQA DOCUMENTATION. VAR: TO PERMIT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 73 FT. AND 90 FT. ARCHITECTURAL_ . PROJECTIONS IN LIEU OF A MAXIMUM OF 45 FT. SPX: TO PERMIT A 5 FT. MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK IN LIEU OF A MINIMUM OF 15 FT. DRB: TO REVIEW THE DESIGN, COLORS, AND MATERIALS OF THE REMODEL FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN AND PROPOSED BUILDING. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated 05/04112. 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-Fire: JOE MORELLI; FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST. HB -503- ` : _ Item 14. - 104 Page 2 of 5 PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, GRADING, SITE DEVELOPMENT, ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED: Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems 1. Fire Alarms Fire Alarm System is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Fire Department as separate plans for permits and approval. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with CFC, Chapter 9 on the plans. A C-10 electrical contractor, certified in fire alarm systems, must certify the system is operational annually. (FD) 2. Fire Sprinklers Automatic Fire Sprinklers are required. NFPA13 Automatic fire sprinkler systems are required per Huntington Beach Fire Code. Separate plans (two 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, 24-hour central station monitoring, and any other features required for a High-Rise Building. For Fire Department approval, reference that a fire sprinkler system will be installed in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code, NFPA 13, and City Specification # 420 - Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems in the plan notes. NOTE: When buildings under construction are more than one (1) story in height and required to have automatic fire sprinklers, the fire sprinkler system shall be installed and operational to protect all floors lower than the floor currently under construction. Fire sprinkler systems for the current floor under construction shall be installed, in-service, inspected and approved prior to beginning construction on the next floor above. (FD) Fire Department Connections (FDC) to the automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be located to the front of the building, at least 25 feet from and no farther than 150 feet of a properly rated fire hydrant. (FD) Standpipes (2 Y2" NFH connections) are required in accordance with CFC Section 905. The standpipe system in stairwells cannot protrude into, impede, or compromise the H.B.B.C. "Exit Width" requirements. For Fire Department approval, reference and portray standpipes at each stairway in the plan notes. (FD) 3. High-Rise Building Requirements High-Rise Building Requirements from the California Fire and Building Codes, and from the Huntington Beach Municipal code shall be adhered to. Some of the requirements for High-Rise Buildings include, but are not limited to the following: Item 14. - 105 HB -504- ATTACHNAENT N.O. ±l Page 3 of 5 Fire Control Room per CFC Section 508 and CBC Section 911 - Special Detailed Requirements from CBC Section 403 and CFC Sections 914.3.1 — 914.3.6 - Fire Pump Requirements from CFC Section 913 and 914.3 - Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 17,56.250 and 17.56.260 - Fire Safety and Evacuation Plans are required per CFC Section 404 4. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage. All buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building in accordance with CFC Section 510. 5. Fire Flow Requirements. Fire Hydrants and Fire Flow shall be provided in accordance with City Specification #407 and Appendix B and G of the California Fire Code. 6. Other: Fire Extinguishers shall be installed and located in all areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards found in City Specification #424. The minimum required dry chemical fire extinguisher size is 2A 10BC and shall be installed within 75 feet travel distance to all portions of the building. Extinguishers are required to be serviced or replaced annually. (FD) Commercial Food Preparation Fire Protection System required for commercial cooking. Plans (two sets) shall be submitted to the Fire Department as separate plans for permits and approval. Reference compliance with City Specification #412 Protection Of Commercial Cooking Operations in the plan notes. (FD) Fire Department Access 1. Fire Lanes -The Fire Department review of the plan included a site visit and evaluation of the Fire Lanes called out on the plan. a. The clear width of the existing Fire Lane is shown as 24 1/' on the plan, but the actual width currently provided is 17' clear (from the existing structure to the planter boxes and grass). The rooftop deck would make the proposed structure the highest at the property in regards to distance above the lowest level of Fire Department Access to lowest level of the occupied floor (roof deck). This presents additional challenges to the Fire Department's Access. b. The proposed 4 story structure with the rooftop deck will hinder the Fire Department's Aerial Ladder Access to the existing 4 story structure (south side), which will make prompt rescue difficult and will lessen the probability of fighting a fire in upper stories from the exterior. c. The new structure will require a Fire Department Connection on the P.C.H. side, and Fire Hydrant's need to be strategically placed to allow connecting to the hydrant and then to the Fire Department Connection without Fire Apparatus having to drive over hose. Since the existing Fire Hydrant is on one side of the Fire Lane, and the F.D.C. would be needed on the building side, then an additional hydrant off PCH would be needed (on the building side of the fire lane). HB -505- T-r,,,CHrMENNT °Item 14. - 106 Page 4 of 5 Since the building qualifies as a High-Rise Building, the issues above can be mitigated by compliance with the High-Rise requirements in the California Fire and Building Codes and the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 2. Main Secured Building Entries shall utilize a KNOXO Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification #403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates & Buildings. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at (714) 536-5411 for information. Reference compliance with City Specification #403 - KNOXO Fire Department Access in the building plan notes. (FD) 3. Fire Sprinkler System Controls access shall be provided, utilizing a KNOX@ Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification #403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates & Buildings. The approximate location of the system controls shall be noted on the plans. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) 4. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. Minimum interior dimensions are 7 feet (84") wide by 4 feet 3 inches (51") deep. Minimum door opening dimensions are 3 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) 5. Addressing and Street Names Structure or Building Address Assignments. The Planning Department shall review and make address assignments. The individual dwelling units shall be identified with numbers per City Specification # 409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process in the plan notes. (FD) GIS Flapping Information a. GIS Mapping Information shall be provided to the Fire Department in compliance with GIS Department CAD Submittal Guideline requirements. Minimum submittals shall include the following: ➢ Site plot plan showing the building footprint. ➢ Specify the type of use for the building ➢ Location of electrical, gas, water, sprinkler system shut-offs. ➢ Fire Sprinkler Connections (FDC) if any. ➢ Knox Access locations for doors, gates, and vehicle access. ➢ Street name and address. Item 14. - 107 AT TA a €�IE' T . i ks HB -506- Page 5 of 5 Final site plot plan shall be submitted in the following digital format and shall include the following: ➢ Submittal media shall be via CD rom to the Fire Department. ➢ Shall be in accordance with County of Orange Ordinance 3809. ➢ File format shall be in .shp, AutoCAD, AUTOCAD MAP (latest possible release ) drawing file- .DWG (preferred) or Drawing Interchange File - .DXF. ➢ Data should be in MAD83 State Plane, Zone 6, Feet Lambert Conformal Conic Projection. ➢ Separate drawing file for each individual sheet. In compliance with Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen colors, and layering convention. and conform to City of Huntington Beach Specification # 409 — Street Naming and Addressing. For specific GIS technical requirements, contact the Huntington Beach GIS Department at (714) 536-5574. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with GIS Mapping Information in the building plan notes. (FD) Other; 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. 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, 51h floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.surfcity-hb.org If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at (714) 536-5411. HB -507- ,TTACHI 'MIENT N Item 14. - 108 IHUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ,t t�ririr; c?nt-s r PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE. MARCH 28, 2012 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO- 11-131 ENTITLEMENTS: COP 11-012, CUP 11-021, DRB 11--015, VAR 11-005, FAX 11-007 DATE OF PLANS: AUGUST 4, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PCH, 92645 (APN: 024-154-17) PLAN REVIEWER: ETHAN EDWARDS TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 536-5561, ETHAN.EDWARDS@SURFCITY-HB_ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUPIGDP: a)To permit an approximately 27,700 sq. ft., 4-story mixed-use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone r b)to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas; c) to expand the allowable uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37/Coasta€Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-005 by adding 9,000 sq.ft. retail, 3,000 sq. ft restaurant and 21,000 sq_ ft. office; and, c) to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA) approved in 2009 is required. EAX: To review environmental impacts and deten-nine level of CEQA documentation. VAR: To permit a maximum height of 73 ft. and 90 ft architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX: to permit a 5 fL minimum front yard setback in Iieu of a minimum of 15 fL DRB: To review the design, colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing building to remain and proposed building_ The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above. The Iist 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 should final project approval be received. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer_ 1. All exterior mechanical equipment shalt be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment snail be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, Item 14. - 109 H13 -508- TTAUDWI E- T . jT 1 Page 2 of 4 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 permit(s). (HBZSQ Section 230.76) 2. 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. (HBZSQ Section 230.76) 3. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of the DTSP Section 3.2.26.5-Bicycle Spaces Required. (DTSP Section 3R2.26.5) i 4. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completer[: a. The applicant shall follow al[ 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 PGB'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 notiffication to any and all involved agencies. (AQMD Rule 1403) i b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. (AQMD Rule 1403) 3 3 e. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (AQVID Rule 1403) :. d. The Cite 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. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a W box tree or palm equivalent(13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brawn trunk). (CEQA Categorical Exemption Sec-aion 15304) i 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. (HBZSQ Section 232.04) I b. 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) c_ 'Smart irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (HBZSQ Section 232.04.13) d. Standard landscape code requirements apply. (HBZSQ Chapter 232) e. NJ landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Hs -509- R T Item 14. - 110 Page 3 of 4 Landscape Standards and Specifications. (HBZSO Section 232A4_13) U. Prior to issuance of building permits;the following shall be completed: a. A planned sign program for all signage shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Said prograrn shall be approved prior to the first sign request. (HBZSO Section 233.04.B) b. The Downtown Specific Plan fee shall be paid. (for now construction in the Downtown Speck Plan (SP--5) area) (Resolution No. 5328) c_ A Mitigation Nloriitoring Pee for [negative declarations] [mitigated negative declarations/ EIE.s , shall be paid to the Planning & Building Department pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. (City of Huntington Beach Planning & Building Department Fee Schedule) d. 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 f 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. (City of Huntington Beach Planning & Building Department Fee Schedule) 7. 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 root/tree protection, will be specified upon the inspection of the root system_ (Resolution No. 4545) i b. All Huntington Beach Zoning and Sub vision Ordinance and Municipal Code 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 Atli to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMG 8.40.090) i 8. The final building permit(s)cannot be approved until the following has been completed; a. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading, landscape and improvement plans. (HBMC 17.05) 1 { b. All trees shall be maintained or planted In accordance to the requirements of Chapter 232. (1-1137-SO Chapter 232) f I c. 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) d. The provisions of the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements shall be implemented. (HBMC 14,52) Item 14. - 111 HB -s 10- Pages 4 of 4 i i 9. Outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials, or equipment, including display of merchandise, materials, and equipment for customer pickup, shall'be subject to approval of Conditionai Use Permit (HBZSO Section 230.74) 10.The Development Services Departments (Building & Safety, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance w th 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 planlproject 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 Administrators 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) 11.The Planning Commission reserves time right to revoke CUP No- 11-021, CDP No. 11-OIZ EPA Afo. 11-007, VAIN No. 11-005, and SPP No. 11-002 pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of the conditions of approval, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. (HBZSO Section 241.16.D) ! 12.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. (Gity Gharter,Article V) i f 13. C onstruction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMG 8.40.090) 14.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 & Binding and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. (HBZSO Section 232.04) I 15.All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO. 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. (HBZSO Chapter 233) 16. Live entertainment and[or outdoor dining in excess of 400 sq. ft. shall not be permitted unless a conditional use permit for this specific use is reviewed and approved- Outdoor dining occupying less than 400 sq. ft. is subject to Neighborhood Notification and approval by the Director of Planning & Building. (HBZSQ Section 211.04) i IT Alcoholic beverage sales shall be prohibited unless a conditional use permit for this particular use is reviewed and approved. (HBZSO Section 211.04) HB -511- AT`'ArH NIt- T III y 14� - 112 HUNTINGTON BEACH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO, 11-131 ENTITLEMENTS: CDP 11-012, CUP 11-021, DRB 11-015, VAR 11-005, EAX 11-007 DATE OF PLANS: AUGUST 4, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PCH, 92648 (APN: 024-154-17) PLAN REVIEWER. LUIS GOMEZ, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGER TELEPHONEIE-MML: (714) 536-5544, LUIS.GOMEZ_@SURFCITY-HB_ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUPICDP: a)To permit an approximately 27,700 sq.ft., 4--story mixed-use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone; b)to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas- G)to expand the allowable uses originally established by Gonditional Use Permit No. 90-37/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-005 by adding 9,000 sq. ft retail, 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 21,000 sq. fL office; and, c)to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA) approved in 2009 is required. EAX: To review environmental impacts and determine level of CEQA documentation. VAR: To permit a maximum height of 73 ft, and 90 ft- architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX- to permit a 5 ft. minimum front yard setback in lieu of a mirilmum.of 15 ft. DRB_, To review the design,colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing building to remain and proposed building. 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_ CODEREQUIREMENTS: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Owner Participation Agreement by and between Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, and Pierside Pavilion must he amended to reflect the entitlement plan amendiment- Item 14. - 113 FIB -512- [a leiTIVC��t -BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT _:HCWr1NQT0W$EAM PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 5' DATE: 10-27-11 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION CART EXPANSION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 11-131 ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021 DATE OF PLANS: OCTOBER 11, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (APN: 024-154--17) PLAN REVIEWER: ARVAR W. ELKINS 111, POLICE OFFICER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-960-8825 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:To Permit approximately 27,700 sq. ft.,4-story building at the southwest area of the Pierside Pavilion_ The Police Department's OPTED recommendations are intended to assist in the creation and maintenance of a guilt environment that decreases the opportunity for crime and increases the perception of public safety. i i LIGHTING: Adequate lighting of Pier Plaza and the contiguous grcwnds to the building shall be provided with enough lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe secure environment for all persons and property_ L Use security-focused, rather than aesthetically pleasing, lighting that enables pedestrians to see clearty and to identify potential threats at night For example, high or low pressure sodium vapor lights can provide evenly distributed lighting that reduces patches of darkness at the ground level and enables the human eye to pick up details, with reduced energy consumption. t HB -513- . R Item 14. - 114 Page 2 of 3 NATURAL SURVEILLANCE Fully illuminate all doorways that open to the outside. The front door to the building should be at least partially visible from the street. Install windows on all sides of the building to provide full visibility of the property. Construct elevators and stairwells to be open and weVighted, not enclosed behind solid walls_ Provide appropriate illumination to doorways that open to the outside and sidewalks. i Select and install appropriate landscaping that will allow unobstructed views of vulnerable doors and windows from the street and other properties. Avoid landscaping that might create blind spots_ Ensure signs in the front windows of businesses and commercial storefronts do net cover the windows or block necessary views of the exterior space. Position restroorns in office buildings to be visible from nearby offices. Keep dumpsters visible and avoid creating blind spots or hiding places, or place them in secured corrals or garages KIOSKS and ADJOINING SDEWALK A minimum of 8' feet between each kiosk shall be maintained at all times. This applies to each kiosk whether they are parallel, perpendicular or angled to the adjacent street. This is to maintain the safety of the occupants of the permanent businesses and for the Officers responding to those businesses. i There should be a way to differentiate the sidewalk and the property line, Le. different design in the cement or different colored cement_This shows the public where the sidewalk ends and the- property of the businesses begins. i 1 do not fee[the proposed planter and cement bench that runs parallel to the north curb line of PCH allows for adequate space for pedestrian foot traffic. With the purposed planter, bench and expansion of Pier Plaza nearly the entire sidewalk is blocked in the area of the expansion. I SECURITY SYSTEMS: Silent or audible alarm systems shall be installed. Item 14. - 115 H B -514- Page 3 of 3 A comprehensive security alarm systems should be provided form the following: - Perimeter building and access route protection -High valued storage areas -Interior building doorto shipping and receiving area -Any security gating CCTV security cameras are recommended, covering the following areas: -Lobby entrances -Building perimeter -Shipping and receiving areas -Parking structure -Exterior entrance -Stairwells -interior hails • t ROOF TOP TERRACE A-minimum- 'wall-r.,ompr-ised--of-solid-material-arid--or-glass shaU-surround-tJae.perimeter-of-the.--- --- terrace. At this time, the intended use of the terrace is undecided and I am unable to make any further specific design recommendations. i i 4 HB -515- Item 14. - 116 HR HUNTINGTON BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON eEAC11 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: August 2, 2012 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 11-131 ENTITLEMENTS: CDP 11-012, CUP 11-021, DRB 11-015, VAR 11-005, EAX 11-007 DATE OF PLANS: MAY 4, 2012 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PCH, 92648 (APN: 024-154-17) PLAN REVIEWER: KHOA DUONG, PE TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 872-6123, KHOA@CSGENGR.COM PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUPICDP: a) To permit an approximately 27,700 sq. ft., 4-story mixed-use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone; b) to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas; c) to expand the allowable uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-005 by adding 9,000 sq. ft. retail, 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 21,000 sq. ft. office; and, c) to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) approved in 2009 is required. EAX: To review environmental impacts and determine level of CEQA documentation. VAR: To permit a maximum height of 73 ft. and 90 ft. architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX: to permit a 5 ft. minimum front yard setback in lieu of a minimum of 15 ft. DRB: To review the design, colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing building to remain and proposed building. 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. CODE REQUIREMENTS: I. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: I- None Item 14. - 117 `�' Page 2 of 2 II. CODE ISSUES BIASED ON PLANS & DRAWINGS SUBMITTED: 1. Project shall comply with the current state building codes adopted by the City at the time of permit application submittal. Currently they are 2010 California Building Code (CBC), 2010 California Mechanical Code (CIVIC), 2010 California Plumbing Code (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 of construction, allowable area and height, occupancy group requirements per the 2010 of 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 mixed use and occupancy, please see section 508 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. Submit egress plans to show how they comply with Chapter 10 of 2010 CBC. a. Provide occupant load calculations showing the occupant loads in each area/each floor. b. Provide calculations for the required width of exit doors, corridors, exit passageway, and stairways. c. Show the exit paths of travel and the distances of travel. d. Show location of exit corridors, exit passageways and exit enclosures. e. Fire and smoke protection features must comply with Chapter 7 of 2010 CBC. f. The exit enclosure shall comply with Section 1022. g. The elevator doors cannot open into the exit enclosure. h. Accessible means of egress shall comply with Section 1007 of 2010 CBC, 4. Provide compliance to disabled accessibility requirements of Chapter 11 B of 2010 CBC. 5, Type I hood exhaust to be minimum 40" from top of floor/roof. 6. Type I hood exhaust to terminate a minimum five foot from vertical surface. 7. Please contact me or our office to review preliminary code analyses to examine any possible building code issue that may arise. III. COMMENTS: 1. In addition to all of the code requirements of the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code, specifically provide a Construction Waste Management Plan per Sections 4.408.2 and 5.408.1.1. 2. Planning and Building Department encourage the use of pre submittal zoning applications and building plan check meetings. HB -517- l+ Item 14. - 118 �' -- HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: August 5, 2012, 2011 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO, 11-131 ENTITLEMENTS: CDP 11-012, CUP 11-021, DRB 11-015, VAR 11-005, EAX 11-007 DATE OF PLANS: AUGUST 4, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PCH, 92648 (APN: 024-154-17) PLAN REVIEWER: STEVEN PONG, DETECTIVE TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 536-5960, SFONG@HBPD.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUPICDP: a) To permit an approximately 27,700 sq. ft., 4-story mixed-use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone; b) to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas; c) to expand the allowable uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37ICoastal Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-005 by adding 9,000 sq. ft_ retail, 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 21,000 sq. ft. office; and, d) to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) approved in 2009 is required_ EAX: To review environmental impacts and determine level of CEQA documentation. VAR: To permit a maximum height of 73 ft. and 90 ft. architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX: to permit a 5 ft. minimum front yard setback in lieu of a minimum of 15 ft. DRB: To review the design, colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing building to remain and proposed building. 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 Police Department believes the requested modifications will significantly affect the quality of life for the local residents by creating public nuisances and adding to the already congested Downtown Area. It should be noted that the two Reporting Districts (451 & 461) for the Downtown Business District show Item 14. - 119 HB -518- kJ ',A(� _ � ENT O a ��='��srG�t ��.ro Page 2 of 2 the highest crimes rates in the city. The Downtown Business District is also designated by the California Alcohol Beverage Control as an area that is oversaturated with ABC licenses. To preserve the current atmosphere and to reduce the likelihood of disturbances created by intoxicated patrons, reduce noise disturbances and to reduce the risk of minors obtaining alcoholic beverages, the police department recommends the following conditions be applied to the proposed Conditional Use Permit. 1. There shall be no public or private use of the proposed rooftop by anyone other than in conjunction with an approved 2-story restaurant and maintenance personnel for the purpose of maintaining or repairing the building. 2. Any existing ABC licensed establishment that has a current CUP and resides within the Pierside Pavilion property shall separately amend their current CUP before expanding their business. Any CUP amendments shall include security plans, locations where alcohol is permitted, and types and permitted areas of allowed entertainment_ 3. Any new business to the Pierside Pavilion that will serve alcohol under an ABC issued license shall apply for a separate CUP outside of the Pierside Pavilion CUP. This will allow the Police Department to apply specific conditions regarding security, entertainment, and approved areas for alcohol service. 4. The applicant shall employ a video surveillance security system and a one-month video library. The minimum requirements for the cameras will be: color, digital recording to DVR and able to record in low light. The Pierside Pavilion shall ensure all entrances, exits and perimeter areas are covered by video surveillance. Electronic copies of video must be made available to the Huntington Beach Police Department within 24 hours of request. Digital recordings shall be made available for viewing on-scene upon request by police officers conducting investigations. 5. In addition to the above listed conditions, all applicable conditions contained in City Council Resolution 2010-05 (Standard Conditions for Eating and Drinking Establishments-Downtown District One) shall be required. If there is a conflict between this entertainment permit and the City Council resolution, the more stringent requirement shall apply. 6. Due to volume of people already utilizing the current businesses within the existing building, the current number of ABC licenses, the crime rate directly related to the existing businesses within the building (including assaults, DUI's, overly intoxicated subjects, and thefts), the Pierside Pavilion shall provide additional security for the building and adjacent parking areas utilized by Pierside Pavilion businesses_ The number of required security officers shall be determined by the Police Department upon completion of the project. The number of required security officers may change at the discretion of the Police Department based on crime rates, number of patrons visiting the Pierside Pavilion, types of businesses, and hours of operations for the businesses. 7. The Police Department may require the Pierside Pavilion to provide additional security for the building and adjacent parking structures during Special Events, such as the 0 of July and the US Open of Surfing. xB -519- - `ila Item 14120 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L FLYNN 1 CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-017=PIERSIDE PAVILLION CARTS December 13, 2010 Michael C. Adams Associates P.O. Box 382 Huntington Beach, CA 92M APPLICANT: Michael C. Adams Associates APPLLANT: Joe Carchio, Counciimember REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No.10-017 to permit the establishment and operation of 18 carts and kiosks within the Pierside Pavilion development as follows: six along Main Street(public property), six along Pacific Coast Highway(private property) and six within the plaza area (private property). LOCATION: 300 Pacific Coast Highway, 92648 (northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street-- Pierside Pavilion) PROJECT PLANNER: Ethan Edwards . On Monday, December 6, 2010 a public hearing was held to consider an appeal filed by Councilmember Joe Carchio of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional-lase Permit No.10-017. The request was approved as amended by the Huntington Beach City Council: Four carts on Main Street, six carts on Pacific Coast Highway and eight carts within the plaza area. Sister Citres:_Anjo,Japan • Waitakere,'New Zealand (Telephone:7a 5227) Item 14. - 121 H -520- ATTACHMENT • 2 _, 1 — FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-017 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEt3A: The City Council finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the -environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1—Existing .Facilities, because the project involves a minor modification to the operation of the existing development involving negligible expansion of an existing use. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT NO. 10-0'17: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of 18 commercial carts and kiosks within the Pierside Pavilion development (four carts on public property along Main Street, six carts on private property along Pacific Coast Highway, and the remaining eight carts on private property within the southeasterly plaza area fronting Pack Coast Highway) will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. As conditioned, the orientation of carts and kiosks with Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway will not impede pedestrian access and will maintain public views. The location of the carts and kiosks are designed to complement existing businesses and activate pedestrian corridors while remaining cognizant of adjacent residences by minimizing placement in close proximity to adjacent residential uses (i.e., Pier Colony). Based upon the conditions imposed, the operation will not impact pedestrian circulation, nor will the operation impact the surrounding businesses and residential uses. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the ancillary operation of commercial carts and kiosks is consistent with the zoning designation and does not represent a significant change from the existing commercial use. The site currently includes carts and kiosks and the conditional use permit will allow for the modified continuation of this ancillary use. 3. The proposed conditional use permit will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance_ As conditioned, the project complies with all aspects of the SP5 (Downtown Specific Plan) including parking, onsite circulation, and setbacks. Carts and kiosks are permitted within the SP5 (Downtown Specific Plan) with the approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical - 3.0 max. floor area ratio - 30 dulac max. - Specific Plan Overlay - HB -521- ATTACHMENT Item 14. - 122 a. One set of project plans, revised pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 1, shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. b. A new or amended License Agreement, including use fees, shall be obtained from the City for portable vending carts located on public property. The applicant shall apply for an obtain approval of the license agreement from the Public Works Department prior to improvements or use of public property. The License Agreement shall be subject to termination at any time upon a 10 day prior-written notice upon determination of the City Council that one or more of the conditions or provisions of Section 4.2.33 or that one or more of the items listed under the Findings for Approval in this document, have been violated. Termination of a License Agreement shall nullify the conditional use permit. (w) 3. The use of the carts &kiosks shall comply with the following: a. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 10:00 AM and 10:00 PM. (ZA) b. The employees of the carts &.kiosks shall park on the second (lowest) level of the Pierside Pavilion parking structure. (ZA) c. The areas around the carts & kiosks shall be kept free of trash_ (ZA) d. Carts & kiosks shall be removed along Main Street during the annual 0 of July Parade and the annual Light a Light of Love Parade in December. (CS) e. Carts & kiosks shall carry merchandise that is complementary to the existing inline retailers. (ED) 4. The design, colors, and materials of the carts & kiosks shall match the plans dated and received September 1, 2000 (DR No. 00-45). 5. Any trenching for proposed or required telephone and electrical conduits shall be replaced with concrete colors, textures, or pavers to match. Trenches shall be cut in a pattern that is complementary to existing concrete expansion patterns. (ZA) 6. The Director of Planning and Building ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Director of Planning and Building shall be notified in writing if any changes to cart and kiosk operations are proposed as a result of the ongoing operation and oversight of the use. 7. !Minor modifications to the plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Planning and Building for conformance with the intent of the City Council's action_ If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required. 8. A review of the use shall be conducted by the Director of Planning and Building approximately twelve (12) months after Condition of Approval No. 2 has been satisfied to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable Chapters- of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Item 14. - 123 HB -522- ATTACHMENT NOe -7- A ACTION A Monday, December 6, 2010 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CATHHYeREE" and PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY JILL HARDY GU.COERPER CITY OF HUN�TINIGTONI BEACH ��1Or Pro Tem councihnember KEI TH B014R DEVIN DVO ER Im 2009 Coundmernber Councilmember No Study Session 5:00 PM-Closed Session Joe edmembe Doll Wnem N Counc�rtember Counci�nember 6:00 PM--Regular Meeting Council Chambers -2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 httP:11W rw.sudeity-hb.orn 5:00 PM -Council Chambers -Closed Session 6:00 PM - Council Chambers - Regular Business Meeting The City Clerk will recess the 4:00 PM portion of the meeting to 5.00 PM due to an anticipated lack of quorum. Council well converse in the Council Chambers at that time. CALL TO ORDER- 5:00 P14 ROLL CALL Carchio, Coerper, Hardy, Green Bohr, Dwyer, Hansen All Present(Coerper arrived.5:05 PAT ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA DISTRIBUTION PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced Late Communications: Item pertaining to Frontage road PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit) 1 Speaker RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION -5:05 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9, the City Council shall recess into closed session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: -1- HB -523- ATTACHMEN7Item 14. - 124 COUNCIL COMMITTEE—APPOINTMENTS--LIAISON REPORTS AND ALL AB 1234 DISCLOSURE REPORTING Coerper, Hardy, Green reported. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve and adopt,minutes Recommended Action: Approve and adopt the minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority regular meeting of November 15, 2010 as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk_ Approved 7-0 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2010-98 declaring disposition of certain surplus property, and, approve and authorize execution of a Purchase Agreement between the City and Beach Promenade LLC for the purchase of property referred to as the Beach/Atlanta Frontage Road Recommended Action: A) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the "Purchase Agreement By and Among the City of Huntington Beach, a Municipal Corporation, and Beach Promenade LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,"for the purchase of property commonly referred to as the Beach Atlanta Frontage Road; and, B) Authorize the City Administrator or his designee to execute any other related escrow documents; and, C) Adopt Resolution No. 2010=98, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Declaring the Disposition of Certain Surplus Property." Approved with amendment to buying agreement The buyer is responsible for paying all of the escrow fees and the City will defer an initial payment of the $50,000, less the City`s portion of the escrow fees, to not more than 120 days after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for parcel#1. Approved 7-0 3. Approve and authorize execution of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Contract between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Kane, Ballmer& Berkman for Legal Services in the amount of$160,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $300,000 Redevelopment Agency Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the Chairperson and Agency Clerk to execute "Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Contract Between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Kane, Ballmer& Berkman for Legal Services." Approved 7-0 -3- Item 14. - 125 HB -524- ATTACHMENT . 2. PUBLIC HEARING 7. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval-- Pierside Pavillion Carts) CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 15, 2010 MEETING Staff Recommended Action: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (two carts on Alain Street, four carts on Pacific Coast Highway, and eight carts within plaza area). -or- Planning Commission Recommended Action: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 with revised findings and revised conditions of approval (zero carts on Main Street, six carts on Pacific Coast Highway, and eight carts within the plaza area). 3 Speakers Approved as amended to four carts on Main Street,six carts on Pacific Coast Highway and eight carts within the plaza area. The Director of Planning, staff and a representative of the Police department will meet with the applicant to find the best configuration/locations for the carts and there will be a review by the Planning Director after one year. Approved 4-3(Coerper, lardy, Green no) ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION. S. Adopt Ordinance No. 3904 adding Chapter 17.14 to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) relating to post disaster safety assessment placards Approved for introduction November 15, 2010 Recommended Action: After the City Clerk reads by title, adopt of Ordinance No. 3904, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Adding Chapter 17.14 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating To Safety Assessment Placards." Approved 7-0 S. Adopt Ordinance No. 3905 amending Chapter 14.12 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) relating to fees, rates and deposits for water billing Approved for introduction November 15, 2010 Recommended Action: After the City Clerk reads by title, adopt Ordinance No. 3905, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 14.12.of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Water Billing." Approved 7--0 -5- HB -525- ATTACHMENT Item 14. - 126 f w ReCeS;.S - Reception in meeting rooms adjacent to the Council Chambers RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYIPUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEETING CALL TO ORDER— 8.45 PM City Clerk presides ROLL CALL(alphabetical order) Boardman, Bohr, Carchio, Dwyer, Hansen, Harper, Shaw All Present CONDUCT ELECTION OF MAYOR FOR ENSUING YEAR City Clerk calls for motion to elect new Mayor Counciimemmber Carchio elected new Mayor. Approved 7.0 OATH OF OFFICE TO NEW MAYOR City Cleric administers Oath of Office to new Mayor New Mayor presides CONDUCT ELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEMPORE FOR ENSUING YEAR New Mayor calls for motion to elect Mayor Pro Tempore Councilmember Hansen elected new Mayor Pro Tempore. Approved 7-0 OATH OF OFFICE TO NEW MAYOR PRO TEMPORE City Clerk administers Oath of Office to new Mayor Pro Tempore Comments by newly elected Mayor Comments by newly elected and reelected City Councilmembers and City Attorney COUPICILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) None ADJOURNMENT— 9:07 PM Adjoumment to Monday, December 20, 20'10, at 4:00 PM in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. INTERNET ACCESS TO CITYCOUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT M0.1/www surfdtY-hb.om -7- Item 14. - 127 HB -526- ATTACHMENT NO. RESOLUTION NO. 2 011-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach desires to maintain a vibrant and safe downtown commercial area to be enjoyed by visitors,residents and families; and Toward that end, the City Council has established standardized Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permits in the Downtown Specific Plan District l area with alcoholic beverage sales and/or an entertainment permit, NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference shall apply to all eating and drinking establishments located in the designated area with alcoholic beverage sales. 2. That the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated by this reference shall apply to all eating and drinking establishments located in the designated area with alcoholic beverage sales and live entertainment. 3. These proposed conditions shall apply to conditional use permit applications applied for subsequent to adoption of this Resolution only when the application is a new request for either the service of alcoholic beverages or entertainment, and shall remain in effect unless modified by the reviewing body as part of the Conditional Use Permit via a public hearing. 4. Resolution No.2010-05 is hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of March ,2011. �/A.- t REVIE D ND APPROVED: INITIA APPR VED: CityM4ger Director of P a mg and Building ROVED AS TO FORM: L Attorney 10-2396.001/5%74 HB -s2�- T NT Item 14. - 128 Resolution No. 2 0 11-16 EXHIBIT B EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT: The following standard Conditions of Approval shall be part of any Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission and the Entertainment Permit from the Police Department for the establishment of any eating and drinking establishment located within the Downtown Specific Plan area with alcohol beverage sales and entertainment,District 1: 1) Hours of alcohol sales shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. midnight except for a business proposed in the following locations: a. West side of 5t` Street between Walnut Avenue and Orange Avenue the hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 am.to 10:00 p.m. b. East side of 3`d Street between Walnut Avenue and Orange Avenue the hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 2) A minimum of 70 percent of the net floor area of the establishment shall be designated as dining area excluding back of house areas (such as areas used for cooking, kitchen preparation,office, storage, and restrooms) and outdoor dining areas. 3) The seating capacity at all times within the dining area, excluding outdoor dining areas, shall be able to accommodate a minimum of 100 people. 4) Full food service menu items shall be served, a minimum, until one (1) hour before closing,and a cook and food server shall be on duty during these times. 5) Alcoholic drinks shall not be included in the price of admission to any establishment. S) There shall be no requirement for patrons to purchase a minimum number of alcoholic drinks. 7) All alcohol shall remain on the establishment's premises, including within outdoor dining areas. S) An employee of the establishment must be present at all times in areas within the establishment where alcohol is served. 9) If dancing is allowed, the activity must be specifically identified as part of the Entertainment Permit and only in a pre-approvcd designated area. 10)Games or contests requiring or involving consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited. 11)No outside promoters can be used under any circumstances. 10,-2396.001159675 1 Item 14. - 129 1-18 -528- AT T z Res. No. 2011-16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH } I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 07, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Harper, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Dwyer NOES: Shaw, Boardman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Done CityVlerk and ex-officio CVrk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California HB -529- A,TTACM1 N Item 14. - 130 ATTAC H M E N T #6 Z' z g H`N M Oko TM T CA y_ 0-0 P 4Ar� E EN LP,&A,IN .00 '71 TA M i4o nu-- n'i Rt� I 1. PROJECT TITLE: Pierside Pavilion Expansion Concurrent Entitlements: Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007,Variance No. 11-005,Design Review No. 11-0 15 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Ethan Edwards,Associate Planner Phone: (714) 536-5561 3. PROJECT LOCATION: 300 Pacific Coast Highway, 92648 (northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street) 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Michael Adams Michael C. Adams Associates P.O. Box 382 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact Person: Michael Adams Phone: (714) 374-5678 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M->30-sp-pd(Mixed Use—specific plan overlay—design overlay — pedestrian overlay) 6. ZONING: SP5-CZ(Specific Plan No. 5—District 1 —Coastal Zone) 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposes to modify and expand the existing Pierside Pavilion development. The site is currently developed with a 4-story, 90 foot high, mixed use building consisting of approximately 89,415 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant and office uses; and 296 parking spaces within two subterranean levels with access from Walnut Avenue. The site consists of one lot with a total gross lot area of approximately 76,650 sq. ft. The project proposes to demolish approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor servingloffice building and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts. The table below describes the existing area, proposed infill area, new building area, and total area for the project: GAENVIROWCHECKLST Page I HB -531- Item 14. - 132 Existing S.F. Proposed hifill S.F. New Building S.F. Total S.F. Retail 15,406 4,501 5,526 25,433 Office 54,182* 3,323* 18,118 74,501 Restaurant 19,829 1,577 4,128 26,654 TOTAL 89,415 9,401 27,772 126,588 *includes 400 sq.ft. demo area The project proposes to expand the allowable uses within the Pierside Pavilion development from the previously approved limits established by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01 by adding 10,527 sq. ft. of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurant, and 21,441 sq. ft. of office. Retail area is proposed on the first level facing the perimeter of the building and office space is located behind or within the interior portions of the first level. Restaurant area is proposed on the second level and additional office areas are proposed on the third and forth levels. Approximately 3,069 sq. ft. of outdoor terraces are proposed on the second and third levels; and approximately 6,146 sq. ft. of outdoor dining is proposed on the second -floor and rooftop deck. Parking will be provided within an existing two-level subterranean parking garage -including 296 parking spaces on-site and share up to 234 parking spaces in the Municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street. The project includes a variance request to allow a height of 68 feet (plus up to 90 feet for mechanical housing) for the new, expanded portion of the building in lieu of the maximum of 45 feet. Also, an entitlement plan amendment to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 10-0 17 is proposed to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property. Construction Scenario The project will be constructed in three overlapping phases over an approximately 12 month period with all existing businesses to remain open. Phase I includes the construction of an elevator tower to service the existing and proposed building areas. During the above ground construction of the tower, work will continue in the lower level of the parking structure preparing column footings via the use of "Helical" piers, which will be installed using a small bobcat drill rig. The entire work of this phase will continue for approximately four months, with two months of this time devoted to constructing the elevator within the new tower. Phase 11 will commence with the demolition of the existing tower and stairs and the placement of steel columns and beams. This portion will require coring 24"diameter holes through the roof and floor of the first level of the parking structure. The parking structure will continue to operate during construction; however some existing parking spaces may be temporarily unavailable. The property currently shares up to 300 parking spaces within the adjacent municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street and adequate alternative parking will be provided at this location when existing on- site parking spaces are unavailable. Setting of the steel structure will continue over the course of two months. Following setting of the steel, the interior fireproofing, roofing, exterior cladding, and glass and glazing will commence over the course of an additional two months. The entire Phase 11 will encompass seven months of construction time with the use of an on-site crane/hoist and scaffolding to accomplish interior and exterior construction. Phase III will commence upon completion of the addition with renovations to the wall-ways along PCH and the alleyway adjacent to Pier Colony; and the renovations to the stairwell at Main Street. Following the completion of this work, the storefronts along Main and PCH will be extended further Page 2 Item 14. - 133 HB -532- to the `drip line'; and minor cosmetic changes will be made to the building, including: painting of the entire building, painting the glazing metals to match the new addition, patching and repairing stucco, and upgrading the lighting systems and landscape around the property. All of which will require the use of scaffolding and/or lifts. This phase will continue for three months. Grading operations will be minimal since the site is currently developed; however the walkway along PCH will require approximately 100 yards of import to transition onto existing grade. All site work and hardscape will include approximately 250 yards of concrete; and the building expansion/addition will require approximately 400 yards of concrete. The entire project will require the use of concrete saws, cranes, forklifts, `boom' lifts, air compressors, stucco equipment, small grading equipment, concrete pumps,monokote equipment,air compressors, and small tools. S. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: , The project site is located at the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. Retail/restaurant/parking structure uses exist to the north (across Walnut Avenue), multi-family residential (Pier Colony) adjacent to the east, municipal pier/restaurants/beach to the south (across Pacific Coast Highway), and retail/office to the west(across Main Street). 9. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The expansion of Pierside Pavilion was included as part of the maximum development thresholds analyzed as part the DTSP Program EIR No. 08-001 (CA State Clearinghouse No. 2008111024). The projcot's proposed mix of uses (retail, restaurant, and office) falls within the maximum allowed square footage for each land use category as anticipated by the DTSP program EIR. 10. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) (i.e. permits, financing approval, or participating agreement): Encroachment Permit is required from Cal Trans. Page 3 xB -533- Item 14. - 134 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 Q Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/ Service Systems ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ 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 project. 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 ENVIRONN9[ENTAL 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 or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are im sed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. - �_13_�Q �2 Signature Date Printed Name Title Page 4 Item 14. - 135 HB -534- EVALUATION OF ENVI RONMRNTAL IMIPACTS: EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 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 and Code Requirements-The City imposes standard conditions of approval and code requirements on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However,because they are considered part of the project,they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information,a list of applicable code requirements identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 4.) SAMPLE QUESTION.- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) ❑ ❑ Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in aflat area (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). Page 5 HB -535- Item 14. - 136 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact L LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or 21 El 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:1, 2) Discussion: The proposed uses will not conflict with any land use plan in the City of Huntington Beach, including the Municipal Code, the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), Local Coastal Program and the General Plan. The project proposal is permitted within District One (Downtown Core) of the DTSP subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. An existing Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) (executed in 2009 and amended in 2011) specifies allowable land uses and maximum buildout square footages for the Pierside Pavilion development. While the proposed project generally reflects the intensity of development contemplated in the OPA; the OPA would need to be modified to meet the specific project configuration of uses and overall development square footage. It should be noted that the square footage of the proposed project is within the maximum development thresholds analyzed in the DTSP Program EIR and adopted for the October 2011 DTSP Update. While the use complies with the base zoning district and all applicable land use plans, the project requests a variance to allow for deviation from a specific zoning code requirement. The project includes a request for variance to exceed the maximum height of four stories and 45 feet. The project proposes four stories with . building height of 68 feet topped with an 8-foot glass screen waII and an architectural tower (mechanical housing) up to 90 feet high. The proposed project would not, therefore, comply with the height requirement of the Specific Plan. However, the design intent is to match the existing building height (which was permitted pursuant to the regulations of the 1988 DTSP) and floor plates to allow for more efficient access and internal circulation. However, the 4`" floor top plate exceeds the minimum required floor height and as such, staff recommends a condition of approval to require a reduction of the 4'h floor top plate to match the existing 4'' floor top plate(59'-6"). This would allow for the design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, limit the height of the building and extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum height. The proposal to deviate from the maximum height, as conditioned, will not result in the development being disproportionate to the size and scale of surrounding developments due to the existing height of surrounding buildings. This deviation will not result in significant environmental impacts such as increased noise, aesthetics, and lighting. As discussed in the various impact sections (U-XVM) the project scope and design would ensure that environmental impacts are minimized to a less than significant impact. Furthermore,the project is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Goal LU 4: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. The design of the project promotes development of a mixed-use building that conveys a unified, high-quality visual image and character that is intended to expand the existing development pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach. The City's Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed architecture, colors and materials and has indicated that it would recommend approval of the design concept, however requested tb the sheer massing of the project be modified to further ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. 11, project's public areas and open space incorporate enhanced hardscape and landscape materials consistent with Page 6 Item 14. - 137 HB -536- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact the DTSP Design Guidelines. The proposed project would,therefore,be consistent with this policy of the Land Use Element. The project will improve an existing underutilized plaza area by expanding the existing development and utilizing the development potential established by the DTSP. As discussed within the various impact sections (H-XVM) the project scope will not result in significant impacts to the City's environmental resources. Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for the City's neighborhoods,corridor, and centers. The proposed project utilizes mixed-vertical uses in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use within the Land Use Map of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Commercial uses such as retail establishments will be located within the first story as required by the Visitor-Serving Commercial Overlay, restaurant uses on the second floor and rooftop, and office uses on the third and fourth floors. The project will be consistent with this policy. Policy C 1.L4: Where feasible, locate visitor-serving commercial uses in existing developed areas or at selected points of attraction for visitors. The proposed project would develop a mix of visitor-serving commercial and office uses on a parcel including and contiguous to similar uses in an established, urban, downtown core area. Public services are currently available to the project site, as well as the surrounding parcels, and the project includes improvements to existing infrastructure to ensure adequate service after project implementation,as described in Utilities Section. Therefore the proposed project would be consistent with Policy C 1.1.4. As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable Goals and Policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program, and is consistent with the uses and type of development permitted within the Downtown Specific Plan. Also, the uses proposed are consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the project site. The proposed project would, therefore,result in a less than significant land use impact. b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or El El El natural community conservation plan?(Sources:1) Discussion: The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan as none exists in the City. No impacts are anticipated. c) Physically divide an established community? ❑ El 11Q (Sources:3,4) Discussion.: The proposed project would not disrupt or physically divide an established community. The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street and is located within an established urban area;therefore,it will not divide any established communities. The project would not impact access to surrounding development. No impacts are anticipated. H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either Page 7 HB -537- Item 14. - 138 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact directly(e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses) ❑ ❑ [Jf or indirectly(e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources:l,4) Discussion: The proposed project will provide for the expansion of an existing commercial mixed-use development. No residential uses are proposed or exist on the subject site and therefore the project will not displace existing housing. However,the increase of office, commercial, and restaurant space will result in new employment opportunities and commercial convenience which may indirectly result in a minor increase of residents. Any population growth as a result of the project would not be substantial due to the small incremental increase in development. Therefore, the project will not induce substantial population growth directly or indirectly.Less than significant impacts are anticipated. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:4) Discussion: No residential uses exist on the subject site. Therefore, the proposed project will not displace existing housing and no impacts will result. c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:4) Discussion: The project site does not support any housing. Therefore, the project will not displace existir people or housing and no impacts will result. 111.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 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 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:1,2 1) Discussion: The project site is not known to be traversed by an active fault and is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. The nearest active fault is the Newport-Inglewood fault located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. li) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources:1,13) ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Discussion: The project site is located in a seismically active region of South California. Therefore, the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures built in Huntingtc Beach are required to comply with standards set forth in the California Building Code(CBC)and standard City Page 8 Item 14. - 139 HB -538- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact codes,policies, and procedures which require submittal of a detailed soils analysis prepared by a Licensed Soil Engineer. Conformance with CBC requirements and standard City code requirements will ensure potential impacts from seismic ground shaking are less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including nEl Q ❑ liquefaction?(Sources:1,12,13,20,25) Discussion: Although the site is located within an area identified by the City's General Plan as having a very high potential for liquefaction, the project is not located within a liquefaction zone, according to Seismic Hazard Zones maps of California Division of Mines and Geology(CDMG). Additionally,the site soils consist of silty sand, clayey sand and sandy clay from. 5 to 20 feet below grade, and predominately sand below that depth; groundwater depth is at approximately 25 to 26 feet below existing grade,which makes the potential for liquefaction of the subsurface soils at the site low. Construction of the project in conformance with the CBC would provide mitigation of seismic ground shaking hazards. Therefore, liquefaction impacts associated with seismic related ground failure to people and structures on-site would be less than significant. iv) Landslides? (Sources:1,6,21) ❑ Discussion: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan,the site is not in an area susceptible to slope instability. The project site is located on a flat parcel of Iand and no slopes or other landforms susceptible to landslides exist in the vicinity of the properly. Moreover, the California Division of Mines and Geology has not mapped any earthquake-induced landslides at or in the vicinity of the site that would be indicative of the potential for slope instability.No impacts from landslides are anticipated. b) Result in substantial soil erosion,loss of topsoil, or 11 ❑ Q El changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Sources:1,4,20,22) Discussion: The project site and vicinity are urbanized and have relatively flat topography. Construction of the proposed project would require minimal grading of the site which could potentially result in erosion of soils. Erosion will be minimized by compliance with standard City requirements for submittal of an erosion control plan prior to issuance of building permit, for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. Implementation of the proposed project would not require significant alteration of the existing topography of the project site and less than significant impacts are anticipated. However, the project will also comply with DTSP Program EIR Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 which requires a grading plan to ensure that the design recommendation based on site specific soil conditions are implemented to minimize erosion and unstable soil conditions during grading. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or 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:1,6,20,21) Discussion: Refer to Responses III (a) (iii) and III (a) (iv) for discussion of liquefaction and landslides, respectively. Subsidence is Iarge-scale settlement of the ground surface generally caused by withdrawal of groundwater or oil in sufficient quantities such that the surrounding ground surface sinks over a broad area. The project site has not been identified as an area with potential for subsidence. In addition, withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or other mineral resources would not occur as part of the proposed project and, therefore, Page 9 1413 -539- Item 14. - 140 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact subsidence is not anticipated to occur. However, in the event of an earthquake in the Huntington Beach area, the site may be subject to ground shaking. The CBC and associated code requirements address lateral spreading and subsidence. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B ❑ ❑ R1 El of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources:1,6,20,21,22,25) Discussion: The submitted Geotechnical Study dated October 2011 by Petra Geotechnical indicates that the site is underlain by soils that are moderately expansive. The proposed project would be designed, constructed, and operated in conformance with the City's Municipal Code including Title 17 (Excavation and Grading) as well as DTSP Program EIR Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1 which requires a grading plan to address site- specific soil conditions, including potential risks from expansive soil conditions in the design and construction of the project. Therefore, potential risks to life and property associated with expansive soil is less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ El ❑ R1 septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater(Sources:1) Discussion: The project site is located in an urbanized area in which wastewater infrastructure is currently in place. Therefore, the capability of the soils to support septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems is nc relevant to the proposed project. No impact would occur related to septic tanks or alternative wastewatt- disposal systems. IV.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ R1 requirements? (Sources:1,15) Discussion: Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements will be addressed in the project design and development phase pursuant to the City's standard erosion control measures. The applicant is required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), prepared by a Licensed Civil or Environmental Engineer in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. The WQMP must be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The standard erosion control measures, WQ1v2 and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will contain Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction and post-construction operation of the facility, including site, source and treatment controls to be installed and maintained at the site. The above control measures are requirements for development in the City of Huntington Beach, and with implementation will ensure compliance with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, which will reduce project impacts to a level that is less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 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 Page 10 Item 14. - 141 HB -540- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for Which permits have been granted? (Sources.1,14,15,21) Discussion: In 2010,the Huntington Beach Public Works Department prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (UWNT), which analyzed the City's past and future water pipeline infrastructure, sources, supplies, reliability and availability. Based on the size and proposed uses, the water demand required for the project would not result in a significant increase in water demand consumption that was not previously planned for in the Water Master Plan and UWMP and would not substantially delete groundwater supplies. The project will have minimal effect with groundwater recharge because the site is currently and will remain primarily impervious. Therefore,this project would not present a substantial impact to ground water supply and table. The project is subject to compliance with the City's Water Ordinance, including the Water Efficiency Landscape Requirements, as well as Title 24 conservation measures such as low flow fixtures, which will ensure that water consumption is minimized. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 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:1,15,20) Discussion: The site is a flat developed property with existing drainage flow toward the east into existing storm drains. Stormwater runoff flow as a result of development of the project will maintain similar preexisting drainage conditions,with a majority of the storm water flow to be diverted to a new on-site storage tank via retrofitted on-site catch basins and then pumped into proposed cooling towers and reused. The project will not result in new impervious area which could result in flooding. Erosion and siltation during construction will be minimized by employing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for discharge of storm water pollutants, pursuant to the City's required erosion control measures. Because the project is utilizing existing catch basins, and will not create new impervious areas, the existing drainage pattern is not proposed to be substantially altered or result in flooding on or off-site. Less than significant impacts area anticipated. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of theEl 11 Q 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:1,15) Discussion: See discussion under section 1V(c). e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceedEl El Q El the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources:1,15) Discussion: The project will be designed such that runoff created by the proposed development will not exceed the existing condition. Overall drainage flow output will remain at current levels. The project includes the retrofit of existing catch basins to store and reuse collected stormwater to ensure that the project captures 100% of the volume. Although the existing drainage pattern is expected to be temporarily altered during the construction phase, erosion and siltation during construction will be minimized to a less than significant level Page 11 HB -541- Item 14. - 142 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact by employing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control and implementation of a Stormwate, Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The WQMP, to be submitted in accordance with City of Huntington Beach standard development requirements, will identify BMPs for ensuring a less than significant impact associated with polluted runoff after construction. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 El El El (Sources:1,15) Discussion. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be prepared in accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination. System (NPDES) regulations and Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) in order to control the quality of water runoff and protect downstream areas. NPDES requirements assure compliance with water quality standards and water discharge requirements. A preliminary WQMP was submitted to the Public Works Department for review and the methods proposed for complying with NPDES requirements are acceptable. Refer to Section IV(a). Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as 0 ❑ El 0 mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources:l,7) Discussion: The proposed project is a mixed use development consisting of visitor serving commercial and office uses. No residential uses are proposed. The subject site is designated as Flood Zone X, a 500-year flood hazard area,on the Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM),which is not subject to federal flood development restrictions. Therefore,no impacts are anticipated. h) PIace within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ 11 Q which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources:1,7) Discussion: The proposed project site is designated as Flood Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), which is not subject to federal flood development restrictions. The project site and vicinity are not situated within the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped in the FIRM. Therefore,no impacts are anticipated. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Q ❑ El El injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources:1,7) Discussion: The project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. In addition, the site is not in the immediate vicinity of a levee or dam. Therefore,no impacts are anticipated. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources:1,21) ❑ ❑ Q Discussion: According to the Moderate Tsunami Run-up Area map in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Program, the project site is not located in an identified moderate tsunami run-up area. Due to the lack of land-locked bodies of water(i.e.,ponds or lakes) in proximity to the project site,the potential for seiches is considered to be non-existent. The project site and vicinity are urbanized and have relatively flat topography. The project site and vicinity are not identified as areas with the potential for mudflow Therefore,no impacts are anticipated. Page 12 Item 14. - 143 HB -542- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? (Sources:1,15) El Discussion: Refer to discussion under item IV(a)and(e)above. 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- El ❑ Q El construction activities? (Sources: 1,15) Discussion: Refer to discussion under item IV(a),(c), and(d)above. m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater Q El 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:1,4,15) Discussion: During the construction phase, erosion and siltation will be minimized to a Iess than significant level by employing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for discharge of storm water pollutants, pursuant to a SWPPP. A preliminary WQMP, was submitted to the Public Works Department in accordance with City of Huntington Beach development requirements, and identifies BMPs for ensuring a less than significant impact associated with the discharge of stormwater pollutants during operation. However, due to the proposed uses, pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance, waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, and other outdoor work areas are not proposed or expected and therefore less than significant impacts are anticipated. n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to F1Q affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (Sources: 1,4,15) Discussion: See discussion under Sections IV(a)and IV(e). o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow ElQ ❑ velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (Sources: 1,15) Discussion: See discussion under Section 1V(e). p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of ❑ Q El the project site or surrounding areas? (Sources:1,15) Discussion: See discussion under Section III(b). 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: Page 13 1413 -543- Item 14. - 144 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources:9,18,21,22) b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? (Sources: 9,18,21) c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ Q ❑ number of people? (Sources: 9,18,21,22) d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 9,18,21,22) e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 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: 9,18,21,22) Page 14 Item 14. - 145 HB -544- l Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: a) — e) The City of Huntington Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). The entire Basin is designated as a national-level nonattainment area for Ozone, Carbon Monoxide (CO), respirable particulate matter (PMio) and fine particulate matter (PM,.5). The Basin is also a State-level nonattainrnent area for Ozone, PMip and PM2.5. The nearest sensitive receptors would be residents of the multi-family residential development (Pier Colony)adjacent to the project site approximately 25 feet to the east_ Impacts from objectionable odors could potentially occur during construction of the project. However,impacts would be intermittent and short-term and would not persist once construction was completed. The proposed operation is not anticipated to produce objectionable odors and potential odors (if any) would be limited to typical commercial refuse containers,which will be emptied and cleaned on a regular basis. As such, impacts from odors would be less than significant. The 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the region's applicable air quality plan prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under jurisdiction of the SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the General Plan are considered to be consistent with the AQMP. When the DTSP Update was adopted in 2010, it was determined that the new land use designations and proposed build- out of the specific plan would not conflict with the 2007 AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project, which is consistent with the Specific Plan, would not conflict with the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant. Short-term (Construction): Construction of the project may result in short-term pollutant emissions from the following activities: demolition, the commute of workers to and from the project site, delivery and hauling of construction materials and supplies to and from the project site; fuel combustion by onsite construction equipment; and dust generating activities from soil disturbance, paving activities, and potential emissions associated with the installation of interior and exterior architectural coating onto the building. Emissions during construction were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The allotment of equipment to be utilized during each phase was based on defaults in the CaIEEMod program and was modified as needed to represent the specifics of the proposed project. In addition, the emissions estimate assumes that the appropriate dust control measures would be implemented during each phase as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust and that all other appropriate mitigation such as, but not limited to, routine equipment maintenance, frequent water of the site and use of low VOC coatings has been used. The default level of detail was used to calculate fugitive dust emissions from activity on the site. The CaIEEMod model calculates total emissions, onsite and offsite, resulting from each construction activity, which are compared to the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)Regional Thresholds. A comparison of the project's total emissions with the regional thresholds is provided below. A project with daily construction emission rates below these thresholds is considered to have a less than significant effect on regional air quality. Page 15 HB -545- Item 14. - 146 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact C" OEM-- _g 'auy C Regional Significance Threshold(Lbs/day) CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2s so, Estimated Construction Emissions for proposed 12.14 25.26 17.42 4.46 1.25 0.02 project Significance Threshold 550 55 100 150 55 150 Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Based on the table above, construction of the project would not exceed the required significance thresholds nor would it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations beyond those anticipated and analyzed in the DTSP Program EM- Additionally, the project will be required to comply with construction activity mitigation measures as identified in DTSP Program EM, NM 4.2-1 through 4.2-7. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. Long-term: Post construction emissions were also calculated using the CaJEEMod program. The program was set to calculate emissions for the proposed project. The default CalEEMod variables were used for the calculations. ;tom y_ -P _'Mgm N? Z NO- Regional Significance Threshold(Lbs/day) CO VOC NOx PM 30 PM Z5 so, Estimated Operational Emissions for proposed 81.91 9.48 16.00 13.89 1.09 0.13 project Significance Threshold 550 55 100 150 55 150 Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Based on the above table,post-construction emissions from the proposed project would not exceed the regional thresholds nor would it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations beyond those anticipated and analyzed in the DTSP Program EIR. Further,the project will be required to comply with DTSP Program ED?,, MM 4.2-8 through 4.2-12 to address operational air quality impacts. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. Lastly, it should be noted that the project does not come close to exceeding established thresholds for any pollutant including the identified nonattainment pollutants (Ozone, CO,PMio, and PM2.5)and ozone precursors (NOx and VOC)both for construction and post-construction and therefore,would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in these pollutants. V1. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy El establishing measures of effectiveness for the Page 16 Item 14. - 147 HB -546- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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:1,10,19,21) Discussion: A traffic study by Minagar & Associates, Inc. was conducted for the project to determine the potential impacts of the proposed development on nearby intersection operations, traffic, safety, downtown master plan street design, parking requirements and pedestrian access. The study finds that the project adequately meets the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan and the parking provisions specified in the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) and that the project will not adversely alter traffic operations on the surrounding transportation system. Based on trip generation rates for retail, restaurant, and office uses the estimated project trips are summarized in the table below. Estimated Project Trips Land Use Weekday Project Trips Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Total In Out Total In Out Retail 448 ADT 69 33 36 27 12 15 Restaurant 702 ADT 6 5 1 58 39 19 Office 175 ADT 25 22 3 24 4 20 Project Trip 1,325 ADT 100 60 40 110 55 54 Generation Based on the results of a traffic impact analysis for the Existing (Year 2011) and Cumulative (Year 2020 + Project) scenarios, the Level of Service (LOS) at each of the three study intersections (Pacific Coast Highway/Main Street, Main StreetlWalnut Avenue, and Walnut Avenue/3`d Street) will be maintained at an acceptable LOS of"D" or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the addition of the project. The City's Traffic Division has confirmed that the change from LOS of "C" to "D" at the PCH/Main intersection during PM peak hours is acceptable. The traffic generation associated with the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to LOS. The LOS at the three study intersections is summarized in the table below. Study Level of Service Intersection ID Peak Existing Cumulative Cumulative and Location Hour 2011 2020 without 2020+Project Project PCH/Main AM C C C PM C C D Main/Walnut AM A A A PM A C C Walnut at 3 AM A A A St/P l Entrance PM A A A Construction traffic resulting from development of the project may result in short-term interruptions to traffic circulation, including pedestrian and bicycle flow. However, the project schedule would avoid peak season traffic. Based on the project schedule and scope of project construction, short-term interruptions to traffic are Page 17 HB -547- Item 14. - 148 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact not considered to be significant. In addition, short-term construction impacts may be reduced througi, implementation of code requirements requiring the approval of a construction vehicle control plan by the Department of Public Works. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management El El R1 ❑ 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:1,10,19) Discussion: Refer to discussion under item VI (a) above. A nominal increase in trip generation from long- term operation of the project is anticipated. PCH is categorized as a Congestion Management Program Highway System (CMPHS) by the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) 2009 CMPHS, but the project site is not within close proximity to a recognized Congestion Management Program (CMP) Intersection. The closest CMP Intersection (i.e., Beach Boulevard and PCH) is located approximately 1.25 miles away from the project site. Therefore, short and long-term project traffic will not exceed LOS standards at designated Orange County CMP intersections in the project vicinity. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either El El El R1 an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources:10,11) Discussion: The project site is not located within two miles of apublic or private airstrip and does not propoF, any structures of substantial height to interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ El Q El (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources:l,4) Discussion.: The project site is located along Pacific Coast Highway, a Primary Arterial street. Access to the project exists via Main Street and Walnut Avenue. No new streets, driveways or other street improvements are proposed. Therefore,less than significant impacts are anticipated e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources:1,19) R1 El Discussion: Emergency access to and within the project site would be designed to meet City of Huntington Beach Police Department and City of Huntington Beach Fire Department requirements, as well as the City's general emergency access requirements. The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed plans and determined that emergency access is adequate. Furthermore, the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department will require the preparation of a traffic control plan for project construction; this would ensure adequate emergency access would be maintained during construction. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur after compliance with existing regulations, and future project traffic would not impede emergency access to and from adjacent and surrounding roadways. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources:2,4,5) El El 11 R1 Page 18 Item 14. - 149 I113 -548- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: A total of 530 parking spaces are required for the project (90 spaces for retail, 288 spaces for restaurant, and 152 spaces for office) pursuant to Section 3.2.26 of the DTSP. The property is allocated up to 300 of the 826 parking spaces within the adjacent municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street. 296 parking spaces will be provided on-site within the existing subterranean parking area.and 234 parking spaces will be utilized within the adjacent Municipal parking structure. During construction, up to 20 parking spaces within the existing on-site subterranean parking area will be disrupted and unavailable. However, there is a surplus of available parking within the Municipal parking structure that is allocated to the project to offset this temporary deficiency. The proposed project has been designed according to City parking regulations and has sufficient parking spaces. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,or programs ❑ El ❑ R1 regarding public transit,bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (Sources:2) Discussion: The project will provide bicycle racks onsite, in accordance with the requirements of the DTSP Section 3.2.26.5. No impacts are anticipated. VH. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly orEl El El EZ 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:l,9) Discussion: The proposed project site is currently developed with a mixed-use building. The project site does not support any unique, sensitive, or endangered species, is not shown in the General Plan as a generalized habitat area, and is not in the vicinity of any sensitive habitat. Therefore, no impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ❑ El El Z 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:1,9) Discussion: The project site does not contain any riparian habitat or 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. The project will not result in any loss to endangered or sensitive animal or bird species and does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected El 0 El Z 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:l,9) Page 19 HB -549- Item 14. - 150 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The project does not contain any wetlands;therefore, no impacts are anticipated. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 11 El El Q 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:1,9) Discussion: The project area is surrounded by similar mixed use, commercial and residential developments. The site does not support any fish or wildlife and would not interfere with the movement of any fish or wildlife species nor impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No impacts are anticipated. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protectingEl Q biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources:1,4,9) Discussion: The site is currently developed and contains 31 mature palm trees. The project includes relocation of 7 impacted trees on-site in accordance with standard Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision requirements (remaining 24 will not be disturbed). Pursuant to a recommended mitigation measure to ensure survival or replacement, the applicant shall submit an arborist report that describes the trees to be relocated and proper procedures for the translocation. The report shall include detailed translocation specifications;the work will be performed by a qualified tree service to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department; and any tree that does not survive after four years shall be replaced with the same typ, and size of tree. Implementation of the recommendations of an arborist report pursuant to Mitigation Measui BIO 1 would reduce the potentially significant impact to biological resources on the site to a less than significant level. BIO 1 Tree replacement of any existing mature trees on-site shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 232--Landscape Improvements. For the trees to be relocated, an arborist report shall be submitted and include the following: a. Trees shall be transplanted by a qualified tree service to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. b. Detailed specifications and procedures for the translocation of the identified trees. c. The relocated trees shall be maintained and guaranteed to be alive and thriving after four years by a qualified tree service or arborist to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The trees shall be surveyed every six months for a period of four years as to their viability. The survey shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. In the event that any tree is not surviving, it shall be replaced with the same type and size of tree. d. A letter from the developer stating that the recommendations of the Consulting Arborist will be followed. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources:l,9) Discussion.: As discussed, the project site is currently developed. It does not support any unique or endangered plant or animal species and is not a part of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natura' Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan;therefor, no impacts would occur. Page 20 Item 14. - 151 1-113 -550- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VM. M E4ERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral El 11 El Q resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources:l,9) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ 11 El Q mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources:1,9) Discussion:. a) — b) The project site is not designated as an important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan or any other land use plan. No current onsite oil drilling or extraction operations presently exist or are proposed for the project site. Development of the project is not anticipated to have any impact on any other mineral resources. No impacts to mineral resources are anticipated. M HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 11 Q Q environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources:l,9) Discussion: The proposed mixed use development will not involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials other than use of typical commercial cleaning products which would not pose a significant threat to public or environmental health. The project will not provide on-site fuel dispensing, underground or outdoor storage of hazardous materials. Less than significant impacts regarding the disposal of hazardous materials are anticipated. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 11R1 El environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources:1,9,20,2 1) Discussion: Hazardous materials during operation would be limited to use of commercial cleaning products and building maintenance materials typical of a commercial building. The project would be required to implement MM 4.5-2 of the DTSP EM, which requires construction activities to cease if hazardous materials or contamination is discovered at the site. Additionally, the measure would require the preparation of a Risk Management Plan to protect workers and the public from exposure to hazards during construction and post- development uses and activities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous orEl 11 ❑ acutely hazardous material, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources:l,9) Discussion: The proposed development is not intending to operate the site in a way that would generate hazardous materials. Activities conducted within the development will consist of visitor serving commercial Page 21 BB -551- Item 14. - 152 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact and office uses. These types of uses are restaurant,retail and/or service-oriented in nature and are not likely to involve hazardous materials on a daily basis. In addition, the nearest school is approximately '/2 mile from the project site.No impacts are anticipated. 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:1,21) Discussion: The location of the proposed development is not listed on the State's Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List. No impacts would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 11 El Ef 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:9,11) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach is included in the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan due to the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. However, the site is located such that it would not be impacted by flight activity from the center. No impacts are anticipated. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ Q Q would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources:9,11) Discussion: The project site is not near any private airstrips.No impacts are anticipated. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources:17,19) Discussion: The proposed project will not impede access to the surrounding area and impact implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. No impacts would occur. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources:1) Discussion: The project is located in an urbanized area and is not near any wildlands. No impacts would occur. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan Page 22 Item 14. - 153 H B -552- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): hnpact Incorporated Impact No Impact or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources:1,13,16,22,23) Discussion: A Noise Impact Analysis was prepared by Urban Crossroads to evaluate the noise impacts associated with the proposed project during construction and operation. During site grading for the new building and other construction phases of the project, noise levels on the site may increase from normal construction vehicles such as concrete trucks and a backhoe as well as other equipment and tools typically used on construction sites. Construction of the project will create short-term noise impacts. However, the development will be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.40 Noise Control), which restricts hours of construction to reduce noise impacts to the area to a less than significant level. Though the City exempts construction noise,.the proposed project will incorporate the construction mitigation measures that were included in the DTSP Program E1R to f ether reduce noise at the nearby noise-sensitive residents. Long-term noise impacts from the project are subject to compliance with the City Noise Ordinance as well but are not expected to be a concern due to the proposed uses, which are compatible with the character of the area and will not result in any significant noise impact. The stationary source noise impacts associated with the proposed project include restaurant terrace activities and roof-top air conditioners. Noise attenuation is provided by the proposed plexi-glass terrace barrier as well as 5-foot high parapet walls on the surrounding the rooftop air conditioning units. Existing noise sensitive residential uses are located east of the new restaurant space on the southeastern portion of the project site. The daytime and nighttime project only noise level contributions will range from 0.4 to 0.8 dBA Leq when compared with the quietest daytime and nighttime hours. Although the existing ambient noise level of 65 dBA Leq exceeds acceptable levels, the project noise will contribute less than 3.0 dBA to the existing residential uses and therefore the proposed project will not create a significant noise impact to the surrounding receptors. Less than significant short- and long-term noise impacts resulting from the new development project are anticipated. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive El El 10 El groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources:1,13,16) Discussion: Although there may be some temporary groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels due to onsite construction activities, these would occur infrequently and would be short-term. Occasionally, large bulldozers and loaded trucks may cause perceptible vibration levels at close proximity. The project will include the installation of structural helical piers (or piles) for underpinning of some of the existing footings. These are steel elements (rods,tubes, etc.) that have welded on to them several steel bearing elements shaped in a helical pattern. The method of installation is by screwing the steel elements into the ground by a mini- bobcat with a screw rig attached to the nose, which would only occur within the existing subterranean parking structure. This construction method is substantially less invasive than the more typical construction method involving high levels of noise and vibration from the use of a pile driver and drill rig. Because the proposed project is not expected to employ any pile driving or drilling, rack blasting or heavy grading equipment and with residential uses located greater than 10-feet from construction activities, impacts from groundborne vibration are anticipated to be less than significant. Furthermore, these activities will be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance,which exempts noise construction activity between the hours of 7AM and 8PM, Monday through Saturday. The proposed mixed use development on the project site will not result in the generation of significant groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise during long-term operation. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Page 23 HB -553- Item 14. - 154 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ❑ 11 Q El in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources:1,16) Discussion: The type of noise to be generated by the project in the long term will be similar to that generated by the existing development and other commercial uses in the area and is not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels significantly. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient El El 0 Q noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources:1,13,16) Discussion: The project is anticipated to generate short-term noise impacts during construction. These would occur infrequently and would be short-term. .However, periodically during various stages of construction there may be moderate spikes in the levels of ambient noise. These infrequent spikes will be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance,which regulates hours of construction. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. No other significant noise impacts are expected after construction due to the nature of the project,which is compatible with other uses in the area e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two 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:1,9,11) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach is included in the Planning Area for the Joint Forces Training Center in Los Alamitos. However, the site is located a considerable distance from the Training Center, such that the project would not be impacted by flight activity and noise generation from the Center. No impacts are anticipated. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, El El 11 21 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources:1,11) Discussion: The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. XI.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:1) ❑ El 0 � Page 24 Item 14. - 155 1413 -554- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Police Protection? (Sources:l) El ❑ Q El Discussion: a)-b) The proposed project has been reviewed by Huntington Beach Fire Department and Police Department staff. The project site is located within approximately%mile from Lake Fire Station and within 1- %Z miles of the Main Police Station and approximately 1/4 mile from the Downtown Police Substation. Estimated emergency first response times from the Lake Fire Station are within the 80 percent/ 5 minute response time objective established in the City's Growth Management Element_ Estimated emergency first response times from the Police Main Station are within acceptable service levels. According to input from the Police and Fire Departments,the proposed development can be adequately served by existing Fire and Police protection service levels. Accordingly, the project would not result in significant impacts to police and fire services. c) Schools? (Sources:l) El El Q El Discussion: The project does not include new residential units and will not directly result in new residents. However, the increase of employment opportunities and commercial convenience may indirectly result in a minor increase of residents. Any increase as a result of the project would not be substantial; therefore the potential increase of residents as a result of employment will not noticeably impact school operations. The applicant will also be required to pay school district fees for the net increase in the floor area proposed. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Parks? (Sources:l) 0 ❑ Discussion: See discussion under XI(e)and XV—Recreation. e) Other public facilities or governmental services? El El Q El (Sources:1) Discussion: The proposed project has been reviewed by responsible City departments, including Public Works, Fire, and Community Services, each of which determined that any potential impacts to public services are adequately addressed via standard code requirements and conditions of approval.Additionally, the impacts to public libraries are anticipated to be less than significant because the project does not include residential. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the El El El El applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources:1,21) Discussion: The proposed sewer flow at the project site will be approximately 7,000 gpd. The ,new wastewater discharges from the proposed project would place additional demand upon regional treatment facilities. The operational discharges of the proposed project will be sent to the project's sewer system, which would ultimately be treated at one or more of the OCSD wastewater treatment plants. The OCSD wastewater treatment plants are required to comply with their associated waste discharge requirements(WDRs.). WDRs set Page 25 HB -555- Item 14. - 156 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact the level 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 proposed project would not exceed the applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board with respect to discharges to the sewer system. This would result in a less than significant impact. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 11 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources:1,4,20) Discussion: The project would not require the construction of new or significant expansion of existing water or wastewater treatment facilities. There are existing public water pipelines along Pacific Coast Highway and the alley behind the project site that could satisfy the demands of the project. A Utility Plan for new water service connections shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. All utility connections to the project site will be in accordance with all applicable City standards and no adverse impacts to the City's utilities or services are anticipated. c) Require or result in the construction of new stoma water El ❑ Q 11 drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1,4,20) Discussion: The project is not expected to result in the construction of new or significant expansion c. existing storm water facilities. The project will not require extensions of public services and utilities to the site. All utility connections to the project will be in accordance with all applicable CBC, City ordinances, and Public Works Utilities Division standards. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ L1 Q 11 project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources:1,14, 20) Discussion: The proposed project would result hi an intensification of the project site with a net increase of approximately 27,772 sq. ft., which may increase overall water demand. However,the project would not result in a significant increase in water consumption that was not previously planned for in the 2010 Water Master Plan and 2010 Urban Water Management Plan as residential uses, which typically use more water, are a permitted use on the site and the Urban Water Management PIan assumes this type of development on the property. Additionally, the proposed uses and estimated square footages are included in the development potential analyzed in the DTSP Program EIR. Therefore, the estimated project demand can be accommodated by the City's water supply and does not represent a significant impact. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ Q 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:1,5,21) Discussion: The proposed uses would generate approximately 8,750 gallons of wastewater per day. Sewage Page 26 Item 14. - 157 HB -556- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact from the proposed project will be delivered from the City feeder lines that connect to the Orange County Sanitation District's trunk sewer lines. The wastewater generated from the proposed project would be treated by the Orange County Sanitation District's Plans No. 1 and No.2. The two plants have a treatment capacity of 276 million gallons per day(mgd). Average daily flow to both plants combined is 243 mgd. These levels provide an additional capacity of 33 mgd for both Plants No. 1 and No. 2. The proposed project would generate negligible wastewater and would require the use of approximately 0.0002651% of the remaining capacity of the OCSD's facilities;therefore,less than significant impacts are anticipated. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity11 ❑ to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources:1,21) Discussion: Rainbow Disposal is the exclusive hauler of all solid waste for the City of Huntington Beach. Rainbow Disposal operates a Transfer Station, located at 17121 Nichols Street within the City of Huntington Beach, and two Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) through which all solid waste is processed. Rainbow Disposal's Transfer Station has a design capacity of 2,800 tons per day, and current utilization ranges between 53 and 71 percent. Assuming a worse-case scenario of 71 percent utilization,the daily solid waste contribution to this transfer station under the proposed project would be less than one percent at approximately 0.000005 percent of its entire design capacity. Utilization of the transfer station would not be noticeably impacted with implementation of the proposed project. The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) currently owns and operates three active landfills that serve the Orange County region, including: Frank R Bowerman Landfill in Irvine; Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea; and Prima Deschecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. All three landfills are permitted as Class III landfills and have a combined design capacity of 20,500 tons per day. Solid waste from the project site would be sent to the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine. Permitted capacity for the landfill is limited to 8,500 tons per day. However, if the per day capacity is reached at the Bowerman Landfill, trucks are diverted to one of the other two landfills: Olinda Alpha in Brea(capacity 8,000 tonsiday) and Prima Deschecha in San Juan Capistrano(capacity 4,000 tons/day) in the county. Using the solid waste generation factors identified by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), the estimated amount of solid waste generated by the proposed project is shown in the table below. Pro-asedPrneCtn�- ry >t 'Rig ��v,,,s'= floi '_ '+�,,+, :IYfL'ZtS yOffice 1.24lbs/ern to eelda 150 1861bs/da Commercial 10.531bs/ern to eelda 200 2,106lbs/day 2,292 lbs/day(1.15 tnlday) 836,580 lbs/yr(418.29 Total 350 tn/r) SOURCE- California Integrated Waste Management Board,Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, http:ww-w.ciwmb.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates. Based on landfill capacity, the solid waste contribution to any of the three landfills that serve the project site is less than one percent of their allowed daily capacity. With Rainbow Disposal able to accept all commercial and construction waste from the project site and with sufficient current and future landfill capacity, the solid waste impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. Page 27 1413 -557- Item 14. - 158 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 regulations related to solid waste? (Sources:1) Discussion: Prior to 2008, Assembly Bill(AB) 939 established a requirement of 50 percent diversion of solid waste by the year 2000. Based on data from 2006, the City of Huntington Beach maintained a 71 percent diversion rate from Orange County landfills, thereby meeting and exceeding the requirements. In 2008, California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 1016, which modified the system of measuring a jurisdiction's compliance with solid waste disposal requirements previously under AB 939. SB 1016 established a per-capita disposal rate as the instrument of measurement. The City of Huntington Beach is subject to a per resident disposal rate target of 10.4 pounds per person per day (PPD). According to date from annual reports submitted by the City and published by CalRecycle, the City's PPD rate dropped from 5.5 in 2007 to 4.6 in 2009, demonstrating compliance with SB 1016. Therefore, no impacts would occur. h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment ❑ ❑ Q ❑ control Best Management Practice(BMP),(e.g.water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources:l) Discussion: The project is required to be designed such that water quality from the proposed development shall not exceed the pre-development condition. Development of the project will result in stormwater runoff flow to maintain similar preexisting drainage conditions,with a majority of the storm water flow to be diverted to an on-site storage tank via retrofitted on-site catch basins and then pumped into proposed cooling towers and reused. Its installation is included in the construction scenario for the proposed project and is not anticipated to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. Therefore, less than significant impacts a anticipated. XHI. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources:1,3,4) Discussion: The project is located on Pacific Coast Highway, a scenic corridor in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element. The setting along PCH is characterized by beach facilities, shoreline, the.Municipal Pier, and recreational amenities on the south side and a mix of development on the north side. The architecture of the proposed building consists of a contemporary design theme, which includes materials such as light colored smooth stucco finish, tower elements, flat roof and glass railing systems. The applicant submitted a public view analysis consisting of renderings of the completed project at varying angles. The renderings illustrate that existing public views, such as views looking north and south along PCH, will not be impacted by the proposed project. The project's design, colors,and materials are consistent with the guidelines established by the Design Guidelines (Chapter 4, Book II) of the DTSP. The proposed project will be located across PCH, away from nearby scenic vistas(i.e.,pier and beach), and will not have a substantial adverse effect to these scenic resources and,therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ❑ ❑ ❑ not limited to, trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources:1,2 1) Discussion: The State of California Department of Transportation designates scenic highway corridors. T]- project site is located within and visible from an eligible state scenic highway, Pacific Coast Highway. Ti. project is designed with quality architecture and material so as to contribute to the character of the area. The Page 28 Item 14. - 159 HB -558- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact project site does not contain rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources:1,2 1) Discussion: The proposed project is designed in accordance with the DTSP Design Guidelines. The proposed building is an expansion of the existing Pierside Pavilion development and will complement the existing architectural elements and details. The DTSP Program EIR describes how development within the existing downtown core primarily consists of commercial and mixed-use developments ranging from one-story stand alone commercial buildings to four-story mixed use (commercial/office/residential) developments with residential uses interspersed throughout. The most intense development and activity occur at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, across from. the Municipal Pier, Pier PIaza, and the beach. Two large developments—the subject Pierside Pavilion and the Qceanview Promenade project are developed on the two comers of the intersection with 4 stories each and heights that reach up to 71 feet high and architectural features that are 90 feet high. The project includes a variance request to exceed the maximum height of 45 feet. The project proposes four stories with a building height of 68 feet topped with an 8-foot glass screen wall and an architectural tower (mechanical housing) up to 90 feet high. The design intent is to match the existing building height and floor plates to allow for more efficient access and internal circulation. However, the 4th floor top plate exceeds the minimum required floor height and as such, staff recommends a condition of approval to require a reduction of the 4`s floor top plate to match the existing 4 h floor top plate. This would allow for the design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, lunit the extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum height. The project was reviewed by the City's Design Review Board (DRB), who is charged with reviewing projects for consistency with community design standards and objectives. The DRB made several recommendations to address the building's size and scale to ensure further compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore,less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which Q would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources:1,3,4) Discussion: The proposed project is located within a highly urbanized area. Because the project will result in a larger development in terms of building volume, overall height, and site coverage from existing conditions, implementation of the proposed project may result in additional nighttime lighting and the potential for glare from the building including the rooftop dining and outdoor patio areas. The project will be subject to a standard condition of approval that requires lighting to be shielded and directed so as to prevent glare and spillage onto adjacent properties including neighboring residential uses located to the east. Furthermore, the project proposes to incorporate building materials into the project design that are consistent with those identified within the DTSP Design Guidelines. The project may introduce new reflective elements, which include glass railings, windows, and paint finishes that may result in a potential of direct glare impacts onto adjoining properties and vehicular traffic along PCH and Main Street. However, these surfaces are minimal in comparison to the total area utilizing non-reflective/matte exterior surfaces and are consistent with the type and amount of materials utilized on other surrounding developments. Therefore, impacts related to a new source of substantial glare will be less than significant. Pajze 29 HB -559- Item 14. - 160 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ El ❑ 0 a historical resource as defined in 515064.5? (Sources:1,9,21) Discussion: The project site does not contain any historic structures and is not located within any of the City's historic districts. No historical resources will be impacted by construction of the project. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ El ❑ Q an archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? (Sources: 1,9,21) Discussion: The project site is not located on an identified archaeological site. Furthermore, the site is presently developed and has been previously graded and no archeological sites have been found. It is not likely that cultural resources are present on the site. No impacts are anticipated. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological El El El Q resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1,9,21) Discussion: The project site is not designated as having any paleontological resources and does not contain any unique geologic features. No impacts are anticipated. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred El El 11 Rf outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1,9,21) Discussion: Given that the project site is presently developed and no archeological sites have been previously recorded,the project is not expected to result in the disturbance of human remains. No impacts are anticipated. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing El El Q ❑ neighborhood, community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources:1) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require El El Q El the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources:4) c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources:l,4) El El El Discussion: a)—c) The increased use of existing neighborhood, community and regional parks or recreations' facilities would be minimal and would likely consist of occasional use by employees. Page 30 Item 14. - 161 xB -560- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Construction of the proposed project will occur entirely on the subject site and does not include construction of recreational amenities/facilities. Access along the adjoining right-of-ways (PCH and Main Street) may be restricted during various phases of site development. However, such disturbances will be temporary and will not impede access to or affect use of adjacent recreational opportunities, specifically those amenities located across PCH (i.e. beach, pier and pier plaza). The project will be required to pay park fees as identified in Chapter 230.20 of the HBZSO. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. 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 project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Farmland 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) Discussion: The project site does not serve as farmland and does not contain any farming operations. Development of this project will not result in the conversion of any farmland. No impacts would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Williamson Act contract? (Sources:1) Discussion.: The subject site is presently zoned SP5 (DTSP), which does not permit agricultural uses. In addition, the project site is not under a Willamson Act contract. Development of the site would not conflict with agricultural uses or zoning. No impacts would occur. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ Q which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources:1) Discussion: The site is currently developed with a mixed-use building surrounded by commercial and residential uses. No environmental changes associated with the proposed project would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. XVH. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment?(Sources: 8,23) Discussion: The proposed project would result in a total of approximately 140.7 tons of CO2 emissions during construction and would emit 4.69 tons of COz amortized over the 30-year lifetime. Operational CO2 emissions Pa�,,e 31 HB -56 1- Item 14. - 162 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact would be approximately 2218.36 tons/year. Therefore, the project would produce GHG emissions. Otht, GHG emissions could result from increases in electricity and natural gas usage and solid waste production, all of which would occur with the proposed project. The total annual project GHG emissions, including amortized construction emissions, are expected to be 2223.05 tons, which is less than the 3,000 ton annual threshold proposed by the SCAQMD. Therefore, construction and operational emissions are expected to result in less than significant impacts based on the total GHG emissions. b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ greenhouse gases?(Sources: 8,23) Discussion: AB 32 codifies the state's goal to reduce its global warming by requiring that the state's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on greenhouse gas emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. In order to effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board(CARB) to develop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor greenhouse gas emissions levels. In addition, the Natural Resources Agency recently adopted amendments to the CEQA guidelines (effective March 18, 2010) that require an evaluation and determination of the significance of a project's greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments require the lead agency to make a good faith effort in describing, calculating or estimating the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project using qualitative and/or quantitative analyses and methodologies. The proposed project would incorporate design features that promote energy efficiency and a reduction in GHG emissions, both directly and indirectly. In addition, the project is required to comply with all applicable C? codes and requirements pertaining to energy efficiency and water use efficiency as well as applicab. requirements for construction equipment that would limit truck and equipment idling times, exhaust and dust. The identified project design features and applicable requirements are consistent with the GHG reduction strategies recommended by the California Climate Action Team (COAT), the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association(CAPCOA)and the California Attorney General's office. The proposed project's impacts on greenhouse gases emissions are described in item(a)above. Because the proposed project would comply with City codes and the project emissions would be less than the proposed SCAQMD threshold for annual GHG emissions,the project would not conflict with adopted plans to carry out AB 32. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. XVIR. 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:1,3,4) Discussion: The project site is currently developed. It is not located within any wildlife or biological resourr area and therefore will not impact any fish,wildlife, or plant community. The site does not contain any histor, resource. Based on discussions in Sections I to XVH above,the project is anticipated to have no impact on the Page 32 Item 14. - 163 HB -562- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than. Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact quality of the environment. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ El R1 El 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:1,2,9) Discussion: The project was anticipated and considered as part of the new development potential analyzed within the DTSP Program EIR. As discussed above in Sections I to XVII, the project with implementation of standard code requirements, conditions of approval, and applicable mitigation measures adopted for the DTSP Program EIR is anticipated to have less than significant impacts and would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which Q will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources:1,2,9) Discussion: As discussed in Sections I to XVII, the project with implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measure 13I0-1, standard code requirements, conditions of approval, and applicable mitigation measures adopted for the DTSP Program EIR, will have a less than significant impact or less than significant with mitigation impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Page 33 1413 -563- Item 14. - 164 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: Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan/City of Huntington City of Huntington Beach Planning& Beach Local Coastal Plan Building Dept.,Planning/Zoning Information Counter,2000 Main St,3rd Floor,Huntington Beach, and at www.huntingtonbeachcagov/Government/ Departments/Planning/gp 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office,2000 Main St,2nd Floor, Huntington Beach,and at www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/govemment/ charter codes 3 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#1 4 Preliminary Site Plan,Floor Plans,Elevations, Section See Attachment#2 Elevations,Tentative Parcel Map 5 Project Narrative See Attachment#3 6 City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report City of Huntington Beach Planning Building Dept. (see#1) 7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(December 3, 2009) " 8 CEQA Air Quality Handbook " South Coast Air Quality Management District(1993) 9 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook " 10 Trip Generation Handbook, 7"'Edition,Institute of Traffic " Engineers I 1 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training " Base Los Alamitos(Oct. 17,2002) 12 State Seismic Hazard,Zones Map City of Huntington Beach Planning& Building Dept. (see#1) 13 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office(see#2) GAENV[RONMICHECKLST Page 34 Item 14. - 165 HB -564- 14 2010 Urban.Water Management Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning& Building Dept.(see#1) 15 Water Quality Management Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning& Prepared by W.J.McKeever, Inc. (February 2012) Building Dept.(see#1) 16 Noise Impact Analysis City of Huntington Beach Planning& (November 2011) Building Dept. (see#1) 17 City of Huntington Beach Emergency Management Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning& Building Dept.(see#1) 18 Air Quality Impact City of Huntington Beach Planning& Prepared by Urban Crossroads(September 2011) Building Dept.(see 91) 19 Traffic Study City of Huntington.Beach Planning& Prepared by Minagar&Associates,In.(February 2012) Building Dept. (see 91) 20 Code Requirements Letter(March 2012) Attachment 44 21 Downtown Specific Plan EIR City of Huntington.Beach Planning& Building Dept.(see#1) 22 Downtown Specific Plan EIR—Mitigation Measures Attachment#5 23 Project Mitigation Measure Attachment#6 24 Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Huntington Beach Planning& Prepared by Urban Crossroads(June 2012) Building Dept.(see#1) 25 Geotechnical Report City of Huntington Beach Planning& Prepared by Petra(October 2011) Building Dept.(see#1) Page 35 HB -565- Item 14. - 166 Item 14. - 167 xB -566- g8g 6 t 3 tAcr - m�szcamc I — t _ WAIIIILII rAtae� �. CLEM t J Y,0;0=wg f AbAM J Jn ak"r.. A1,1111 lr�Ti € 'vim�..'�`s ` V' �,,�s�_x "`.✓_ �'' -� J 11,11,01, r.e: ..- �/- -; ..... `_` ON _ ba Subject Site YICIMTY NIAP NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-007 (PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION) 300 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HB -567- A €AC! HkAl- � Item 14�- 168 i■fit;; :��1���I�JI;r :.. :.. :: : . .. .,... .. '_ _; �r.�� ADJACENT► epp J�E }��ti3a3[ ¢l A. y qi♦�■■■rl ° �m i _.-■��I�ei mum ftll • I {t3ri:}'..i�$ .,y9€ '1�'ISl[.(di}8 =1�■■1 .� • I �siY�)'�"��'�J,,'�y� � yF}4�f}5 'pry Tc�� �■■1♦■� • ■ �It i"Y� pl'1'�f 1,2 �a FY''�����I� 1'Fi�'l�y�d'1■■. �111l��a�I�F ® gJ r Z■YLt■iotlon�E�uu4°i3LJ t`✓✓r•� ,5 m �3 Gz�-W r ■■■t• ADJACENT lEaBUILDING•■■� _t. �� ro v�J�6P� e[ ��w l��a;l!.g�l"�'t� u�'�r{� d f � r��.�+�1 +eiT■■■I � � . ,.. .., i■■! k e` R mni I 11■I" t� mnin }"pYft {t ty u E■�1 —k r, f -# � [ ` ./LS' v i 71 .E I ®R ■ ® ®�111V., q t '1" .A} \t*�y'i v y . i� � J' Ash `x jl Cs t F: rt ����rf�s� I�[' C • i• b S r1 , 4a i r k ,k ! rt1 'T , dYtiur4 �h s� ��'t ' j'{ tiT drt "kI ■■■/ 14SY•II� f1R! IAA■ Y�� ti r ��RRff�Nk5 [ � _ fM,y Y'bY� .A yyjj ii \ri �����I 4 -}.tab •,.. ■ ■ Ii �� h {k t�a�.� 1 a ,�;t t,:�,� s���"�'tzjj� ' �■Ic�����_,�,,'�` ' r t�t�' iii'wi 1� ■ ' trl �'off"t ' � A�tt" ° ,�k 1 1 ' � ` � g � �� Ida� f.,y, ' +Y•{ r �r h!{~�y s'F�4p �i .�+•J.jgi ■■■!11■1 � ,� F�`��+`p� a�.xat ;x eY1n�r;C w �a 4 vf�[r •44 C� } �t!{"q h si F7 lrc7 rir 1yJx p R Rr �CR■ill!' P 6 t 9 t ;, o t �! cp .... . r •_ �Sifi! � + 'i'Fl hl 4'^�1'�s P'tt a v � ��� d+r SOW �•+t' tir� �� fi':■I 'i.r^ � ,� u�r, ��FFnr�r■rrrrnrset, ■!ll<' r"t� + r , , ,r v 24f,A 'F 1 ®■i 'j� T r a + ■■■=I �� mswt• r� yTG rgr'SF �P iy ■i b "� ■ ■I� rbµ o "� 6.3 R K�i .11 �4 � �v� A���'1 ■ t�1..3 ,�a � ♦ x�fN � ����,,��a�++,,'3' R.� �i���i.�'" Y. I ng■� f if �'3��5'11.. ����111 �,- !''�� ,�\� .,."�Y �[�'I,� # Y } a4 l'S,�.Y-: q��— A.& � �bf �'�r�r�■ ,Fmr)' i1 s�i �� 1`C` �Jf ��f�P "�,F���i�r qll� s ? 22';�^as ■�■L';' � - .. e ..a'kR �U � 7! .. r awl, �S . a CY#fl..t�■■■ .�, '. .- . • �Z�\���_ nlyli�likM1(t'1Ir1111Mi■fl iI111M1f�■i:M��'�lwfi�illll�I '� � i d r■r► ��[r•�w�Sl�liA��11■=Ii#��L�r\■■ 1i1�._ 11�#Ir" � +'_ ['�...r., �a�-•-- �Mrdw�����n�����i�l_��M'��ji������m�".`C�`'S......�+..11L'+rl++!'s:�S:L"llit"FI���U `cam sa4�lnl�L��IIrltlllJNu�f.il111r11��t�1�� O r� MODEL a Q o o �a o - ArtNWW IA°. s dd Prol.[+N iN�w w a,w a Q -ss F.aDxLNxmo w::n.uiF'°R.:wN 0 0 lR --i ® l7 p rl b T I- o O 0 Rl El71 r CJ Oul '� aESPNEo t l� El x' n T T 7 T T T "I ® ❑ EINTAN. K sTAfEa Q ® © EATA l ANE nA as LL a F i rnrA[,rANwo NaWnm .xo arAuo I Li F o00 ®ono a® � o m T T T T Q r ❑ .L ❑ J ❑ 1 ❑ 1 , ❑ ❑ C rElLJ F� aTNFAf IxE�LiW6TANDEYPMnNVFPwaA DN LLI S IMCIN61EYEli[. �' Film �� ff=f--Nff �i ],WRNAPPAOYEDVMETPMCIryc IAraN2EADDRIOMAI !�J OO :,Il LJ11 O ❑C Q gir. �i r T 1.:+ 1 J L JIFfAP�WE1lf[OND I°F'%I4 PIEVFIfoAAmFALaf N L -�- uvAferPAnlnxov,FCEs. n n! .MEPEANE 30°EPAFESWTIENNIF[wMD[MATIL4PA ��, Q - ® NIAIDFAFof FNCPANINYLALFi y� `/�✓'A NI z ll f 7F a a CI s s CON5TRUCrIONr • �BD�L NaNE.aSfXa. M E R OR) ° a1rH rl LJ]IaPPol LteNPN 1. ea n o 0 0 � - - a C7 O fl d O 0 O O O O Cl O O EE e I oa„Y i qD moo 0 o o Q lapp e LENENO -E 0 0 0 0 o fl ATEE L7 OEj 1 1 1 1 1 p�aerunupr�� eei irAAILOun GJ� «.ArAUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a _or >oiu N°°NiE LD En N ooa Qo�a oQ o 0 o K ° 1 .L X .1. J �--� ini1EPN0EMeion cuNovL,vwuNan.ceFeNu Lu IMEINOIEYfLPl W X u Y ].WlIHMYMvp°v4q MM1CIX4lAY°VIL/.°miMVW Q G.AfiuNafJAPs¢NUN'MENWTIP111s"ES.NN36 GAS w sm Q y ^ O O ❑y M �.�w° yyaPiutiN 6XFLFfOno lrzl Wl4 wPPmr of (� �, •V Ll L� ALPfI:TE]OOSPAffSINIHFPNBIlG6MAGEYSNTIEryN� 1(�Y FOR H f T°IPLocs6cpwprya SPP26, 11 g e•^ A � M L7'Q• may,, r�y � I A �pT joo coN�RUCrcr N wALWEAVENUE -----------L -- 1 m � Wo 4 M..16ILEW irvr�aucmn .j I �I ADJACENT BUILDINGS °1 hT=I I N� ss m. � - �'• ... ; ADJACENT U BUILDING ', i I = i LEGEND ' II i� .� ,�Mi dv}i � {! i,a: xcwswxnxa cxs.lSwcs/,Waal I � `l.�y rid;• I p^• I x.� I I � twlixuaUN00R olalxapvls3d J EL c4 W CE .51 --- ----- a f PACIFICCOASTHIGHWAY NSTFOR TRuCTfON' �a m Rik WALNUT AVENUE -5 IdBYffi 9 mmtui I I I B9uX I� pWNADeyEppL�� I N1kY �• I I --`i1 I .N�nI bW+W l l I 1 1 I II I 1 1 N �'pWuwuuu°y d�anu - 1I 4 wr `YI!' to Q .io°er - ETCSERVIG - I I c,;I �j OilI O t I , I— `! �I Irv' O�pN 11 IXapv6 (IilOrsup.. II I I � ry0 M CL PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Za a =.: MOTR�'ION w u1 d' N 1 Mi111 1•In• S alPRl•u 1 .� r�Gpoxl• • P '— 1 1.�1a.uc2lal tn.u.clu oo�000�o]o nann n 7 • e • _ .A L{EG�ENO .may oJtNIpKF 6pil5 i. 1 T � npFN SPMEnUtiMM M • rrv• .i � I �¢ ' a� .�h' •n.�^rs.�a • ..`u; ..�., u..0 11 S � LL ADJACENT BUILDING • L a -..,n:4;; tiG;iTv,YG"�,$�.f.• :xST' LEGEND �r Vi LL „ }� d nv xwwixcMul�sosr.aovr LL 1 .w. ww Purpoanwxw•fe'+'xssJd LL ?��"� '.�'�Y'•.'`+:'�'..v: __ .� �uisrxcwaocaswMxs SAass,rl LL a;';'.y� �� y Mofn RRMCEMF416f3NFll•i,wlSFl ILL k ;r'ti,�',4 4 ]snsnNamu.taMull.asss.el LLLL LLLLLL LLLLL LLB LL_L t LLLLLLLLLI.. " °L"C'C'✓r �•�..� 5 $ Q CL bO fe NOT FOR ON vi CONSTRUCT, W eennw cr nnfa w.xt 1 �AUE1 wiwx..uxwu ,,xm,uxmm a :.,iaaxnou= • �H 7 d' p u L tl BUIIILDIING L L blaL B ." wI o .m.w L LEGEND �'a L 5 L P 0 xnv�ulWax YG16,Nas.x.cxrSp LLL x _ _ IMfILLMGp6iiiJ Lss_.s — I L kF�7�.Ixe,GG�MG ranux C LLLLLLLLLL-. I"V`LLLLLLLLLLL s (` o»�� O .--I O f �Z �F Np7 FOR ION Fx- CaNSTRUICTi r•� NBOR � NNdR�iR Rm epstlRl PrRi by T�ayW�.GMwm6 F.110�PrR rrnkY«c.mn e� ADJACENT ® BUILDING Q; m�a �r N m r LEGEND fy i ��(�ruwlYluM�RRU W.nauuuvl �u-.s M{ILLMulu�ss� �r rJ, u —i -_ ®.xunxsnMACRARRA(�1s.f,RJ Q '� O `may 1b X OT UCE b J �...5 F� CN IwYII FI lIAP Pl A,RI �« 1 � YOR 6pdF Pmla:k R a. tmfv.Yi,G:Yent r.finmamm 0 rTx-s r� V'7 1 ADJACENT BUILDING �,w w:o „� mewu (IfGEND �y�� Yp�am/�:!NtWWILDfxf µxx 111ussJ ' , - Y!/G'4 anvnaR OWwc/3,Mti.1 u x.xwxxxd..�..mx. mom.. O NoRUCT Lt CDN d.e A-7 I--� oio d' i i i i i sq�i>•�,o�, fi°°w.Fwd a. Fd��lmr GLA69 SCREEN WALL ..' 4 I1�'t'%�1/f - ` rJ.�i ___-f'" %:%.Hk'• mwmmuur F �•,: �.L�3{� r.f.�.� '�'L'L•Vi^" VYw' .'L';J� _^Y�'.wv.W�,:.��'• oq GLASS AAILINa DETAIL y,..,.�. 3 BOLIN ELEVATION v,°i,.,r 2 I S� •;<Lj• i i � ��, i i i � o Y ?•i�',.u''.:.,:i4NM,,sE 6 Ull Lyp w ¢� dH. .d!Jrm'Gr� EL Q !. No UCiioN N tC l---_J CONSTRv��r Ma ELEVATION AT ATM 2A- oc .xjg,-- WEST ELEVATION-Pa�,�- 2 x!0 ------ - ----- :�ii�aw— '7 Lu Z' All co Ld CC Z -4-4 A-9 C) 00 wm mm FM low Is'19 WEST BEGROWELEVATtO c4m 01 cc LU z w 0 NOIRFUOCRTION z W- C) CONS, � X{�, 'i sti f illile fitl; 11 - �' CIF 4 rJl ��� !I"";�� f tf�.i�'�,� F:_ kWtl {�- N � ,�"� i�'•- °� � � a!i •>„� r i y + _ II1 ill lFq P Ili . "jiff 1� + � N y� MIN ✓I i 1; t�t of enC f I _ rl , ..:f N�r1t{F S Arryy; IpAR f! 5 Will Ifxuln •'�.,�{+:i'... — J. f :1 ��R t� '®' � ��� r�,,.p�4r'�r!J��o S r� ��� � flo MIZEM "` ,�-_ _m :'v�°3�/ I� FI rr Ipr�iu i rt�iiil r7l�I W 9nq trA• i�ilj-. „ i � �^'!, J1,I� r � f , f . ry � v^" — 'Ai qFITw r r [ s U �I1'' 8g A C, '�I 3 1 � `i� • � `e} „h. t{ �`� P � f i '�+,+ � t _ .: �.� P V•`�- ir1 r �-� �.��k � � r,e .*� � }y ti. i d "--PGT"'•.r -•-•-��"c� _y �1 � ,_ II ., T tt�y J ga t�:. � f? )l f�,y-:l .S+ig`rya t'.w�,t1"�J�rl '!�CSt�',�f m �:a.^�� i h G*':t � !!� ■ :" 2�3 �_ - .�f � v,C ,:-w 1 u r r��� _ t■■ti t . b n 7 u ►t � fl�t r spy °t���� � +. 0 .i.a. ,.,, `S ,y}� ■u, I 21t? �tk 3P �If �1NNIR '� ■ g �",: u■_�°eG' T} �, z'1g.�` tC c if�e7al��I h��j�K�A Gi■�h. ' ^1 3 F S � t}§`� �� 7 �, ■■aa, . x � ..`—... • r � a {1 a C.xr ���i y, r�t � lil��✓ qer■ a, r i , � = ----- "' Yi .�� �"•,�a�S �,€ � rat a. ,�,r w■ rrui i��r■nrr■u r xt�t IN lit +• a a y -Mv �N O �a Aft r 1 1 1 I � i 1 4 co K W. a °_ w _ 3VRIE YdSS114 P1ERS©E PAVUJON HEPO . _-x- gg�pF a W PACH CAT AWAY 14F Item 14. - 183 HB -582- 471 i ArlIMIENT NOS 2. 15 d' o0 d' REVISIONS WALNUT AVENUE -- -----'----_--------- --------- ---- I l iuu�.+a {x/n hingtonlr robusd Merino Fur PsLn IIII Phoeviv arursndc Csosr3'Isun:l2nlm Shn+hv r 'kd W9Lth.,&,idus• Kangaroo P— fg ' w Awnimts WiPP t L I q.Ppple Aeorrium a '¢ Callistaom'livlcJohD' I3deJahn Botdcbnuh TK"GRATES•tmbl k GEL DESIGNSI i' _ Cnsdylinc amtrelis Conlylioc eesxiarnw.tox svAer trvene rt ut t I C.—p Arhdla Amtdlian Fuschia 'Pink Fiwuugo' Diurclla r Iuer Lildc QEY Flux Illy myin— V I � Myae afiiornuv African Boarvood r+ ¢ i Itamrarinus oLHtisSslis Fora—y !.w Sdpa tawuissms Madan Fcalha gmss )""t ADJACENT ) BUILDINGS Ground Cova Dpmuudia mugedme Dymoadla yMj - Fesrua GvLv Glvua Faij.Blue Feacue gg 'F1ija Blue' 1 R�! Seaedo trandafisae M.4 Chalk S&6 �', 3 •� M o �® a ° I n ITEM s OD ll) 3l cvnuui ; ADJACENT S T QF76 26"20"25' Q UILD NG �j SQF32 32"26"27" SQF36 36"30"30" l .miir:w —t SOFH24 2/" t8"1T' ' •Half Pot• 7 SQFH72 32"16"27' ,Ra.Yi 1 "FIvl Honaru4 ADJACENT cx33snNGlaamscnesPL.ANMR pW BUILDING 1 - "11°'u""' To BB EBFLNISHflD AIVI3 nFiUSBD d b ir1 mulaxan he { I I l 1.a •IICASH RECB-A— 8124111 111 t--------- -J `�sJ' ssnutt�lsT aF LLI '� � IA.�NDSGPEAREASUMMMY `Y PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY R PEQUIp 1pOPG5ED SF[H sheet ✓ NFW LANDSCAPE PIANrING 31/f.i. 1d1V"�""�"'' TQFAL APEA SI50 S.F• 1347 S.F. 3A.1.14 /( ��..nn •pASEDW ID9L OF'1[)TAL RELUlRFO PUpULaPEN SPA �� ` t3,,, +q,, � r:'V iZy, ..:� :�" / '. l E.� 1 \,..t�A / J.• I.,•�`43�y�1 i -ir '�a,/�y <,•I . 'hy1;+•W44. I "' 11rjY+ , ....;(f:: rb ..n4r _ t}, �V `..i rt ;:i. •.', ei • sl•i�1 Pt1isNp h�._`J.-. [tyt tT�d s7eV, '• r i6 5a *.ci4';3rrv'� 6t a :.0 r♦, rr. v t r- -`�". yt t li. ,- �I'r/ R''w�K,,. 4 ' ... � s :, I fir;Jti� C. " ' i I .. � {•i{� .; �� �+ 1 - • • 'a ✓ h•,-M11 i '.'T t t 1T I ; •U { - 1 i Y �YYi • •r�, s-x ' I•Y' Ei'li '�'� r ,� .. `r y �� 1 + I + I dsr+r.i.dr l ! rr 57a ! r 4?r ,,., <.. ,. ;. ��j-;+ • :..: '' �". ?.;". :..+. _.. Y -,. � r�r..a„nth .v+i• ' �.:+: I , �.F+" +'�i. .�': -"r+y..s•-� �`� .�' 1;•1'\ ` �lJ�x%���2��.p i ,):w 6 - i.` ��tl A I -I Cr 1, �,k � � ,'; ',r. ,/�r 1,�,�,�_� '.I ?Ake' '�.r. -� • ': f'�!h ra.;Y.es :f''�r h rt� +, I •i: �� F.'S r I .ti r;-�' - u S 1•' jr� j _ x r ty 3R.{. '� �'v��-I�rE +r•.::'�7«-.""lJ-�Jti .� �l. L}� •{�Al^�'1� rl' +. b�1�/} �^C`` 1,1i•�1�. I..n .�. _1 •Z �t y,.��D _- -_i. y..� ti`... � ' �)./� .'.2 \ tt' Sxlrn'R r ( { �t � I.� \ - +r ,� 7'qt•'=..s.d. � ":'�� Cr °s<trit{�.r ''f3'.t� J 'i�: LN �JI.1il I r k: y i�'. /;.. L� `4r:1: ..�C� +-.jl.;s ,l �tltf fP,{J%r'^ .►iJ t.`4,��.C Ir dl t I`"I�'."Rt .r' r13 /i �y-i fit • . �`���4� f R$s_. ��. .�V`r..'ia4i's ,II�I �r .o `j J r Irlk�ho<�ri�LlfkS s`f��/ .rF i. '•)I � `S ,soi t:rly;�ti ,I ',may,, ...+ ,�rg> *>t a I"k 1 ,�„o_ 1 'r-!� ,.,tl rrE 1: K-1.�, s �.«t 14 fr 161�1.k j�1l,�'tYve.��y I7 'L.' `t kti�,�•�7� _tickr1;1,{t►{ �fIMS;y r _ t°�' l' J, 1 ,`< � .y -Y{ 'f:. \ :�,�� - f��'�f,��jf�{r+t I14FI111)�U7!.{! `,� t".s• �ti"'{� �1,19J•'•" :d'' �'�,�+D 7.i•. r, ' .:i r..�: r "• tJ A�� �i. �t ♦ a' k t11`�'� I I.r y,� Ij 11 P,-%,1 �>I I.£ 'a p.. �t�' e a �y 0;.� :W I. • .4. t^�`., �, /C Ii/fir,. ..>i. .1 +1i..�i1 ,1 I�:t.1 '�'S!!.tY"4 �,i,-��+N`•n s t �f r `�I�'�y• ai �b�`'yx s°.��` � r :31x'.. r � �V t .ar"�, r ,, c� ,/.• �. _ .. rR i�'!Y t�+�b���5 fNut�.Si��+�`���tLe4�1`)'�.•' r.°. _ _ - I - �+,yr;,lX £iet'���;�' /�f jU `• � a..� } tom.;" '�.. I:_. • r ti� ��y�y�rr"tl�"''•���� sP��I�i�tq��nvw y• �sk'�t I �i_: ., � lY+� �y',C �j ���t ,. _ 7S� ��ly+/� ! V,[�'•�q^Yt �' t I (p� k,J.J�� P ,f _ k J j�I � � l � �,... � •. A�. is_�< p �.e'�. X -':, v .+�.�1 ��' r■ � ,t •� Y _� y,` -�f` ,c�11 e. 1 i i •' • ••MAN • • 1 1 • • • • •1 1 1 • • i• 1 Zn66 --4--4 93 AT T A Ll 1,'M SIN T'N 0. HB -585- Item 14. - 186 REVISED Pierside Pavilion NARRATIVE New Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit and (05/0412012) other Entitlements F,ECEIVEQ Location: 300 Pacific Coast Highway MAY 0 4 2017 Business: Pierside Pavilion Expansion cLr . f 4arnirg (New retail, restaurant& office uses) ei`'a"` Request: To expand the allowed uses in the Pierside Pavilion project from the previously approved limits (Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01), in order to create new in-fill square footage on the existing building and construct a new building to expand the overall project as follows: New CUP Proposal Existing Entitlement Change EPA No.07-01 Retail 30,000 sf. 19,000 sf. +11,000 sf. Restaurant' 36,000 sf. 29,000 sf. +7,000 sf. Office 76,000 sf 51,000 sf. +25,000 sf. Total 142,000 sf. 99,000 sf. +43,000 sf. "with alcohol and outdoor dining The following items are being requested: • New Conditional Use Permit&Coastal Development Permit o Expanded Uses retail, restaurant and office o Restaurants with alcohol o Shared parking a Special Permits for reduction of front yard setback along PCH • Variance o Building height deviation from four stories 45' plus 10' mechanical housing and roofline variation, to four stories 68' plus 10' roofline variation and a mechanical housing element up to 90' to match the existing Phase I building • Entitlement Plan Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 10- 17 o Outdoor vending cart. The previously approved layout needs to be modified to accommodate the proposed project layout. The existing number of approved carts Will not be increased • Planed Sign Program Amendment (To be submitted at a later date) o To amend the existing sign program to accommodate the new proposal (PSP 90-7(R)) • Design Review Board o Revised building elevations o Design Guidelines checklist o Colors and Materials pallet o Landscape Plans with vending carts and street furniture Item 14. - 187 xB -586- ATTACHMENT N • 3. 6 o Amended Planned Sign Program. The request will require a further Amendment to the new Owner Participation Agreement approved by City Council in July, 2009. Project Description: To create a new four level building adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway, on the eastern side of the project site, as an expansion to the existing Pierside Pavilion development. In addition the existing building proposes modifications to create additional square footage by in-filling portions of the current structure, in closing the arcade areas and other areas all within the footprint of the existing building. The new project will be a combination of in-fill development and new construction added to the existing building. The new project as currently designed will result in the following: IN-FILL NEW EXISITNG TOTAL Retail 4,501 sf. 8,045 sf. 15,406 sf. 27,952 sf. Restaurant` 1,577 sf. 11,113 s€. 23,230 sf. 35 920 sf. Office 3 323sf 15,514 sf. 55,617 sf. 74,454 sf. 9,401 st 34,672 sf. 94,253 sf. 138,326 sf. *With alcohol and outdoor dining However anticipating that some modifications may occur through the design review process the request is to establish an allowance for each use as identified in the project request. The new Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit are to allow the additions to the current mix of uses. The new retail activities are proposed on the first level with additional office space- located on the interior portions of the first level and the upper two levels. New restaurant space, with alcohol, is also proposed on the second level. Existing retail uses will be expanded with the proposed in-fill square footage along Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Shared parking is being requested consistent with the provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan. "Two or more land uses or business with hours of operation that do not substantially coincide",(for example office vs. restaurant). A shared parking agreement has been approved with the Owner Participation Agreement(July 2009). The project may use up to 300 parking spaces in the municipal parking structure (200 Main Street). The proposed project will provide 296 parking spaces on site and share 234 spaces in the City's facility. The shared parking for the projection and is located within 350 feet of the project site. The project has also been approved for valet parking (Conditional Use Pen-nit No. 90-37). HB -587- ATTACHMEN Item 14. - 188 A Special Permit is being requested to address the reduction in front setback along Pacific Coast Highway. The request is to encourage a continuation of the building facade along Pacific Coast Highway and create an aesthetically pleasing appearance facilitating a more innovative architectural design and allowing the development to better adopt to the unique surroundings - environment. The minimum 15 foot of sidewalk area will be provided with a combination of public properties (Caltrans R.O.W. and new dedication to the City)along PCH (4') and Main Street (2.5'). However the setback from the property line will be reduced to 6'3°. This request will allow for a continuation of the new building line with the existing building. The original CUP No. 88-7 was granted a Special Permit for front yard setback adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway with the following findings: ® "For deviations to the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan to promote a better living environment and provide maximum use of the land in terms of site layout and design." This request will allow time new construction to match the setback line of the condominiums to the south. A Variance is being request to allow the proposed building to match the floor plate elevations with the existing structure. In order to accommodate a compatible architectural design with the new portions of the project and the existing building. The in fill type development proposed has a physical hardship related to limitations of the project site size, location and the need to be designed compatible with the existing development and adjacent projects. The new expansion will be limited to four stories and match the elevations with the existing building with similar roof top design features and mechanical housings. Time Variance is necessary to allow a design concept that will combine two buildings to appear as one integrated development. Site History: Pierside Pavilion was the first Redevelopment Project in downtown Huntington Beach. The project was approved in 1988 with Conditional Use Permit No. 88-7 and Coastal Development Pemnit 88-3. The project was amended in 1990 with Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37 and Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21. In 2009 it was further Amended with Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01. Outdoor dining and vending carts were approved with Conditional Use Permit No 10-17. Item 14. - 189 HB -588- TTACHIF t-.-NT . �.3 Zoning and General Plan: The property is zoned Downtown Specific Plan No. 5 (Planning Area 3) and the General Plan designation is MV-F12-sp-pd. The proposed project has been analyzed by the standards in the Amended Downtown Specific Plan (1119/2010). Surrounding Uses: North-Parking Structure/Restaurants/Retail East-Retail/Residential South-Residential Condominiums West-Retail/Restaurants Environmental Status: There are no significant environmental impacts associated with this project. The project site is not within a known hazardous waste and substance site. An Environmental Assessment has been submitted with supplemental special studies. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed project is with existing businesses in the area and will comply with the City's noise ordinance and the hours of operation will be consistent with other businesses within the downtown area. i xB -589- Ay ACCHM N Item 14. - 190 CD Pierside Pavilion Uses USES CUP 88-7 CUP 90-37 ENTITLEMENT PLAN NEW CUP PROPOSED EXISTING CDP 88-3 CDP 90-21 AMENDMENT REQUEST NEW PROJECT NO. 07-001 TOTALS Retail 15,406 sq, ft. 23,575 sq. ft. 12,624 sq. ft. 19,000 sq, ft. 30,000 sq, ft. 27,952 sq. ft. Restaurant* 19, 787 sq. ft. 16,500 sq. ft. 26,731 sq. ft. 29,000 sq, ft. 36,000 sq. ft, 35,920 sq. ft. Office 54,182 sq. ft. 15,925 sq. ft. 15,925 sq. ft. 51,000 sq. ft. 76,000 sq. ft. 74,454 sq. ft. Theater** - 30,000 sq, ft. 30,000 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Subtotal 89,375 sq, ft. 86,000 sq. ft. 85,280 sq. ft. 99,000 sq. ft. 142,000 sq. ft. 138,326 sq. ft. Total Gross Area 90,000 sq. ft. 90,000 sq. ft.*** 90,000 sq. ft.*** Insite 296 sp. 297 sp. 296 sp. 296 sp. 296 sp. 296 sp. Offsite 300 sp 624 sp. 624 sp. 150 sp. 300 sp. 300 sp. Valet 56 sp 56 sp, Total 596 sp. 921 sp. 920 sp. 446 sp. 652 sp. I 652s . 05/4/2012 **1,750 seats ***Approved gross sq. ft. is greater than the sum of the individual uses. 5 �5 -„gQgx. ,.Yco M r�rl Pierside Pavilion Required Parking USES CUP 88-7 CUP 90-37 ENTITLEMENT PLAN NEW CUP EXISTING CDP 88-3 CDP 90-21 AMENDMENT NO. 07-001 REQUEST* Retail 94 sp. 11250 51 sp. 11 50 57 s 1/333 90 s 11333 Restaurant 110 s 1/154 178 s 1 A 50 290 sp. 1/100 288 s .(1/125) Office 16 s 1/1000 16 s 1/1000 102 s 1/500 152 s 1/500 Theater 583 s 1/3 seats 583 sp. 1/3 seats Total Parking Required 803 sp. 828 sp. 449 sp. 530 sp. 05/04/2012 td C- CiD -P Summary of Development Standards District 1 Commercial or Mixed-Use Section REQUIRED PROPOSED Minimum Parcel Size 25' street frontage& 140' street frontage& 3.3.1.5 2,500 sf net area 76,650 sf net area Maximum Site Coverage None re uired 3.3.1.6 Maximum Density 50 dulac NIA 3.3.1.7 Minimum Building.Height 25' NIA 3.3.1.8 Maximum Building Height ->_8,000 sf net site area: 68' &4 stories plus 3.3.1.8 45' &4 stories, plus 10' roofline variation & mechanical housing & mechanical tower roofline variation Upper Story Setback(3`-4 story) 10' average IO' avg. (3` &4 3.3.1.9 stories Front Yard Setback 0' -Max. 5'115' PC 5' Min. 3.3.1.10 Interior Side yard Setback 0' 10, 3.3.1.11 Exterior Side yard Setback Equal to front setback=5' 28' 3.3.1.11 Corner Setback 25' 48' 3.3.1.12 Rear Yard Setback 3' 7.5 3.3.1.13 Public Open Space 5% =3,834 sf 16,374 sf 21% 3.3.1.14 08/25/2011 1� b Item 14. - 193 HB -592- 11DAL4'iMlENT NO. . Proposed Infll f Existing ST S.F. New Building Area Total S.F. First Flobr�' Retail Suite 101 6,900 Suite 106A 955 Suite 106B 650 Suite 107A 1,215 4,501 5,526 Suite 107E 1,006 Suite 108 3,225 Misc 367 Commissary 1,088 15,405 4,501 5,526 25,433 Restaurant Suite 112 5,344 1,577 Suite 113 3,978 9,322 1,577 0 10,899 Office i Suite 109 790 !J'ASuite 110 960 Suite 111 706 Suite 114 680 2; 18 Suite 118 1,405 2,989 Suite 120 350 Misc 739 Common/iobby 5,630 2,989 `2 519: 11,138 Sub Total 30,358 9,067 :.$p45.?: 47,470 Second Floor CE l\l1=E Restaurant ? Suite 201 5,488 t 4128 Suite 202 5,017 , Of r 10,505 0 4,128 14,633 &Building Office Suite 203 6,442 Suite 204 18,385 Common 839 24,827 0 839 25,666 Sub Total 35,332 0 4,967 40,299 Third Floor Office Suite 303 4,018 Suite 304 957 5,173 Suite 305 9,039 167 Suite 310 2,570 Misc 231 Common 1,795 16,815 167 6,968 23,950 Sub Total 16,815 167 6,968 23.950 Fourth Floor Office Suite 405 3,092 Suite 408 2,673 167 5,173 Misc 1,145 Common 1,497 6,910 167 6,670 13,747 Sub Total 6,910 167 6,670 13,747 HB -sg - " b. 'MM Ki Item 14. - 194 F v 5 ! Roof Deck Common 1,122 1,122 0 0 1,122 1,122 Sub Total 0 0 1,122 1,122 Sub Total Retail 15,406 4,501 5,526 25,433 Sub Total Office 54,182 3,323 18,118 74,501 Sub Total Restaurant 19,827 1,577 4,128 26,654 Total 89,415 9,401 27,772 126,588 Terraces First Floor 0 0 0 0 Second Floor 3986 1412 669 6067 Third Floor 2581 0 988 3569 Fourth Floor 1196 0 0 1196 Roof 0 0 0 0 Total Terraces 7763 1412 1657 10832 Outdoor Dining First Floor 302 0 0 302 Second Floor 3403 0 2222 5625 Third Floor 0 0 0 0 Fourth Floor 0 0 0 0 Roof 0 0 3924 3924 Total Outdoor Dining 3705 0 6146 9851 Item 14. - 195 HB -594- g ° ' � i 4 =Y C of r1untin ton Beach 21100 IriHlltl���}�7 STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 "- •,•. -_. ;s - °vv DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Planning Division Building Division 714.536.5271 714,536.5241 March 28, 2012 Michael Adams PO Box 382 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021 1 VARIANCE NO. 11-005 t SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 11-0021 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 11-007 (PIERSIDE EXPANSION) Dear Mr. Adams, In order to assist you with your development proposal, staff has reviewed the project and identified applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements, excerpted from the City of Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes. This list is intended to help you through the permitting process and various stages of project implementation should the Planning Commission approve your project. It should be noted that this requirement list is in addition to any"conditions of approval" adopted by the Planning Commission if the project is approved. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change,the list may also change. The Director of Planning and Building has interpreted the relevant Sections of the zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to require that your project satisfy the following development standards. If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements, an explanation of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Godes, 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 714-536-5561 or at ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org and/or the respective source department (contact person below). Sincerely, Ethan Edwards, AICP Associate Planner i i Enclosure xc: Khoa Duong,Building and Safety Division—714-872-6123 Steve Bogart,Public works—714-536-1692 ArvarElkins,Police Department-714-96M825 Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Jason Kelley,Planning Department Project File GAUwards\Planning Commission\Pierside Pavilion Expansion\Cornments\Code Letter Finat.doex Item 14. - 196 HB -595- _t I r , . lt3re �4 i i *2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL, COMMUNICATION PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS DATE: MARCH 28, 2012 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANISION ENTITLEMENTS: GDP 11-012, CUP 11-021, DRB 11-015, VAR 11-005, EAX 11-007 PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2011-0131 I DATE OF PLANS; SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PROJECT PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5561 /ETHAN.EDWARDS@SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE(E-MAIL: 714-374-1692 f SBOGART(c7SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUP/GDP: a) To permit an approximately 27,700 sq. ft_, 4-story mixed-use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone; b)to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas; c) to expand the allowable uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-005 by adding 9,000 sq, ft. retail, 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 21,000 sq, ft. office; and, c) to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA) approved in 2009 is required. EAX: To review environmental impacts and determine level of CEQA documentation. VAR: To permit a maximum height of 73 ft. and 90 ft. architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX: to permit a 5 €t. minimum front yard setback in lieu of a minimum of 15 ft. DRB: To review the design, colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing building to remain and proposed building. Pursuant to your request, Public Works staff has reviewed the Site Plan for the subject project and the following shall be addressed prior to resubmittal for further review andlor processing: 1. Revise all property lines (locations, dimensions and geometry) to correctly portray the subject property and to be consistent with recorded Final Tract Map No. 13722. i Item 14. - 197 HB -596- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BLEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION DATE: MARCH 15, 2012 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANISION ENTITLEMENTS: CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021, DRB 11-015,VAR 11-005, EAX 11-007 PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2011-0131 DATE OF PLANS: FEBRUARY 2012 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PROJECT PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5561 1 ETHAN.EDWARDS(cD-SURFCITY HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART,SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER/ r TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692 f SBOGART(cDSURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUPICDP: a)To permit an approximately 27,700 sq. ft., 4-story mixed- use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone; b) to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas; c) to expand the allowable uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37fCoastal Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-005 by adding 9,000 sq, ft. retail, 3,000 sq.ft- restaurant and 21,000 sq_ft. office; and, c)to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) approved in 2009 is required. EAX: To review environmental impacts and determine level of CEQA documentation. VAR: To permit a maximum height of 73 ft. and 90 fL architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX: to permit a 5 ft. minimum front yard setback in lieu of a minimum of 15 ft. DRB: To review the design, colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing building to remain and proposed building. Pursuant to your request,Public Works staff has reviewed the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), dated February 2012, and has no comments. Said report is acceptable for use in the projects preliminary design phase. A Final WQMP shall be submitted to Public Works for review and acceptance prior to issuance of the project's Precise Grading Permit. xs -597- Y '�b a�Item 14. - 198 Edwards, Ethan From: Bogart, Steve Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 5:50 PM To: Edwards, Ethan Cc: DeBow, Debbie; Sam, Darren Subject: Pierside Pavilion-Revised PW Code Rgmts Attachments: PCH 300(Pierside Pavilion) Dev Req 3-15-12.docx, PCH 300(Pierside Pavillion) Dev Req 3-15-12.pdf Ethan: Please see the attached file which contains REVISED Code Requirements from Public Works'after further review of the subject project with application of the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan. Specifically,the revisions i i (highlited)made to previous Code Rqmts memo(dated 11/1/11) include: 1. Addition of the 2-5-foot dedication rqmt at the project's Main St frontage. 2. Addition of rqmt for removal of all sidewalks along the project's Main&PCH frontages and replacement with enhanced paving per the DTSP guidelines. 3. Addition of rqmt for 26-foot sidewalk width along the project's Main St frontage per the DTSP. 4. Rgmt of 1:1 parking replacement per the DTSP. S. Rewording of the Traffic Impact Analysis rgmt_ 6. Recalculation of the project's required Traffic Impact Fee. Feel free to contact me with any related questions or concerns. thx Steve Bogart Public Works ext. 1692 i Please consider the environment before printing this message 1 i j l f Item 14. - 199 HB -s9s- Al AA�'=NHAL'A"41, INU . �.L CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS i DATE: MARCH 28,2012 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANISION ENTITLEMENTS: CDP 11-012, CUP 11-021, DRB 11-015,VAR 11-005, EAX 11-007 ' PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2011-0131 DATE OF PLANS. SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY E PROJECT PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-536-5561 1 ETHAN.EDWARDS(c SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART,SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-374-16921 SBOGART(a'-1SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUPICDP:a)To permit an approximately 27,700 sq. ft.,4-story mixed-use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone; b) to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas;c)to expand the allowable uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-005 by adding 9,000 sq. ft. retail, 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 21,000 sq. ft, office; and, c) to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA)approved in 2009 is required, EAX: To review environmental impacts and determine level of CEQA documentation. VAR. To permit a maximum height of 73 ft.and 90 ft, architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX: to permit a 5 ft. minimum front yard setback in lieu of a minimum of 15 ft, DRB: To review the design, colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing [ building to remain and proposed building. The following is a fist 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 Arboricultural 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 Pan Reviewer or Project Planner. xB -599- V X�� �sa�i,�� s°� .� ' Item 14. - 200 y S s T Page 2 of 6 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 the City and to the State shall 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) I a. A 2.5-foot wide right-of-way dedication for pedestrian access and public utilities along the Main Street frontage is required. (ZSO 230,84,DTSP) b. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be provided through the development generally parallel to the vacated 3`d Street. (DTSP) 3. The following dedications in fee to the State of California shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. (ZS0 230.084A) a. A right-of-way dedication (varying in width,from 5-foot wide adjacent to the existing bus turnout to 4-foot wide at the site's easterly end) for pedestrian access and public utilities along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage is required. The subject dedication-shall provide for a total minimum sidewalk dedication pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan, Section 3.3.1.10. (ZSO 230,84, DTSP) 4. All proposed improvements along Pacific Coast Highway shall be reviewed and approved by Caltrans. (GP CE 3, Caltrans) 5. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.052SO 230.84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. The existing curb and gutter along the projects Main Street frontage where the additional sidewalk area is proposed shall be removed. b. The proposed additional curb and gutter along the project's Main Street frontage shall be constructed consistent with Public Works Standard Plan Nos.202 and 207. (ZSO 230.84) c. The existing sidewalk along the project's Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway frontages shall be removed and replaced with enhanced paving per the guidelines of Downtown Specific Plan. (DTSP) d. Twenty six (26) feet wide enhanced sidewalk consistent with guidelines specified in the Downtown Specific Plan Update shall be installed along the projects Main Street frontage. (DTSP) e. The existing ADA access ramp at the southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street shall be removed and replaced with an ADA compliant access ramp, per Caltrans Standard Plan I A88A. (ZSO 230.84,ADA) 6. 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) The plans shall comply with . Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. The existing sewer lateral may potentially be utilized if it is of adequate size, conforms to current Public Works Standards and is determined to be in serviceable condition by submitting a video of the lateral. If the sewer is determined to be inadequate, a new sewer lateral shall be installed, connecting to the main in the alley, per Public Works Standards. (ZSO 230.84) t Item 14. — 201 FIB -600- . ss = Page 3 of 6 b. The existing domestic water service(s)currently serving the existing development may potentially be utilized if it is (they are) of adequate size, conform to current standards, and are in working condition as determined by the Water Inspector. if the property owner elects to utilize the existing water service(s), any non-conforming water service(s), meter(s), and backilow protection j device(s) shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards. Alternatively, a new separate domestic water service(s), meter(s) and backflow protection device(s) may be installed per Water Division Standards and shall be sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). (ZSO 230.84) c. The existing irrigation water service(s) currently serving the existing development may potentially be utilized if they are of adequate size, conform to current standards, and are in working condition as determined by the Utilities Division. if the property owner elects to utilize the existing water service(s), all non-conforming water meters and backflow protection devices shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards. Alternatively, a new separate irrigation water service(s), meter(s) and backflow protection device(s) may be installed per Water Division Standards. (ZSO 232) d. The existing fire water service currently serving the existing development may potentially be utilized if it is of adequate size, conforms to current standards, and is in working condition as determined by the Utilities Division. If property owner elects to utilize the existing fire water service, any non-conforming backflow protection devices shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards. (ZSO 230.84) 7. The developer shall submit for approval by the Fire Department and Water Division, a hydraulic water analyses to ensure that existing fire service from the point of connection to City water main to the backflow protection device satisfies Wafter Division standard requirements. S. The City has approved the Downtown Specific Plan, which will ultimately require that a 12-inch waterline to be constructed along the northeasterly side of Pacific Coast Highway, While the existing water mains in the area may provide adequate water service and fire flow protection to the property at this time,the ultimate construction of the public 12-inch waterline will require some form of impact fees to be paid by the property owner for the proposed development.The impact fees have yet to be determined at this time_(Downtown Specific Plan) 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-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 (WD1D) 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) rMS4 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. HB -601- :� U Item 14. - 202 Page 4 of6 ' b. Discusses regional or watershed programs(if applicable). G. 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) Pian 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 appUcant for the production of a single complete electronic copy of the accepted version of the WQMP on CD media that includes: L 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 Water Quality Management Plan Preparation Guidance Manual dated June 2006. The WQMP shall be submitted with the first submittal of the Graving Plan. 13.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) 14.A soils report, prepared by a licensed Engineer shall be submitted for reference only. (MG 17,05.150) 15.The applicant's gradingferosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. (AQMD Rule 403) 16.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 Item 14. - 203 HB -602- �E"i'F' . Page 5 of 6 this development and any constructionfgrading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. HefShe 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 corn pliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. 17.The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants vfithin 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. 18.Traffic impact Analysis for the project shall be reviewed and accepted by the City of Huntington Beach. THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING GRADING OPERATIONS: 19_An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's fight-of-way. (MC 12.38.010/MG 14.36.030) 20,An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within Caltrans' right-of-way. 21.The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck 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) 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-1/1VIC 17.05) 25.The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. -(California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Erosion Control EG1) (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) HB -603 i kq Item 14. - 204 PW6of6 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. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance. The current rate of$172 per net new added daily trip_The following Trip Generation Rates shall be used to determine the number of new added daily trips: retail/restaurant, 42.94/1DD0 sf, mode shift (15%), and internal capture- (200/6/20016/19%); general office, 11.0111000 sf, mode shift (15%), and internal capture(15%/151/'6/13%).The fee.rate per net new added daily trip is subject to an annual adjustment on December 1st. (MC 17.65) 33.A License Agreement and Maintenance Agreement, including use fees, shall be executed with the City for outdoor dining located in the public right-of-way. The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of the License and Maintenance Agreement from the Public Works Director prior to improvements or use of public easement. (DTSP 3.2.24.2) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: 34.Traffic Control Plans, prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer, shall be prepared in i 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: 35. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading and street improvement plans. (MC 17.05) 36.All new utilities shall be undergrounded. (MC 17.64) 37.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:/fwww.surfefty-hb.org/fiilestusers/public works/fee scheduie.pdf. (ZSO 240.061ZSO 250.16) i 38.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 property 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 14. - 205 J': HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS H014TI kf.Qt4'REAQ J DATE: FEBURUARY 13, 2012 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 11-131 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PCH, 92648 (APN: 024-154-17), HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5561/Ethan.Edwards@surfcity-hb.org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 536-55311 dmaresh0-surfcity-hb.orq PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUP/CDP:A) TO PERMIT AN APPROXIMATELY 27,700 SO. FT., 4- STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING AT THE SOUTHEAST AREA OF THE PIERSIDE PAVILION SITE WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE; B) To PERMIT THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL WITHIN THE RESTAURANT AREAS; C) TO EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE USES ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90- 37/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO-90-21 AND AMENDED BY ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 07-001 AND ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-005 BY ADDING 9,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL, 3,000 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND 21,000 SQ. FT- OFFICE;AND, C)TO PERMIT SHARED PARKING. AN AMENDMENT TO THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (OPA)APPROVED IN 2009 IS REQUIRED. EAX- TO REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND DETERMINE LEVEL OF CEQA DOCUMENTATION. VAR: TO PERMIT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 73 FT.AND 90 FT.ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS IN LIEU OF A MAXIMUM OF 45 FT. SPX: TO PERMIT A 5 Fr. MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK IN LIEU OF A MINIMUM OF 15 FT. DRS: TO REVIEW THE DESIGN, COLORS,AND MATERIALS OF THE REMODEL FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN AND PROPOSED BUILDING. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated October 11, 2011. 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 entiflement(s), if any,will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer-Fire: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST. HB -605- Item 14. - 206 Page 2 of 5 PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, GRADING, SITE DEVELOPMENT, ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, ANDIOR CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED: Fire Suppression Systems Fire Alarms Fire Alarm System is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be 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) Modification, additions, or deletions to an existing fire alarm system shall require that separate plans (three sets) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for permits and approval. Any extended interruption of the fire alarm system operation will require a `Tire watch", approved E by the Fire Department. (FD) Fire Sprinklers Automatic 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. 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-hour central station monitoring. Automatic fire sprinkler systems must be maintained operational at all times, with maintenance inspections performed quarterly and the system serviced every five years by a state licensed C-16 Fire Protection Contractor. For Fire Department approval, reference that a fire sprinkler system will be installed in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code, NFPA 13, and City Specification#420 -Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems in the plan notes. NOTE: When buildings under construction are more than one (1) story in height and required to have automatic fire sprinklers, the fire sprinkler system shall be installed and operational to protect all floors lower than the floor currently under construction. Fire sprinkler systems for the current floor under construction shall be installed, in-service, inspected and approved prior to beginning construction on the next floor above. (FD) Item 14. - 207 HB -gut- � ,� �� 5 � � '��' E A I E E Wei.��. F�'I�5 Ica E � ` � Y.i'e , Page 3 of 5 Modification, additions, or deletions to an exisUng automatic fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system shall require that separate plans (three sets) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for permits and approval.Any extended interruption of the fire sprinkler system operation will require a "fire watch", approved by the Fire Department. Reference compliance with City Specification#420 -Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems and NFPA 13 in the plan notes. (FD) Fire Department Connections(FDG)to the automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be located to the front of the building, at least 25 feet from and no farther than 150 feet of a properly rated fire hydrant. (FD) Class 9 Standpipes (2 Y7" NFH connections) are required at each stairway. The standpipe system in stairwells cannot protrude into, impede, or compromise the H.B.B.C. "Exit Width" requirements. For Fire Department approval, reference and portray Class 'I standpipes at each stairway in the plan notes. (FD) Fire Protection Systems Fire Extinguishers shall be installed and located in all areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards found in City Specification #424. The minimum required dry chemical fire extinguisher size is 2A 10BC and shall be installed within 75 feet travel distance to all portions of the building. Extinguishers are required to be serviced or replaced annually. (FD) Commercial Food Preparation Fire Protection System required for commercial cooking. Plans (three sets) shall be submitted to the Fire Department as separate plans for permits and approval. Reference compliance with City Specification#412 Protection Of Commercial Cooking Operations in the plan notes. (FD) Fire Personnel Access Main Secured Building Entries shall utilize a KNOXO Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification#403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or.Vehicular Security Gates & Buildings. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at (714) 536-5411 for information. Reference compliance with City Specification#403 - KNOXO Fire Department Access in the building plan notes. (FD) Fire Sprinkler System Controls access shall be provided, utilizing a KNOX® Fire Department Access Key Box, installed and in compliance with City Specification#403, Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates & Buildings. The approximate location of the system controls shall be noted on the plans. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. Minimum interior dimensions are 7 feet (84")wide by 4 feet 3 inches (51") deep. Minimum door opening dimensions are 3 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) HB -coy- Eg@�€ ' Item 14. - 208 ��e Page 4 of S 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 tolfrom the fire control rooms. Above- grade areas or floors found to have with poor radio reception may also require repeating systems. (FD) Addressing and Street dames Structure or Building Address Assignments. The Planning Department shall review and make address assignments. The individual dwelling units shall be identified with numbers per City Specification#4D9 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process in the plan notes. (FD) GIS Mapping Information a. GIS Mapping Information shall be provided to the Fire Department in compliance with GIS Department CAD Submittal Guideline requirements. Minimum submittals shall include the following: ➢ Site plot plan showing the building footprint ➢ Specify the type of use for the building ➢ Location of electrical, gas, water, sprinkler system shut-offs. ➢ Fire Sprinkler Connections (FDC) if any. ➢ Knox Access locations for doors, gates, and vehicle access. ➢ Street name and address. i Final site plot plan shall be submitted in the following digital format and shall include the fol lowing: ➢ Submittal media shall be via CD rom to the Fire Department. ➢ Shall be in accordance with County of Orange Ordinance 3809. ➢ File format shall be in .shp, AutoCAD, AUTOCAD MAP (latest possible release ) drawing file - .DWG (preferred) or Drawing Interchange File- .DKF. ➢ Data should be in NAD83 State Plane, Zone 6, Feet Lambert Conformal Conic Projection. Item 14. - 209 HB -608- ��,Yi{ ,Ct y$ ;_. N10, t Page 5 of 5 i_ i ➢ Separate drawing file for each individual sheet. In compliance with Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen colors, and layering convention. and conform to City of Huntington Beach Specification#409 —Street Naming and Addressing. For specific GIS technical requirements, contact the Huntington Beach GIS Department at(714) 536-5574. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with GIS Mapping Information in the building plan notes. (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) 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) i 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) i 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.surfcity-hb.org If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at(714) 536-5411. S:1Preventionl7-Deveiopmentll-Planning Depar&mrA-Planning Applications,CUP'sX2012 CUP'sVCH 300(Peirside Expansion)PA11-131 02- 13-12 DM.doc GIs -609- ¢;n. g V11 - Item 14. - 210 265:�*i i ..................... HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION Hu `NcTOr•,sraer, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: MARCH 28, 2012 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 11-131 ENTITLEMENTS: CDP 11-012, CUP 11-021, DRB 11-015, VAR 11-005, EAX 11-007 DATE OF PLANS: AUGUST 4, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PCH, 92648 (APN: 024-154-17) PLAN REVIEWER: ETHAN EDWARDS TELEPHONEfE-MAIL: (714) 536-5561, ETHAN.EDWARDS@SURFCITY HB_ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUPfCDP: a)To permit an approximately 27,700 sq. €t., 4-story mixed-use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone; b)to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas; c) to expand the allowable uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-371Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-005 by adding 9,000 sq.ft. retail, 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 21,000 sq_ ft. office; and, c)to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA) approved in 2009 is required. EAX: To review environmental impacts and determine level of CEQA documentation. VAR: To permit a maximum height of 73 ft. and 90 ft. architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX: to permit a . 5 ft. minimum front yard setback in lieu of a minimum of 15 ft. DRB: 'To review the design, colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing building to remain and proposed building. 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 should final project approval be received. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. 1. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, ..� _ �f Item 14. - 211 xB -610- �� �k� ��� E= � O ja Page 2 of 4 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 permit(s). (HBZSO Section 230.76) 2. The site plan and elevations shall include the location of ail 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. (HBZSO Section 230.76) 3. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of the DTSP Section 32.26.5 —Bicycle Spaces Required. (DTSP Section 3.2.26.5) 4. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: 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) i b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Qualify 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. 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) 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. 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) b. 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) c. 'Smart irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (HBZSO Section 232.04.D) d. Standard landscape code requirements apply. (HBZSO Chapter 232) e. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultura€and HB -6 i- Via, r R�-. - ¢ Item 14. - 212 Page 3 of 4 Landscape Standards and Specifications. (HBZSO Section 232.04.13) 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. 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. (HBZSO Section 233.04.8) b. The Downtown Specific Plan fee shall be paid. (for new construction in the Downtown Specific Plan (SP-5) area) (Resolution No. 5328) c_ A Mitigation Monitoring Fee for rnegative declarationsl (mitigated negative declarations) EIR's , shall be paid to the Planning & Building Department pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by i resolution of the City Council. {City of Huntington Beach Planning & Building Department Fee Schedule) d. All new commercial and industrial development and all new residential development not covered I 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. (City of Huntington ,Beach Planning & Building Department Fee Schedule) 7. 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 rootfiree protection, will be specified upon the inspection of the root system. (Resolution No. 4545) b. All Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code 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_ (HBIkiC 8.40.090) 8. .The final building permit(s) cannot be approved until the following has been completed: a. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading, landscape and improvement plans. (HBMIC 17.05) b. All trees shall be maintained or planted in accordance to the requirements of Chapter 232. (HBZSO Chapter 232) 1 c. 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 232.04.101) d. The provisions of the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements shall be implemented. (HBMC 14.52) Item 14. - 213 HB -612- 4 r € '� � � .AL, Page 4 of 4 9. Outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials, or equipment, including display of merchandise, materials, and equipment for customer pickup, shall be subject to approval of Conditional Use Permit. (HBZSO Section 230.74) 10. 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) 11.The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke CUP No. 11-021, CDP No. 11-01Z EPA No. 11-007, VAR No. 11-005, and SPP No. 11-002 pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of the conditions of approval, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. (HBZSO Section 241.16.13) 12.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. (Gity Charter,Article V) 13. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday TDD AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 14,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 & Building and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. (HBZSO Section 232.04) 15.All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO. 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. (HBZSO Chapter 233) 16, Live entertainment and/or outdoor dining in excess of 400 sq. ft, shall not be permitted unless a conditional use permit for this speck use is reviewed and approved. Outdoor dining occupying less than 400 sq. ft. is subject to Neighborhood Notification and approval by the Director of Planning & Building. (HBZSO Section 211.04) 17.Alcoholic beverage sales shall be prohibited unless a conditional use permit for this particular use is j reviewed and approved. (HBZSO Section 211.04) HB -613- 'T A "y �1i Item 14. - 214 HUNTINGTON BEACH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUNMINGTON REACH, ................. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PROJECT NAME, PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 11-131 ENTITLEMENTS: CDP 11-012, CUP 11-021, DRB 11-015, VAR 11-005, EAX 11-007 DATE OF PLANS: AUGUST 4, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PCH, 92648 (APN: 024-154-17) PLAN REVIEWER: LUIS GOMEZ , ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714)536-5544, LUIS.GOMEZ@SURFCITY-HB-OPG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUPICDP: a)To permit an approximately 27,700 sq.ft., 4-story mixed-use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone; b)to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas; c)to expand the allowable uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-371Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-005 by adding 9,000 sq.ft. retail, 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 21,000 sq. ft, office; and, c) to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA) approved in 2009 is required. EAX: To review environmental impacts and determine level of CEQA documentation. VAR; To pen-nit a maximum height of 73 ft. and 90 ft. architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX: to permit a 5 ft. minimum front yard setback in lieu of a minimum of 15 ft- DRB: To review the design, colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing building to remain and proposed building. 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_ CODEREQUIREMENTS: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Owner Participation Agreement by and between Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, and Plerside Pavilion must be amended to reflect the entitlement plan amendment NO, Item 14. - 215 HB -614- LJ HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT t.i0Nr1NQT0N:BEACH ... .... . .... ...... PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS DATE: 10-27-11 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION CART EXPANSION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 11-131 ENTITLEMENTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021 DATE OF PLANS: OCTOBER 11, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(APN: 024-154-17) PLAN REVIEWER: ARVARW. ELKINS III, POLICE OFFICER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-960-8825 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:To Permit approximately 27,700 sq.ft.,4-story building at the southwest area of the Pierside Pavilion. The Police Departments CPTED recommendations are intended to assist in the creation and maintenance of a built environment that decreases the opportunity for crime and increases the perception of public safety. LIGHTING: Adequate lighting of Pier Plaza and the contiguous grounds to the building shall be provided with enough lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe secure environment for all persons and property. Use security-focused, rather than aesthetically pleasing, lighting that enables pedestrians to see clearly and to identify potential threats at night. For example, high or low pressure sodium vapor lights can provide evenly distributed lighting that reduces patches of darkness at the ground level and enables the human eye to pick up details, with reduced energy consumption. it C I 1AME N . 4. - 216 HB -615- Item I Page 2 of 3 NATURAL SURVEILLANCE Fully illuminate all doorways that open to the outside. The front door to the building should be at least partially visible from the street. Install windows on all sides of the building to provide full visibility of the property. Construct elevators and stairwells to be open and well-lighted, not enclosed behind solid walls. Provide appropriate illumination to doorways that open to the outside and sidewalks. Select and install appropriate landscaping that will allow unobstructed views of vulnerable doors and windows from the street and other properties. Avoid landscaping that might create blind spots. Ensure signs in the front windows of businesses and commercial storefronts do not cover the windows or block necessary views of the exterior space. Position restrooms in office buildings to be visible from nearby offices. Keep dumpsters visible and avoid creating blind spots or hiding places, or place them in secured corrals or garages KIOSKS and ADJOINING SIDEWALK A minimum of 8'feet between each kiosk shall be maintained at all times. This applies to each kiosk whether they are parallel, perpendicular or angled to the adjacent street. This is to maintain the safety of the occupants of the permanent businesses and for the Officers responding to those businesses. There should be a way to differentiate the sidewalk and the property line, i.e. different design in the cement or different colored cement. This shows the public where the sidewalk ends and the property of the businesses begins. I do not feel the proposed planter and cement bench that runs parallel to the north curb line of PCH allows for adequate space for pedestrian foot traffic. With the purposed planter, bench and expansion of Pier Plaza nearly the entire sidewalk is blocked in the area of the expansion. E SECURITY SYSTEMS: Silent or audible alarm systems shall be installed. Item 14. - 217 HB -616- A T°��=,C �< R� T N. .22 d,f��€�.Fc4 4 Page 3 of A comprehensive security alarm systems should be provided form the following: - Perimeter building and access route protection - High valued storage areas -Interior building doorto shipping and receiving area Any security gating CCTV security cameras are recommended, covering the following areas: -Lobby entrances -Building perimeter -Shipping and receiving areas -Parking structure -Exterior entrance -Stairwells -Interior halls ROOF TOP TERRACE A minimum 6' wall comprised of solid material and or glass shall surround the perimeter of the terrace. At this time, the intended use of the terrace is undecided and I am unable to make any further specific design recommendations. i i HB -617- ATTALHNIENT Item 14. - 218 _ HUNTIN TON BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT FiUt TThICTON.BEACit PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS i DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2011 PROJECT NAME: PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 11-131 ENTITLEMENTS: CDP 11-012, CUP 11-021, DRB 11-015, VAR 11--005, EAX 11-007 DATE OF PLANS: AUGUST 4, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PCH, 92648 (APN: 024-154-17) i PLAN REVIEWER: KHOA DUONG TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714)872-6123/khoa@csgengr.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CUPfCDP: a) To permit an approximately 27,700 sq.ft_ 4-story mixed-use building at the southeast area of the Pierside Pavilion site within the Coastal Zone; b)to permit the consumption of alcohol within the restaurant areas; c)to expand the allowable uses originally established by Conditional Use Permit No. 90-37/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-21 and amended by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-001 and Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-005 by adding 9,000 sq. ft. retail, 3,OD0 sq. ft. restaurant and 21,000 sq. ft. office; and, c) to permit shared parking. An amendment to the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA)approved in 2009 is required. EAX: To review environmental impacts and determine level of CEQA documentation. VAR: To permit a maximum height of 73 ft_ and 90 ft. architectural projections in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. SPX: to permit a 5 ft. minimum front yard setback in lieu of a minimum of 15 fL DRB: To review the design,colors, and materials of the remodel for the existing building to remain and proposed building. I 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 provident upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. I. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. None Item 14. - 219 HB -618- - �yaz Page 2 of 2 i _ II. CODE ISSUES BASED ON PLANS&.DRAWINGS SUBMITTED: 1. Project shall comply with the current state building codes adopted by the City at the time of permit application submittal. Currently they are 2010 California Building Code(CBC),2010 California Mechanical Code(CMC),2010 California Plumbing Code (CPC),2010 California Electrical Code(CEC), 2010 California Energy Code 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 of construction, allowable area and height,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 mixed use and occupancy, please see section 508 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. Submit egress analysis. e. For elevators please see section 708.14 and chapter 30. 3. The exit enclosure shall comply with Section 1022. a. Exit enclosures shall lead directly to the exterior of the building. 4. Provide compliance to disabled accessibility requirements of Chapter 11B of CBC. S. Recommendation: Please contact me or our office to review preliminary code analyses to examine any possible building code issue that may arise. i i HB -619- �" Item 14. - 220 Mitization Measures Applicable to Proposed Proiect MM 4.2-1: During construction,demolition and remodel activities,the following Best Available Control Measure shall be implemented where feasible: w Dust Control ^ Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas. ^ Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25mph. ^ Stabilize previouslydisturbed areas K subsequent construction iudelayed. ' Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times per day. ' Cover all sbouk piles with tarps. ' Replace ground cover in disturbed areas ao soon oofeasible. ^ Reduce speeds nn unpaved roads hz less than 15mph. • Exhaust Emissions ` RequireD0-day low-NORxRtune-ups for off-road equipment . ` Limit allowable idling b)5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. ' Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if available. ^ Utilize diesel particulate filter un heavy equipment where feasible. ^ Utilize low emission mobile construction equipment. ` Utilize existing power sources when available,minimizing the use of higher polluting gas or dieselgenerators. ^ Configure construction parking hn minimize traffic interference. ^ Plan construction to minimize lane closures on existing streets. ^ A full listing of construction emission controls is included in the Air Quality Assessment for Huntington Beach Downtown 800ufinPlan dated April 13.20DS(Appendix 0. m Painting and Coatings ^ Use low VDC coatings and high pressure-low volume sprayers. M 4.2-2:The City shall require by contract specifications that all diesel-powered equipment used would be retrofitted with after- bnatmontpmducts(e.g,engine catalysts and other technologies available at the time construction commences)tu the extent that they are readily available and cost effective when construction activities commence.Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach, MM 4.2-3:The City shall require by contract specifications that alternative fuel construction equipment(e.g.,compressed natural gmo' liquid pobn|sum gas,and unleaded gasoline)would he utilized to the extent feasible oi the time construction activities commence.Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.2-4:The City shall require that developers within the project site use locally available building materials such as concrete, stucco,and interior finishes for construction of the project omdeonociatedinfrasbuduna. MM 4.2-5:The City shall require developers within the project site to establish a construction management plan with Rainbow Disposal to divert otarget od5OY6uf construction,demolition,and site clearing waste. MM 4.6-6:The City shall require by contract specifications that construction equipment engines will be maintained in good condition and in proper tune manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction. Contract specifications sh Ube ATTACHMENT NO. included in the proposed project construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.2-7:The City shall require by contract specifications that construction-related equipment,including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles,and portable equipment,shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.Diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.2-8:The City shall require that any new development within the Specific Plan area provide signs within loading dock areas clearly visible to truck drivers.These signs shall state that trucks cannot idle in excess of five minutes per trip. MM 4.2-9:The City shall require by contract specifications that electrical outlets are included in the building design of future loading docks to allow use by refrigerated delivery trucks.Future project-specific applicants shall require that all delivery trucks do not idle for more than five minutes.If loading and/or unloading of perishable goods would occur for more than five minutes,and continual refrigeration is required,all refrigerated delivery trucks shall use the electrical outlets to continue powering the truck refrigeration units when the delivery truck engine is turned off. MM 4.2-10:The City shall require that any new development within the project site provide a bulletin board or a kiosk in the lobby of each proposed structure that identifies the locations and schedules of nearby transit opportunities. MM 4.2-11:The property ownerldeveloper of individual projects within the DTSP will reduce operation-related emissions through implementation of practices identified in SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook and the URBEMIS v9.2.4,some of which overlap.Specific measures are delineated in the DTSP Air Quality Assessment(Volume II,Appendix B). MM 4.2.12:The following measures,based on these sources,shall be implemented by the property applicant to reduce criteria pollutant emissions from projects associated with the DTSP Update.Additionally,support and compliance with the AQMP for the basin are the most important measures to achieve this goal.The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs.Additionally,energy conservation measures are included. • Transportation Demand Management(TDM)Measures 1. Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. Presumably,this measure would improve traffic flow into and out of the parking lot.The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required. 2. Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate and provide roadway improvements at heavily congested roadways. Again,the areas where this measure would be applicable are the intersections in and near the project area. Presumably,these measures would improve traffic flow.Emissions would drop as a result of the higher traffic speeds, but to an unknown extent 3. Synchronize traffic signals.The areas where this measure would be applicable are roadway intersections within the project area.This measure would be more effective if the roadways beyond the project limits are synchronized as well.The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required 4. Ensure that sidewalks and pedestrian paths are installed throughout the project area. • Energy Efficient Measures 1. Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. Reducing the need to heat or cool structures by improving thermal integrity will result in a reduced expenditure of energy and a reduction in pollutant emissions. 2. Install energy efficient street lighting. 3 Capture waste heat and reemploy it in nonresidential buildings.This measure is applicable to the commercial ATTACHMENT NO. S- xB -621- Item 14. - 222 buildings in the project 4. Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planning programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure.This measure reduces the need for cooling energy in the summer. 5. Introduce window glazing,wall insulation,and efficient ventilation methods. 6. Install low-emission water heaters,and use built-in,energy-efficient appliances. i olo'fcal - - _ -- MM 4.14-1: Prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities,the project developer shall implement the following mitigation measure which entails nesting surveys and avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and MBTA species,and appropriate agency consultation. • Nesting habitat for protected or sensitive species: 1. Vegetation removal and construction shall occur between September 1 and January 31 whenever feasible. 2. Prior to any construction or vegetation removal between February 15 and August 31,a nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area.Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities and surveys will be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG)protocol as applicable. If no active nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation is necessary.A copy of the pre- construction survey shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach.If an active nest of a MBTA protected species is identified onsite(per established thresholds),a 250-foot no-work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity.This buffer can be reduced in consultation with CDFG and/or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist. _ uCa: our :�_:.•.::.,-.rT-::_;.. . -✓:-.�,._v__- _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ces. - ---•-- - - MM 4.3-2:During construction activities,if archaeological and/or paleontological resources are encountered,the contractor shall be responsible for immediate notification and securing of the site area immediately.A qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist approved by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Director shall be retained to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling,identification, and evaluation of cultural resource finds. If major archaeological and/or paleontological resources are discovered that require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, a report shall be prepared identifying such findings to the City and the County of Orange.Discovered cultural resources shall be offered to the County of Orange or its designee on a first-refusal basis. MM 4.3.-3:During construction activities,if human remains are discovered,worts shall be halted and the contractor shall contact the C4's designated representative on the project and the Orange County Coroner until a determination can be made as to the likelihood of additional human remains in the area.If the remains are thought to be Native American,the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who will ensure that proper treatment and disposition of the remains occurs. .-..:... :c:•ivy.r,:; rr-=n?- <_-..gin:_.+ :—+.__i_._.—.r .: _ - t. olo -and_So Is_ .�.:_, . __..._ - - -- - �.:�.:"-'= -_,, - - --w:;,�.: MM 4.4-1: Future development in the DTSP area shall prepare a grading plan,subject to review and approval by the City's development services departments,to contain the recommendations of the required final soils and geotechnical report,These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project,including but not limited to measures associated with site preparation,fill placement,temporary shoring and permanent dewatering,groundwater seismic design features,excavation stability,foundations,soils stabilization,establishment of deep foundations,concrete slabs and pavements,surface drainage, cement type and corrosion measures,erosion control, shoring and internal bracing,and plan review. :.....t...,a .};.� - '-:liana usM M 4.5-1:The Gity of Huntington Beast+steal!require a Phase One assessment on properties within the Downtown Specific Plan + ATTACHMENT NO. �• a Item 14. - 223 xB -622- area,including properties utilized for oil production activities,proposed for development to assure that any hazardous materials/contaminated soils present on the property are identified and remediated in accordance with City specifications 422,429 and 431-92.All native and imported soils associated with a project shall meet the standards outlined in City Specification No.431- 92 prior to approval of grading and building plans by the Huntington Beach Fire Department Additionally,all work at a project site shall comply with the City's Public Works Department requirements(e.g.,haul route permits). M 4.5-2:In the event that previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction in the project area,construction activities in the immedlate Vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately.If contamination is encountered,a 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.,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 area. 55 . -. _._..::._.___�.....: - _.-•-_. ate.-_ - ualr = — - to an d.Wa Q = _-H fl - - MM 4.6-1:Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits and/or prior to recordation of any subdivision maps,the applicant of any new development or significant redevelopment projects shall submit to the Department of Public Works a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)emphasizing implementation of LID principles and addressing hydrologic conditions of concern. WQMPs shall be in compliance with the current California Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)Santa Ana Region, Waste Discharge Requirements permit,and all Federal,State and local regulations. MM 4.6-2:Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits,a hydrology and hydraulic analysis shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval(10-, 25-,and 100-year storms and back-to back storms shall be analyzed). In addtion,this study shall include 24-hour peak back-to-back 100-year storms for onsite detenfion analysis.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. MM 4.6.4:Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer or applicant shall submit detailed Landscape Architectural plans by a State Licensed Landscape Architect that shall include a designed irrigation system that eliminates surface runoff and meets the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance(MC-14.52)requirements and a detailed planting plan that specifies appropriate California Native and other water conserving plants materials.In addition,there shall be a maintenance program submitted that addresses the use of fertilizers and pesticides to meet the requirements of the City Integrated Pest Management, Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Guidelines,the Water Quality Management Plan, and the County Drainage Area Master Plan.These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works and Planning Departments.The landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with the approved plan,the maintenance program and the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. MM 4.8-1:Noise attenuation'devices shall be used on all`construction equipment,and construction staging areas shall be located as far as possible from any residences or other noise sensifive receptors. MM 4.8-3:Prior to issuance of building permits,a detailed noise assessment shall be prepared for mixed-use and commercial projects within 50 feet of any residence to ensure that these sources do not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance limits.The assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall document the noise generation characteristics of the proposed equipment and the projected noise levels at the nearest residential use.Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance shall be demonstrated and any measures required to comply with the Noise Ordinance and reduce impacts to less-than- ATTACHMENT NO. 5.LA xB -623- Item 14. - 224 significant levels shall be included in the project plans.The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of project ces MM 4.10-1:New construction within the Downtown Specific Plan Area shall be designed b provide for safety measures(e.g., alarm systems,security lighting,other on-site security measures and crime prevention through environmental design policies)and ' subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Department and Huntington Beach Police Department. MM 4.10-2:Subject to the City's annual budgetary process,which considers available funding and the staffing levels needed to provide acceptable response time for fire and police services,the City shall provide sufficient funding to maintain the City's standard,average lem4nfxenicmthmughthauonofGonoro Fund monies. Ufi MM 4.13-1:To ensure that there are no adverse impacts associated with the future Downtown Specific Plan development projects during construction,Applicant/developer/builder/contractor shall coordinate with utility and service organizations prior to the commencement of construction. MM U3-2: individual development projects within the Downtown Specific Plan Area will require connections to existing water, sewer, and utility lines in the City and may require construction of new water pipeline facilities.All connections to existing water and wastewater infrastructure vAll be designed and constructed per the requirements and standards of the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Depat'nnni Connections to omyOCSO sewer line shall be designed to OCGD standards. Such installation shall be coordinated,reviewed,and approved by the appropriate City depat'nents and applicable agencies. MM 4.13-3:Each development project is required to implement separate water conservation measures that support major water conservation efforts.The following water saving technologies can be implemented on a project basis to comply with statewide water goals and water conservation measures that can further assist in meeting the 20%reduction goal. ° Waterless udrials should be specified in all public areas,including restaurants and commercial bathrooms. ° Low-flush toilets should be installed in all new residential units and encouraged through rebates or other incentives in existing homes. ° Low-flow shower heads and water faucets should be required in all new residential and commercial spaces and encouraged in existing developed properties. ° Water efficient kitchen and laundry room appliances should be encourage through rebates for both residential and commercial units. ° Landscaping should bo completed with drought tolerant p|ontsomdnativeupaoieo. , Irrigation plans should use smart controllers and have separated irrigation meters. MM 4.13-4:As individual development occurs within the Downtown Specific Plan area,additional hydraulic studies shall be performed to verify that water pipes will adequately support each specific project,A sewer study shall be preparedfor Public Works Department review and approval.A fourteen U4l day or longer flow test data shall be included in the study.The location and number o[monitoring test sites,not to exceed three,tobe determined by the Public Works Department. MM 4.13-5:As individual development occurs within the Downtown Specific Plan Area,each development shall be required to pay for the developmenCs fair share of infrastructure improvements to electrical systems per Southern California Edison requirements. /T7ACHM ENT NO. ��.^� Attachment No. 6 Summary of Mitigation Measures Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Tree relocation BIO 1 Tree replacement of any existing mature trees on-site shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 232—Landscape Improvements. For the trees to be relocated, an arborist report shall be submitted and include the following: a. Trees shall be transplanted by a qualified tree service to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. b. Detailed specifications and procedures for the translocation of the identified trees. c. The relocated trees shall be maintained and guaranteed to be alive and thriving after four years by a qualified tree service or arborist to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The trees shall be surveyed every six months for a period of four years as to their viability. The survey shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. In the event that any tree is not surviving, it shall be replaced with the same type and size of tree. d. A letter from the developer stating that the recommendations of the Consulting Arborist will be followed. Attach-- "` T- f .Page I HB -625- Item 14. - 226 Item 14. - 227 HB -626- RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DRAFT MN D NO. 11-007 Below is a table listing the comments received during the 30-day public review comment period which commenced Thursday, June 14, 2012 and ended Monday July 16, 2012. Attached are the original comment letters which have been bracketed to isolate the individual or grouping of comments. Comments that address environmental issues are provided with responses. Comments that are outside of the scope of the CEQA review will be forwarded for considerations to the decision makers as part of the project approval process or to the applicant for their information. a .,:.. OMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED DURING THE DRAFT HIND COMMENT`I�ERIOD ;_.,. No. Commenter/Organization Abbreviation STATE DEPARTMENTS 1 Department of Transportation, Christopher Herre, July 16, 2012 DOT CITY ADVISORY BOARD 2 Huntington Beach Environmental Board, Michael Marshall, June 8, HBEB 2012 INDIVIDUALS 3 Rod Albright, July 16, 2012 ALBR 4 Thomas Connolly, July 16, 2012 CONN 5 Carol McCann, July 16, 2012 CMCC 6 Thomas McCann, July 16, 2012 TMCC 7 FeldSott& Lee, July 16, 2012 FELE 8 Mark Bixby, July 16, 2012 BIXB 9 Eric Yao, July 16, 2012 EYAO 10 Gary Baker, July 16, 2012 BAKE 11 Robert Bryant,July 13, 2012 BRYA 12 Jeff Smith, July 16,2012 SMIT 13 Bill Garrisi,July 16,2012 GARR HB -627- Item 14. - 228 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT MND NO. 11-007 STATE DEPARTMENT DFPARTb1ENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT),JULY 16,2012 DOT-1 The comment provides direction for the applicant to utilize the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) when analyzing traffic impacts on State Transportation Facilities. If the project requires an encroachment permit, Traffic Operations may find the Traffic Impact Study based on ICU methodology inadequate resulting in delay or denial of a permit by the Department. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. DOT-2 The comment provides direction and information regarding obtaining an encroachment permit. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. DOT-3 The comment describes permit jurisdiction and requirements within the Department's Right-of-Way. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. Page 1 of 17 Item 14. - 229 HB -628- CITY ADVISORY BOARD HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD(HBEB),JULY 17,2012 HBEB-I The comment provides introductory or general information regarding the project and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. HBEB-2 The comment suggests that the traffic study is not sufficiently documented; however, the comment does not further describe how or why. Because of lack of information, this is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. HBEB-3 The comment suggests that flooding is not addressed. Section IVc of the Draft MND describes the site as a flat developed property with existing drainage flow toward the east into existing storm drains. Stormwater runoff flow as a result of development of the project will maintain similar preexisting drainage conditions. The majority of the storm water flow will be diverted to a new on-site storage tank via retrofitted on-site catch basins and then pumped into proposed cooling towers and reused. The project will not result in new impervious area which could result in flooding. Additionally the site is not located in a FEMA designated flood zone. HBEB-4 The comment suggests that there is a large expanse of west facing glass windows and no Title 24 information was provided. The applicant will be required to comply with Title 24 requirements as part of building permit review. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. HBEB-5 The comment suggests that no accommodation has been made for the removal of existing public areas and open space. The project proposes to remove some existing open spaces area; however the remaining area satisfies minimum open space requirement. HBEB-6 The comment suggests that bird strike protection be imposed through mitigation. This comment will be forwarded to the applicant and Planning Commission for their information. HBEB-7 The comment suggests reference to recycling collection containers during operation and construction phase of the project. The project will be required to comply with Section 3.2.19 Refuse and Recycling Collection Areas of the DTSP as well as any State mandated requirements. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. HBEB-8 The comment suggests that the reference to the CA Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) is in error and that the correct State oversight agency is The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Page 2 of 17 HB -629- Item 14. - 230 (CalRecycle). The reference to CalRecycle has been noted and as noted above, the project will be required to comply with Section 3.2.19 Refuse and Recycling Collection Areas of the DTSP as well as any State mandated requirements. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. HBEB-9 Comment suggests that justification for accepting the Level of Service, lack of parking, public shuttle services, and related mobility topics is not provided. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. HBEB-10 The comment suggests that the owner take recommended steps to reduce stormwater runoff through landscaping, retention, green roof strategies, etc., along with employing sustainable restaurant best practices. Stormwater runoff flow as a result of development of the project will maintain similar preexisting drainage conditions, with a majority of the storm water flow to be diverted to a new on-site storage tank via retrofitted on-site catch basins and then pumped into proposed cooling towers and reused. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. HBEB-11 The comment suggests utilizing LEED practices for energy efficiency with window placement, screening, tinting, awnings, landscaping, etc. Development projects are encouraged to incorporate sustainable or "green" building practices (LEED or Building It Green) into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements as a recommended condition of approval. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant and decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. HBEB-12 The comment suggests accommodation for public areas with seating, bicycle parking and community art installations. The project includes concrete bench/barrier seating along PCH; is required to provide bicycle racks onsite in accordance with Section 3.2.26.5 of the DTSP and public art currently exists within the southwestern plaza area of the site. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. HBEB-13 The comment suggests that adequate enclosures for both refuse and recycling be included along with collection containers and service contracts and compliance with A13341. The project will be required to comply with Section 3.2.19 Refuse and Recycling Collection Areas of the DTSP as well as any State mandated requirements. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. HBEB-14 The comment suggests the addition of onsite recycling throughout the duration of the project and a portion of the construction and demolition waste is utilized for public art. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. Page 3 of 17 Item 14. - 231 HB -630- HBEB-15 The comment suggests the recycling of construction and demolition materials which will significantly address carbon emissions. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant for their information. INDIVIDUAL ■ ROD ALBRIGHT(ALBR),JULY 16,2012 ALBR-1 The comment provides introductory or general information regarding the project and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise any specific environmental issue. ALBR-2 The comment provides introductory or general information regarding the project and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise any specific environmental issue. ALBR-3 The comment suggests that the original approval recognized that the residential and commercial portions should maintain separation and that the proposed development exceeds the maximum site coverage. CUP No. 88-7 and CDP No. 88-3 was approved with an approximately 40' to 50' clear passageway between the residential and commercial portions of the project. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing passageway width of approximately 40' to 50'. Additionally, Section 3.3.1.4 Development Standards of the DTSP does not require maximum site coverage. ALBR-4 The comment suggests that the number of residential units was reduced from 160 to 130 to accommodate greater separation from the commercial portion and to provide greater view opportunities. The DTSP does not require the preservation of private view opportunities; however, staff is recommending that the Design Review Board review the project with regard to massing to ensure compatibility with the existing Pierside Pavilion building and adjacent buildings. ■ THOMAS CO7NNOLLY(CONN),JULY 16,2012 CONN-1 The comment suggests that per Section 3.2.21 of the DTSP, residential buffers shall be applied. This requirement references Figure 3-10 which delineates where residential buffers shall apply. The area between Pierside Pavilion and Pier colony is not delineated as requiring a residential buffer. CONN-2 The comment suggests that public open space and ground floor visitor-serving uses are required. The project will comply with Section 3.3.1.15 Public Open Space and Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses of the DTSP. Staff concurs that visitor-serving commercial uses are required for all ground floor square footage in the District 1 Visitor Serving Commercial Overlay. Staff is Page 4 of 17 HB -631- Item 14. - 232 recommending a condition of approval that would require any reference to new office area on the 1 st floor to be removed from the plans. CONN-3 The comment suggests Section 3.3.1.15 Public Open Space of the DTSP is not being met and that Pier Colony landscaping area is being counted. The project includes calculating the area of the existing development. With that, approximately 3,833 sq. ft. of public open space is required and approximately 5,760 sq. ft. is provided. 30% of the required public open space shall contain landscaping (approximately 1,150 sq. ft.); approximately 1,156 sq. ft. is provided satisfying this code requirement. CONN-4 The comment suggests that per Section 3.3.1.14 Public Views of the DTSP has not been provided. Sheet A-11.1 of the submitted plans dated May 4, 2012 provides a graphic representation of a public view analysis. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. CONN-5 The comment suggests that the proposed development extends to approximately 10' from PCH, replacing a large public open space area which provides pedestrian relief. The setback requirement along PCH is O'minimum and 5' maximum. The project includes a 2'-3" setback after dedication along PCH. The plans dated May 4, 2012 show an approximately 15' clear passageway along the PCH frontage. However, staff does recognize that this may become congested during peak times and is suggesting conditions of approval to keep the pedestrian passageway free and clear of obstructions. CONN-6 The comment suggests that the downtown be a pedestrian oriented environment. As noted above, staff is recommending conditions of approval to keep the pedestrian passageway free and clear of obstructions. CONN-7 The comment suggests that the pedestrian corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion will be narrowed. The project will maintain the existing approximately 40' to 50' width along the corridor (including infill expansion within existing arcades up to existing columns) and continue that width between the proposed building expansion and Pier Colony. CONN-8 The comment questions the validity of the Noise study. The commenter implies that a noise study during peak conditions (between Memorial Day and Labor Day) would produce increased project impacts. The inverse is actually true, when the project is added to a lower background ambient noise levels, the project only impacts are actually greater. The reference noise level measurements used to identify the off-site project operational impacts were measured at 77.3 dBA at a distance of 20 feet. This is equivalent to the unmitigated exterior noise levels at a distance of 20 feet from a major 6-lane freeway. In other words, regardless of when or where the noise level measurements were collected, they represent a worst-case noise level to assess Page 5 of 17 Item 14. - 233 HB -632- the potential project related impacts. Tables 7-3 and 7-4 of the Noise Study both show that the existing ambient noise levels (which would be higher between Memorial Day and Labor Day) overshadow the expected daytime and nighttime noise level impacts associated with the proposed project. In other words, the existing conditions are 6.9 to 10.0 dBA louder than the expected project noise levels. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant and decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. CONN-9 The comment suggests that the Noise Study did not accurately account for construction noise. Although there may be some temporary groundboume vibration or groundbourne noise levels due to onsite construction activities, these would occur infrequently and would be short-term. Occasionally, large bulldozers and loaded trucks may cause perceptible vibration levels at close proximity. The project will include the installation of structural helical piers (or piles) for underpinning of some of the existing footings. These are steel elements (rods, tubes, etc.) that have welded on to them several steel bearing elements shaped in a helical pattern. The method of installation is by screwing the steel elements into the ground by a mini-bobcat with a screw rig attached to the nose, which would only occur within the existing subterranean parking structure. This construction method is substantially less invasive than the more typical construction method involving high levels of noise and vibration from the use of a pile driver and drill rig. Because the proposed project is not expected to employ any pile driving or drilling, rock blasting or heavy grading equipment and with residential uses located greater than 10-feet from construction activities, impacts from groundborne vibration are anticipated to be less than significant. Furthermore, these activities will be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant and decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. CONN-10 The comment suggests that the contrasting contemporary design is a departure from the existing Mediterranean style. The project's design intent is to contrast with the surrounding architecture. However, staff is suggesting a condition of approval that requires the Design Review Board (DRB) to review the design with regard to massing and architectural compatibility. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant and decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. CONN-11 The comment suggests that a Traffic Study was submitted. A traffic study was submitted and prepared by Minagar & Associates, Inc. (February 2012). The findings can be found in Section VI. Transportation/Traffic of the Draft MND. CONN-12 The comment contains concluding or general information. It is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. Page 6 of 17 HB -633- Item 14. - 234 ■ CAROL MCCANN (CMCC),JULY 16,2012 CMCC-1 The comment provides introductory, general information, or opinion regarding the project and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise any specific environmental issue. CMCC-2 The comment suggests that the project would negatively impact public views and states that setbacks may be increased and site coverage, density and building heights may be reduced as necessary to protect public views of the ocean. The project proposed to maintain the existing corridor width; however private views may be obstructed. Protection of private views is not required pursuant to the DTSP. CMCC-3 The comment provides introductory, general information, or opinion regarding the project and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise any specific environmental issue. • THOMAS MCCANN (TMCC),JULV 16, 2012 TMCC-1 The comment provides introductory, general information, or opinion regarding the project and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise any specific environmental issue TMCC-2 The comment suggests that the noise study is flawed. The commenter implies that a noise study during peak conditions (between Memorial Day and Labor Day) would produce increased project impacts. The inverse is actually true, when the project is added to a lower background ambient noise levels, the project only impacts are actually greater. The reference noise level measurements used to identify the off-site project operational impacts were measured at 77.3 dBA at a distance of 20 feet. This is equivalent to the unmitigated exterior noise levels at a distance of 20 feet from a major 6-lane freeway. Therefore, regardless of when or where the noise level measurements were collected, they represent a worst-case noise level to assess the potential project related impacts. Tables 7-3 and 7-4 of the Noise Study both show that the existing ambient noise levels (which would be higher between Memorial Day and Labor Day) overshadow the expected daytime and nighttime noise level impacts associated with the proposed Pierside Pavilion project. In other words, the existing conditions are 6.9 to 10.0 dBA louder than the expected project noise levels. Page 7 of 17 Item 14. - 235 HB -634- TMCC-3 The comment provides introductory, general information, or opinion regarding the project and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise any specific environmental issue. ° FELDSOTT& LEE(FELE),JULY 16,2012 FELE-1 The comment provides introductory, general information, or opinion regarding the project and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise any specific environmental issue. FELE-2 The comment suggests that noise & traffic impacts have not been addressed. As noted in Section X Noise, a Noise Impact Analysis was prepared by Urban Crossroads to evaluate the noise impacts associated with the proposed project during construction and operation. During site grading for the new building and other construction phases of the project, noise levels on the site may increase from normal construction vehicles such as concrete trucks and a backhoe as well as other equipment and tools typically used on construction sites. Construction of the project will create short-term noise impacts. However, the development will be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.40 Noise Control), which restricts hours of construction to reduce noise impacts to the area to a less than significant level. Though the City exempts construction noise, the proposed project will incorporate the construction mitigation measures that were included in the DTSP Program EIR to further reduce noise at the nearby noise-sensitive residents. Long-term noise impacts from the project are subject to compliance with the City Noise Ordinance as well but are not expected to be a concern due to the proposed uses, which are compatible with the character of the area and will not result in any significant noise impact. As noted in Section VI Transportation/Traffic of the Draft MND, construction traffic resulting from development of the project may result in short-term interruptions to traffic circulation including pedestrian and bicycle flow. However, the project schedule would avoid peak season traffic. Based on the project schedule and scope of project construction short-term interruptions to traffic are not considered to be significant. In addition, short-term construction impacts may be reduced through implementation of code requirements requiring the approval of a construction vehicle control plan by the Department of Public Works. FELE-3 The comment suggests that increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic will occur. As noted in Section Section VI Transportation/Traffic of the Draft MND, a traffic study by Minagar & Associates, Inc. was conducted for the project to determine the potential impacts of the proposed development on nearby intersection operations, traffic, safety, downtown master plan street Page 8 of 17 HB -635- Item 14. - 236 design, parking requirements and pedestrian access. The study finds that the project adequately meets the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan and the parking provisions specified in the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) and that the project will not adversely alter traffic operations on the surrounding transportation system. A total of 530 parking spaces are required for the project (90 spaces for retail, 288 spaces for restaurant, and 152 spaces for office) pursuant to Section 3.2.26 of the DTSP. The property is allocated up to 300 of the 826 parking spaces within the adjacent municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street. 296 parking spaces will be provided on-site within the existing subterranean parking area and 234 parking spaces will be utilized within the adjacent Municipal parking structure for a total of 530 parking spaces. During construction, up to 20 parking spaces within the existing on-site subterranean parking area will be disrupted and unavailable. However, there is currently a surplus of available parking (300-234=66 spaces) within the Municipal parking structure that is allocated to the project to offset this temporary deficiency. The proposed project has been designed according to City parking regulations and has sufficient parking spaces FELE-4 The comment suggests that the project will have a negative effect on home values however this is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise any specific environmental issue. FELE-5 The comment contains concluding or general information. It is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise any specific environmental issue. • MARK BIXBY(BIXB),J ULY 16,2012 BIXB-1 The comment refers to the conceptual plans dated May 4, 2012 which depicts new office area on the ground floor. Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses of the DTSP requires that visitor-serving commercial uses are required for all ground floor square footage in the District 1 Visitor Serving Commercial Overlay. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that would require any reference to new office area on the I" floor to be removed from the plans. BIX13-2 The comment suggests that potential bird strikes against glass or other reflective materials may be an issue after construction. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that requires DRB review of the proposed design including colors, and materials. This issue will be discussed and possible solutions may include smaller or gridded window systems, anti-bird adhesive stickers, or other methods may be determined. This concern has been forwarded to the applicant for review and comment. Page 9 of 17 Item 14. - 237 HB -636- BIXB-3 The comment suggests that potential shade and shadow impacts to Pier Colony was not studied. As noted the DTSP lacks a shade/shadow mitigation measure, but does include mitigation measure CR 4.1-1 that limits light spill onto adjacent properties. This concern has been forwarded to the applicant for review and comment. BIXB-4 The comment includes a chronology of events related to the vacation of 3rd Street and whether a view corridor exists or if view corridor requirements apply. The comment suggests that the original project approvals were dependant on and therefore additional development requirements (including street vacations — view corridor requirements) were imposed once the proposed revisions to the DTSP were approved. CUP No. 88-7 and CDP No. 88-3 were not in effect until the revisions to the DTSP were approved; however this requirement was not intended to impose the new (and undetermined at the time) revisions to the DTSP. CUP No. 88-7 and CDP No. 88-3 was approved with an approximately 40' to 50' clear passageway and not the width of the former 3rd Street (60') between Walnut Avenue and PCH. As noted in the comment, the separation between the residential portions of the project and the adjacent visitor-serving uses was planned and designed; however it was not due to the Street Vacation and view corridor requirement as enacted by Ordinance 2942. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing and originally approved separation and corridor width. Additionally, 3rd Street was originally established as a 60' right-of-way on the original Pacific City Tract Map (July 1901). The vacation of 3rd Street occurred via Tract Map No. 13722 as stated in the City Clerk's Certificate of Pierside Pavilion. However, the majority of 3rd Street (30 feet north + 17.09 feet south of the former street centerline) right-of-way was vacated in a similar fashion on Tract Map No. 13478. Both maps show recordation on same date (August 2, 1989) within approximately 1 hour of each other. ■ ERIC YAo(EYAO),DULY 16,2012 EYAO-1 The comment provides introductory or general information regarding the project and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. EYAO-2 The comment suggests that per Section 3.2.21 of the DTSP residential buffers shall be applied. This requirement references Figure 3-10 which delineates where residential buffers shall apply. The area between Pierside Pavilion and Pier colony is not delineated as requiring a residential buffer. EYAO-3 The comment suggests that public open space and ground floor visitor-serving uses are required. The project will comply with Section 3.3.1.15 Public Open Space and Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses of the DTSP. Staff concurs that visitor-serving commercial uses are required for all ground floor square Page 10 of 17 HB -637- Item 14. - 238 footage in the District 1 Visitor Serving Commercial Overlay. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that would require any reference to new office area on the 1 st floor to be removed from the plans. EYAO-4 The comment suggests Section 3.3.1.15 Public Open Space of the DTSP is not being met and that Pier Colony landscaping area is being counted. The project includes calculating the area of the existing development. With that, approximately 3,833 sq. ft. of public open space is required and approximately 5,760 sq. ft. is provided. 30% of the required public open space shall contain landscaping (approximately 1,150 sq. ft.); approximately 1,156 sq. ft. is provided satisfying this code requirement. EYAO-5 The comment suggests that per Section 3.3.1.14 Public Views of the DTSP has not been provided. Sheet A-11.1 of the submitted plans dated May 4, 2012 provides a graphic representation of a public view analysis. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. EYAO-6 The comment suggests that the proposed development extends to approximately 10' from PCH, replacing a large public open space area which provides pedestrian relief. The setback requirement along PCH is O'minimum and 5' maximum. The project includes a 2'-3" setback after property dedication along PCH. The plans dated May 4, 2012 show an approximately 15' clear passageway along the PCH frontage. However, staff does recognize that this may become congested during peak times and is suggesting conditions of approval to keep the pedestrian passageway free and clear of obstructions. EYAO-7 The comment suggests that the downtown be a pedestrian oriented environment. As noted above, staff is recommending conditions of approval to keep the pedestrian passageway free and clear of obstructions. EYAO-8 The comment suggests that the pedestrian corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion will be narrowed. The project would maintain the existing approximately 40' to 50' width along the corridor (including infill expansion within existing arcades up to existing columns) and continue that width between the expansion building and Pier Colony. EYAO-9 The comment questions the validity of the Noise study. The commenter implies that a noise study during peak conditions (between Memorial Day and Labor Day) would produce increased project impacts. The inverse is actually true, when the project is added to a lower background ambient noise levels, the project only impacts are actually greater. The reference noise level measurements used to identify the off-site project operational impacts were measured at 77.3 dBA at a distance of 20 feet. This is equivalent to the unmitigated exterior noise levels at a distance of 20 feet from a major 6-lane Page 11 of 17 Item 14. - 239 HB -638- freeway. In other words, regardless of when or where the noise level measurements were collected, they represent a worst-case noise level to assess the potential project related impacts. Tables 7-3 and 7-4 of the Noise Study both show that the existing ambient noise levels (which would be higher between Memorial Day and Labor Day) overshadow the expected daytime and nighttime noise level impacts associated with the proposed project. In other words, the existing conditions are 6.9 to 10.0 dBA louder than the expected project noise levels. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant and decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. EYAO-10 The comment suggests that the Noise Study did not accurately account for construction noise. Although there may be some temporary groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels due to onsite construction activities, these would occur infrequently and would be short-term. Occasionally, large bulldozers and loaded trucks may cause perceptible vibration levels at close proximity. The project will include the installation of structural helical piers (or piles) for underpinning of some of the existing footings. These are steel elements (rods, tubes, etc.) that have welded on to them several steel bearing elements shaped in a helical pattern. The method of installation is by screwing the steel elements into the ground by a mini-bobcat with a screw rig attached to the nose, which would only occur within the existing subterranean parking structure. This construction method is substantially less invasive than the more typical construction method involving high levels of noise and vibration from the use of a pile driver and drill rig. Because the proposed project is not expected to employ any pile driving or drilling, rock blasting or heavy grading equipment and with residential uses located greater than 10-feet from construction activities, impacts from groundborne vibration are anticipated to be less than significant. Furthermore, these activities will be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant and decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. EYAO-11 The comment suggests that the contrasting contemporary design is a departure from the existing Mediterranean style. The project's design intent is to contrast with the surrounding architecture. However, staff is suggesting a condition of approval that requires the Design Review Board (DRB) to review the design with regard to massing and architectural compatibility. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant and decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. EYAO-12 The comment suggests that a Traffic Study was submitted. A traffic study was submitted and prepared by Minagar & Associates, Inc. (February 2012). The findings can be found in Section VI. Transportation/Traffic of the Draft MND. Page 12 of 17 HB -639- Item 14. - 240 EYAO-13 The comment contains concluding or general information. It is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. ® GARY BAKER(BAKE),J ui.Y 16,2012 BAKE-1 The comment suggests that noise impacts will be increased. As noted in Section X Noise, a Noise Impact Analysis was prepared by Urban Crossroads to evaluate the noise impacts associated with the proposed project during construction and operation. During site grading for the new building and other construction phases of the project, noise levels on the site may increase from normal construction vehicles such as concrete trucks and a backhoe as well as other equipment and tools typically used on construction sites. Construction of the project will create short-term noise impacts. However, the development will be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.40 Noise Control), which restricts hours of construction to reduce noise impacts to the area to a less than significant level. Though the City exempts construction noise, the proposed project will incorporate the construction mitigation measures that were included in the DTSP Program EIR to further reduce noise at the nearby noise-sensitive residents. Long-term noise impacts from the project are subject to compliance with the City Noise Ordinance as well but are not expected to be a concern due to the proposed uses, which are compatible with the character of the area and will not result in any significant noise impact. BAKE-2 The comment suggests that the project will create a potential for crime. The City's Police Department has reviewed the plans and has found that the project will eliminate some of the existing under-arcade hiding places and provide better security and pedestrian lighting. BAKE-3 The comment suggests that traffic congestion will be increased. As noted in Section Section VI Transportation/Traffic of the Draft MND, a traffic study by Minagar & Associates, Inc. was conducted for the project to determine the potential impacts of the proposed development on nearby intersection operations, traffic, safety, downtown master plan street design, parking requirements and pedestrian access. The study finds that the project adequately meets the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan and the parking provisions specified in the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) and that the project will not adversely alter traffic operations on the surrounding transportation system. A total of 530 parking spaces are required for the project (90 spaces for retail, 288 spaces for restaurant, and 152 spaces for office) pursuant to Section 3.2.26 of the DTSP. The property is allocated up to 300 of the 826 parking spaces within the adjacent municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street. 296 parking spaces will be provided on-site within the existing Page 13 of 17 Item 14. - 241 HB -640- subterranean parking area and 234 parking spaces will be utilized within the adjacent Municipal parking structure for a total of 530 spaces. During construction, up to 20 parking spaces within the existing on-site subterranean parking area will be disrupted and unavailable. However, there is a surplus of available parking(300-234=66 spaces) within the Municipal parking structure that is allocated to the project to offset this temporary deficiency. The proposed project has been designed according to City parking regulations and has sufficient parking spaces BAKE-4 The comment suggests that the project will decrease property value of Pier Colony and that the proposed architecture is not compatible with existing downtown architecture and diminishes Pier Colony ocean views. The DTSP does not require the preservation of private view opportunities; however, staff is recommending that the Design Review Board review the project with regard to massing and architecture to ensure compatibility with the existing Pierside Pavilion building and adjacent buildings. BAKE-5 The comment suggests that the original approval recognized that the residential and commercial portions should maintain separation; and that the proposed development exceeds the maximum site coverage. CUP No. 88-7 and CDP No. 88-3 was approved with an approximately 40' to 50' clear passageway between the residential and commercial portions of the project. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing passageway width of approximately 40' to 50'. Additionally, Section 3.3.1.4 Development Standards of the DTSP does not require maximum site coverage. BAKE-6 The comment suggests that the number of residential units was reduced from 160 to 130 to accommodate greater separation from the commercial portion and to provide greater view opportunities. The DTSP does not require the preservation of private view opportunities; however, staff is recommending that the Design Review Board review the project with regard to massing to ensure compatibility with the existing Pierside Pavilion building and adjacent buildings. ® ROBERT BRYANT(BRYA),JULY 13,2012 BRYA-1 This comment letter provides introductory, general information, or opinion regarding the project, and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise any specific environmental issue. ® JEFF SMITH (SM;IT),JULY 16,2012 SMIT-1 This comment letter provides introductory, general information, or opinion regarding the project, and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. Page 14 of 17 HB -641- Item 14. - 242 SMIT-2 The comment suggests that the noise analysis is flawed. As noted in Section X Noise, a Noise Impact Analysis was prepared by Urban Crossroads to evaluate the noise impacts associated with the proposed project during construction and operation. During site grading for the new building and other construction phases of the project, noise levels on the site may increase from normal construction vehicles such as concrete trucks and a backhoe as well as other equipment and tools typically used on construction sites. Construction of the project will create short-term noise impacts. However, the development will be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.40 Noise Control), which restricts hours of construction to reduce noise impacts to the area to a less than significant level. Though the City exempts construction noise, the proposed project will incorporate the construction mitigation measures that were included in the DTSP Program EIR to further reduce noise at the nearby noise-sensitive residents. Long-term noise impacts from the project are subject to compliance with the City Noise Ordinance as well but are not expected to be a concern due to the proposed uses, which are compatible with the character of the area and will not result in any significant noise impact. BILL GARRISI (GARR),JULY 16,2012 GARR-1 This comment letter provides introductory or general information regarding the project, and is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND, and does not raise any specific environmental issue. GARR-2 The comment suggests that per Section 3.2.21 of the DTSP, residential buffers shall be applied. This requirement references Figure 3-10 which delineates where residential buffers shall apply. The area between Pierside Pavilion and Pier colony is not delineated as requiring a residential buffer. GARR-3 The comment suggests that public open space and ground floor visitor-serving uses are required. The project will comply with Section 3.3.1.15 Public Open Space of the DTSP and staff concurs that visitor-serving commercial uses are required for all ground floor square footage in the District 1 Visitor Serving Commercial Overlay. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that would require any reference to new office area on the 1 st floor to be removed from the plans. GARR-4 The comment suggests Section 3.3.1.15 Public Open Space of the DTSP is not being met and that Pier Colony landscaping area is being counted. The project includes calculating the area of the existing development. With that, approximately 3,833 sq. ft. of public open space is required and approximately 5,760 sq. ft. is provided. 30% of the required public open space shall contain landscaping (approximately 1,150 sq. ft.); approximately 1,156 sq. ft. is provided satisfying this requirement. Page 15 of 17 Item 14. - 243 HB -642- GARR-5 The comment suggests that per Section 3.3.1.14 Public Views of the DTSP has not been provided. Sheet A-11.1 of the submitted plans dated May 4, 2012 provides a graphic representation of a public view analysis. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. GARR-6 The comment suggests that the proposed development extends to approximately 10' from PCH, replacing a large public open space area which provides pedestrian relief. The setback requirement along PCH is O'minimum and 5' maximum. The project includes a 2'-3" setback after property dedication along PCH. The plans dated May 4, 2012 show an approximately 15' clear passageway along the PCH frontage. However, staff does recognize that this may become congested during peak times and is suggesting conditions of approval to keep the pedestrian passageway free and clear of obstructions. GARR-7 The comment suggests that the downtown be a pedestrian oriented environment. As noted above, staff is recommending conditions of approval to keep the pedestrian passageway free and clear of obstructions. GARR-8 The comment suggests that the pedestrian corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion will be narrowed. The project would maintain the existing approximately 40' to 50' width along the corridor (including infill expansion within existing arcades up to existing columns) and continue that width between the expansion building and Pier Colony. GARR-9 The comment questions the validity of the Noise study. The commenter implies that a noise study during peak conditions (between Memorial Day and Labor Day) would produce increased project impacts. The inverse is actually true, when the project is added to a lower background ambient noise levels, the project only impacts are actually greater. The reference noise level measurements used to identify the off-site project operational impacts were measured at 77.3 dBA at a distance of 20 feet. This is equivalent to the unmitigated exterior noise levels at a distance of 20 feet from a major 6-Lane freeway. In other words, regardless of when or where the noise level measurements were collected, they represent a worst-case noise level to assess the potential project related impacts. Tables 7-3 and 7-4 of the Noise Study both show that the existing ambient noise levels (which would be higher between Memorial Day and Labor Day) overshadow the expected daytime and nighttime noise level impacts associated with the proposed project. In other words, the existing conditions are 6.9 to 10.0 dBA louder than the expected project noise levels. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant and decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. Page 16 of 17 HB -643- Item 14. - 244 GARR-10 The comment suggests that the Noise Study did not accurately account for construction noise. Although there may be some temporary groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels due to onsite construction activities, these would occur infrequently and would be short-term. Occasionally, large bulldozers and loaded trucks may cause perceptible vibration levels at close proximity. The project will include the installation of structural helical piers (or piles) for underpinning of some of the existing footings. These are steel elements (rods, tubes, etc.) that have welded on to them several steel bearing elements shaped in a helical pattern. The method of installation is by screwing the steel elements into the ground by a mini-bobcat with a screw rig attached to the nose, which would only occur within the existing subterranean parking structure. This construction method is substantially less invasive than the more typical construction method involving high levels of noise and vibration from the use of a pile driver and drill rig. Because the proposed project is not expected to employ any pile driving or drilling, rock blasting or heavy grading equipment and with residential uses located greater than 10-feet from construction activities, impacts from groundborne vibration are anticipated to be less than significant. Furthermore, these activities will be required to comply with the City Noise Ordinance. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant and decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. GARR-11 The comment suggests that the contrasting contemporary design is a departure from the existing Mediterranean style. The project's design intent is to contrast with the surrounding architecture. However, staff is suggesting a condition of approval that requires the Design Review Board (DRB) to review the design with regard to massing and architectural compatibility. The comment will be forwarded to the applicant and decision-makers prior to their consideration for the proposed project. GARR-12 The comment suggests that a Traffic Study was submitted. A traffic study was submitted and prepared by Minagar & Associates, Inc. (February 2012). The findings can be found in Section VI. Transportation/Traffic of the Draft MND. GARR-13 The comment contains concluding or general information. It is not a direct comment on the content or adequacy of the Draft MND and does not raise any specific environmental issue. Page 17 of 17 Item 14. - 245 HB -644- ATTACHMENT #7 � ^ N U0 CEPTUALLY APPROVED PLAN DATED 3125188 e f • a It a • a i s a s • a a `� I t i • dw ad I L 6• I �t ayyp i � } . S c , ���f yl ti, •r � I I l,ft t 3f ,I .�1� ��1.A _• "t' I I �... I � ji I r I I ` - _ �i Two twe H U N T I N G T 0 N • P I E R • C 0 CO N Y p p I p AN A' 6' I, £ NTERTa1N M £ N T CENTER DIMENSION' PL � I CAUFORNIA RESORTS 305 Mdrwt Avenue. Vuntfngta 9e•ctl, Wif•min 92E40 y T tf SMITH ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 40' SEPARATION (VIE CORRIDOR} 29f414<Mef Ual:m 5vect. Soma fAonicn, California 40405 f k PROPOSED 2012 PLAN -- --- r_—_—_—_—_._._ wALNLjAA JUf _—_---- _--J� 1 m 1 W u. 0"—1 fw�G�etM 'l.Jp.N�i�x I t 2 I ma. •I r —_ Q.nw 11..mlawe I —_ I � — ADJACENT BUILDINGS , f3 men ADJACENT I I I BUILDINGwA IL I � LEGEND —� II l a I x�wmciwaw�.m.�u.cwe» ! J II �J�rtwcrww.`rN°.RI � =MM== - oNluruJ,aonxn O mft II a i ~� I L--_—--- —_--� - F. �o No?OCCIONp I PACIFICCOASTWGFlWAY RPISTII /� 40' SEPARATION (VIEW CORRIDOR) ` ° W Rcmp PLAN .-_.._ 1 A-3 ATTAC H M E N T #8 Item 14 249 „u -648- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ® PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning & Building 4v�� SUBJECT- Responses to Commissioner Bixby's Emails (item B-2, CUP 11-21, Etc. — Pierside Pavilion Expansion) DATE: August 14, 2012 Staffs responses to Commissioner Bixby's emails received August 14, August 12, and August 9, 2012 pertaining to the Pierside Pavilion Expansion project scheduled for the August 14, 2012 Planning Commission meeting are as follows: August 14, 2012 (Email: Jeff Smith just pointed out to me that there appears to be Pierside grant deed language locking in the uses established by CUP 88-7 and CDP 88-3 and TTM 13478 "as such permits now exist or may hereafter be amended" until December 31, 2018. We're processing this project as an EPA for just the carts, but doing a new CUP/CDP for the new uses. So is that amending the prior uses or establishing new uses in conflict with the deed restriction? It's murky to me, but nonetheless interesting so I will be asking about it tonight. I just wanted to give you an advanced heads up so you can respond in an informed manner. Staffs Response: This language was in reference to the former theater use and was deleted as part of the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) approved in 2009 by the City Council. August 12, 2012 Email: Based on the results of my research this weekend, I cancel my request for the full administrative record of Pierside CUP 88-7/CDP 88-3. But I am still interested in answers to all other questions in my prior email below. My research was into DTSP Code Amendment 88-3 before it was finalized as Ordinance 2942. 1 did not trace it ALL of the way back since there were quite a few council/PC iterations. But I discovered that the first iteration to include the L T17 HB 64g�I UNICATION #B-2 PC WItem 14. - 250 Third St view corridor preservation requirement was straw-vote-approved by PC on March 15, 1988 (prior to this, the requirement only applied to District 2, but the March 15th meeting added District 3). As far as I can tell, PC took their final action on CA 88-3 on April 5, 1988, the same day that Pierside was heard. So in theory the Third St view corridor preservation requirement should have been known to both staff and PC prior to Pierside approval which conditioned the entitlements to take effect once the DTSP changes were finalized. The council minutes of the May 2, 1988 first reading of the DTSP changes are informative. It looks like between April 5th and May 2nd somebody realized the DTSP impact to Pierside. At that May 2 council meeting, a straw vote motion was made to change the view corridor preservation language from "shall" to "may", but it failed 2-5. The "shall" goes on to persist to final adoption, only to surface 25 years later in the present. Staffs Response: The conceptual site plan for Pierside Pavilion was approved via CUP 88-7/CDP 88-3 by the Planning Commission on April 5, 1988. This site plan depicted an approximately 40' wide separation between Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony(in the location of the proposed 3rd Street vacation). At the same time this project was being considered, the City was in the final phase of revising the DTSP. The staff report acknowledged there were revisions to the DTSP and that the proposed project conforms with the proposed changes. The only stipulation was that CUP 88-7/CDP 88-3 not take effect until the revisions (Ordinance 2942) to the DTSP were approved by the City Council. This condition only limited time by which the permits take effect and did not change the 40' separation. From this approval, we can deduce that the intent was the 40' separation was contemplated and consistent with the previous DTSP and changes to the DTSP, including the view corridor requirement. The applicant was issued building permits and the project was constructed as approved via the entitlements and conditions of approval with an approximately 40' wide separation between Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony. The proposed project maintains the existing width of approximately 40' August 9, 2012 Email. The bottom of aft 4.21 of the PD code requirements memo notes that the planter/bench layout near the PCH bus stop creates a constriction that may impede pedestrian flow. I had that same observation just from looking at the plans before reading the PD memo. Does the reduced pedestrian clearance there meet all applicable code requirements and/or fall into the exception being sought by the Special Permit? Staffs .Response: The pedestrian clearances meet all applicable requirements, no Special Permit is required. The Police Department reference is regarding overall pedestrian congestion, especially with the proposed cart locations. The project is required to comply with CUP 10- Page 2 of 3 Item 14. - 251 HB -650- 017 (Pierside Carts) including the requirement to maintain a minimum of 10' clear between retails carts and any obstruction. Compliance with the requirements of CUP 10-017 may not permit carts in this location. Speaking of the Special Permit...the narrative mentions that one is being sought for the expansion and SPX references abound in the code requirements memos, yet the PC is not being asked to approve any Special Permit. The DTSP says that Special Permits get approved by ZA or PC, i.e. not the Director. So I'm confused about why no Special Permit is in the recommended PC action. I am confused by the saga of the carts/kiosks (before my time on PC and not something 1 tracked as a resident). Is the staff recommendation to stay with what council approved in the prior action? Staffs Response: A Special Permit is not required. Staffs recommendation is to comply with City Council action (CUP 10-017) and the location requirements stipulated in the conditions of approval. Any changes to the approved location of the carts are subject to City Council review and approval. Lastly, regarding the Third St view corridor, the BiXB-4 response regarding that is crafted with great finesse (which is a genuine compliment to the author), but as a full and complete explanation of that bit of project history it leaves me unsatisfied. I would like to obtain a digital copy of the entire CUP 88-7/CDP 88-3 administrative record so I can see for myself the discussion and plans depicting the then-approved 40-50ft "clear passageway". In theory you already have all of that at your fingertips.The key phrase in BIXBA is "not intended". Which is different than saying unambiguously that no Third Street view corridor obligation was imposed on the Pierside project by the adoption of Ordinance 2942. The original Pierside project entitlements were conditioned to take effect after the pending DTSP modifications in Ord 2942 were adopted. I'm still looking for a plain yes or no answer on whether the original project was subject to all of the Ord 2942 requirements by virtue of the way it was conditioned. Staffs Response: See response above under August 12, 2012 email. And I would just like to reiterate here that the current applicant's plans on Sheet A-0 depict the proposed construction intruding into a labeled 60 ft view corridor. So whoever drew those plans seemed to be under the assumption that a full- width Third Street view corridor exists. Is it the city's assertion that Sheet A-0 is in error? Staffs Response: Yes, this reference is in error. Page 3 of 3 HB -651- Item 14. - 252 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012 Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021 Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 Variance No. 11-005 IPiersid Expansion _t 4 Mn B� - August 14, 2012 Applicant: Michael Adams, Michael C. Adams Associates Property Owner: Joe Daichendt, Theory R Properties LLC Location: 300 Pacific Coast Highway Aerial Ala �w }T Subject Site Item 14. - 253 LATE CfB' � �ICATION 9-2 PC MTG 8-14-12 1 _ Project Request � q , - MND —analyzes potential environmental impacts from the proposed development. a = ` CDPICUP —to permit 400 sq. ft. demo and =y `' construct 27,772 sq. ft. mixed-use building and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion. To permit the expansion of allowable uses from . .w the previously approved limits established by EPA No. 07-01. r �L u -R Project Request (cont.) To permit the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the restaurant areas. To permit shared parking < == EPA—to amend CUP No. 10-17 to modify location -__:.- of existing retail carts. VAR -- permit a max height of 68 ft. (plus up to 90 ft. for mechanical housing) in lieu of 45 ft. max. HB -653- Item 14. - 254 F Alnal y sis - _, 'o Primary issues include. — Suggested Modifications — Consistency with General Plan Y Compliance with DTSP _E y — Compatibility with surrounding land uses Analysis -- Suggested Mods BE �. CDP No.11-012 and CUP No. 11-021 r ,. Require rooftop deck wails not to be less than or exceed 42 inches in height. ~' — Rooftop mechanical equipment and all associated screening)shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. - — Require a full height(floor to ceiling)glass window at the eastern elevation of the outdoor dining area located on the 2"d floor. x — Require that the reference to new office area on the V1 floor plan be ': removed. Require the Design Review Board(DRB)to review the overall design and building massing of the proposed project. T Y_ 6 3 Item 14. - 255 HB -654- ii -:. Analysis — Suggested Mods { t — Require the roof element of the eastern stairwell to contrast with the =_ existing building roof design(DRB) Require that the use of the rooftop deck shall be prohibited until a revised noise study is submitted that demonstrates compliance with the City's noise ordinance and the design of the deck is compatible with the surrounding uses. `a EPA No.11-007 Revise the proposed cart locations to comply with Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017(P€erside Pavilion Carts)conditions of approval and code requirements. ;m VAR No. 11-005 " — Require that the maximum building height is decreased from top of parapet height of 68'to 62'to match the height of the existing building. 7 Analysis ® Mitigation/General Planl®TSP 'a Mitigation One mitigation is proposed to address tree replacement requirements k = for the removal of any existing mature trees. — Applicable mitigation measures from DTSP Program EIR No-08-001. =` }p General Plan 3 — Land Use Element of the General Plan maximum density/intensity of { 'f 4-stories. — Complies with suggested mod to lower roof deck walls to max and not less than 42°. _ ■ DTSP — Complies with suggested mod to eliminate office reference on 111 story. Only visitor-serving commercial uses are permitted on ground floor. Does not comply with maximum height(discussed later), — Exterior mechanical equipment is required to be screened from view on all sides and setback a min of 15'from edge of building. Complies with recommended condition of approval to setback a min of 15'to $ - _' comply with code. A xB -655- Item 14. - 256 Analysis -- Design Guidelines s -` ■ Design Guidelines ri — Project does not fully comply with the DTSP—Design Guidelines with regard to building design. Recommend condition to have the DRB review massing and rr consider additional upper-story setbacks,review colors/materiais } (including anti-bird strike solutions)to ensure architectural compatibility. — Recommendation by DRB would be submitted for review and approval by the Director. k 9 e A- - CompatibilityAnal Analysis ij. Land Use Compatibility — View Analysis s.� applicant submitted renderings that show that public views " will not be impacted. Project maintains existing corridor width between Pierside mow:; and Pier Colony. Protection of private views is not required. • However, staff recommends conditions of approval to have DRB review massing and consider additional upper-story = setbacks. y — Alcohol Sales/Restaurants • Submitted Noise Stud show compliance with project as 4 Y A P 1 proposed(8' roof deck walls). ' E With staff recommended mod to reduce roof deck walls to not less than and a max of 42"—a modified Noise Study is required. 5 Item 14. - 257 HB -656- Analysis - Compatibility (contm � 'r° Land Use Compatibility — Alcohol Sales/Restaurants(cont.) Subject to compliance with standard conditions of approval for restaurants with alcohol service. Police suggests several conditions of approval to ensure public safety,such as,rooftop use in conjunction with 2nd floor restaurant,and enhanced security. � T j Analysis -- Variance/Parkin variance Project proposes 68'topped with 8'roof deck walls and up to 90' for architectural tower. Max height per DTSP is 45'.9 >. — Applicant's design intent is to match height of existing building. ME Staff suggests a condition of approval to reduce overall height by matching floor plates,and decrease the building height from top parapet et of 68'to 62'- p p r :a Shared Parking Total of 530 parking spaces is required- �� 296 provided onsite and a minimum of 234 will utilized via shared parking within adjacent municipal parking structure. --_ — .Currently up to 300 of the 826 parking spaces in municipal - parking structure is allocated for Pierside Pavillion. 12 F xB -657- Item 14. - 258 ` ts Analysis ® EPA Car ',_ v:■ EPA Carts -'' — Request to amend to amend approved layout of cart established by CUP No. 10-17. Issues such as pedestrian circulation,intensification of uses,and maintenance of public views was reviewed by the ZA, PC, and ultimately by City Council. Staff suggests a mod to amend the site plan showing the location - of carts in compliance with the conditions in CUP No. 10-017 - 13 �-- Staff Recommendation 57 Approval of the MND based on the following: Project(with mitigation)will have no significant adverse environmental impacts Approval of the CDP/CUP/EPANAR with modifications based on the 7 9 following: - — Conformance to applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and the provisions of the DTSP and Zoning Ordinance. The development complies with all minimum development standards =T with exception of the requested variance. _ 5 e With the suggested modifications and conditions of approval, the proposed uses, including restaurants with sale and service of alcoholic beverages and outdoor dining, amendment to cart locations and variance to maximum height will not result in increased parking,safety,or noise issues,above that expected in a typical mixed-use environment. 14 7 Item 14. - 259 xB -658- MAURMLLO LAW FIRM,APC A Professional Lax Corporation THOMAS D.MALzF2I U0* 1181 Pumu Del Sol,Ste. 120 San Francisco Office 'ALSO AMfrrrWTNN.i&PA Saa Clemente, CA92673 350 Sansomt,5t., Ste. 400 Td: (949)542-3555 Sm Francisoe, CA 94104 Fax: (949)606-9690 'Tel: (415)677-1238 email: tomni maurlaw.coni Pax: (949) 606-9690 wwnv.maa,rl aw.corzt August 13;2012RECEIVED VIA EMAIL AND H4VD DELIVERY Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach apt' of l l�nni« 2000 Main Street �l�uiiclirtc� 'Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Re: Comments to Proposed Pierside Pay=illion Expansion (Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007; Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012;Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021-,Variance No. 11-€105; Design Review No. 11--01a� Dear Commissioners- My firm represents the Pier Colony Homeowners Association ("HOA") located at 200 Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach. 1 am writing on behalf of the Association to comment on the pending permits and environmental review documents for the proposed Pierside Paviliion expansion project('the"Prpject"). The 140A includes residents of some 130 units of the Pier Colony residences.. Some 35 or so of those residences,containing 70 to 85 residents,are located in the side of the building facing the proposed Project. These residences are as little as 40 feet away from the 4-floor structure proposed as part of the Project. My analysis and conclusions, discussed below, are based on my review of the City's record developed for this Project, my review of the CEQA law as it pertains to the Project, and also based on a site visit to the Project area. For the reasons discussed below,the HOA believes that the project's environmental review is inadequate, in particular as to aesthetics,views,and noise impacts. We therefore believe that an environmental impact report("EtR") is required, because substantial evidence supports a"fairargurnent"that the Project may cause significant environmental impacts. ;See, e-g No Oil, .Inc, v. City-of Los Angeles(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75 ("... if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment,the lead agency shall prepare an E1R even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect"). The CEQA case law has established beyond dispute that the"fair argument"standard creates a"lour threshold" for requiring preparation of an E.IR. See. e.g.,7undslronr v. County ofJ%endocino(1988) 202 Cal.App_3`d 296, 3t0. �1 HB IY4MUNICATION #B-2 Item 14 D 260 Members of the Planning Commission Re: Comments to Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion August 13,2012 Page 2 The Project The Project location is at 300 Pacific Coast Highway,on the northeast comer of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. The Project proposes to demolish approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells, and construct a connecting four- story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use,visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq.ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts_ The site is currently developed with a 4-story, 90 foot high,mixed use building consisting of approximately 89,415 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant and office uses,and 296 parking spaces within two subterranean levels with access from Walnut Avenue. The Project proposes to expand the allowable uses within the Pierside Pavilion development from the previously approved limits established by Entitlement flan Amendment No. 07-01 by adding 10,527 sq.ft. of retail,5,705 sq_ ft. of restaurant,and 21,441 sq. ft. of office. Retail area is proposed on the first level facing the perimeter of the building and office space is located behind or within the interior portions of the first level.Restaurant area is proposed on the second level and additional office areas are proposed on the third and forth levels. Approximately 3,069 sq. ft. of outdoor terraces are proposed on the second and third levels; and approximately 6,146 sq.ft of outdoor dining is proposed on the second floor and rooftop deck.Parking will be provided within an existing two-level subterranean parking garage including 296 parking spaces on-site and share up to 234 parking spaces in the Municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street.The Project includes a variance request to allow a height of 68 feet(plus up to 90 feet for mechanical housing) for the new, expanded portion of the building in lieu of the maximum of 45 feet_ Also, an entitlement plan amendment to amend Conditional Use P Permit No. 10-017 is proposed to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property_ The City proposes to approve the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration("MND"), thereby dispensing with the requirement of an Environmental Impact Report under CEQA(Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., 21050). CE A "The purpose of CEQA is to protect and maintain Califomia's environmental quality. With certain exceptions, CEQA requires public agencies to prepare an OR for any project they intend to carry out or approve whenever it ca.n be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental effect. " (Communities for a Better Environrnent, 103 Cal.App.4th at 106-107 (Footnotes omitted.)The California Supreme Court has"repeatedly recognized that the EIR is the `heart of CEQA.' [Citations.] `Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR"protects not only the environment but also informed self-government-""'(Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123,italics added.) Item 14. - 261 H13 -660- Members of the Planning Commission Re: Comments to Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion August 13, 2012 Page 3 Comments on the MND's Conclusions That Protect Will Not Cause Sianiticant Impacts 1. Land Use Planning Impacts As noted above,the Project proposes to allow a variance from the current maximum height of four(4)stories plus 45 feet,to a height of four(4) stories plus 68 feet,plus an 8-foot tall glass screen wall,plus any architectural tower(mechanical housing)up to 90 feet. The MND acknowledges that the Project would not comply with the height requirement of the specific plan but that the variance is needed to make the new structure"match the existing building height." The MND concludes in this regard: "This deviation will not result in significant environmental impacts such as increased noise, aesthetics, and lighting." (MND at p.6.) A. Improper"Plan-to-Plan"Analysis As an initial matter,we believe that the MND's analysis is misguided as the MND appears to analyze the incremental height of the proposed new structure only as compared to the existing structure. In other words, the MND studies potential height impacts only of granting the variance,rather than of height impacts of the entire proposed Project structure. It is well established that CEQA requires an analysis of all potential"on-the-ground" impacts of a project, not merely a"plan-to-plan"comparison of potential impacts on paper under different zoning or different plans. Specifically, courts have held that where a proposed project is an agency decision changing planning or zoning designations, its potential impacts should not be.compared only with those that would ultimately occur under an existing plan--i.e.,here,a comparison to the existing height requirement. Rather, the analysis should focus on"existing physical conditions" before comparing the eventual future conditions that would result under build out pursuant to both the existing and contemplated plan. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 (e), Christward Ministry v. Superior Court(4th Dist. 1986) 184 Cal.App, 3d 180, 190-191. In this case,the Project's height-related impacts were analyzed compared to the existing height requirement and not to the Project's impacts on--the-ground. We believe that this approach is contrary to CEQA's requirements and provides an incomplete analysis. B. Conclusion of No Significant Hei h t Impacts Not Supported By Substantial_ Evidence As noted above, after discussing the height variance,the MND concludes: "This deviation will not result in significant environmental impacts such as increased noise, aesthetics, and lighting." But it appears that there is no substantial evidence to support that conclusion. The Project proposes to add, among other things, an additional restaurant(although considered an expansion of the existing restaurant,it is in a new location), as well as a new rooftop bar. When compared to existing conditions on the ground—which presently is open hardscape without any restaurant,rooftop bar, or other structure--these additions certainly pose additional significant noise,visual and aesthetic impacts. These impacts are potentially even more significant given the additional height increase of up to 23 feet(68 feet compared to 45 feet provided by current zoning)plus an 8 foot wall above that. HB -661- Item 14. - 262 Members of the Planning Commission Re: Comments to Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion August 13,2012 Page 4 As noted above,the HOA includes residents of some 130 units of the immediately adjacent Pier Colony residences. Some 35 or so of those residences, containing 70 to 85 residents,are located in the side of the building facing the proposed Project. These residences are as little as 40 feet away from the 4-floor structure proposed as part of the Project. Ju addition,the Project will block views from the ground at street level within the adjacent corridor, starting from approximately the mid-point of that view corridor and going all the way back toward Walnut Street. Based on the above,the Project most certainly will have significant impacts on the views and light blockage on many residents. C. Conclusion of No Significant Aesthetic impacts Not Supported By Substantial Evidence The CEQA standards for significance of visual impacts are bracketed by several court decisions that considered different factual situations_ Most relevant to this project are the decisions in Ocean View Estates (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Montecito Water District, 116 Cal.App.4r1'396),Pocket Protectors (The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal.App.4`h 903),and Clover Valley (Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin and Town of Loomis v. City of Rocklin, 3rd District, July 8, 201). In summary, these decisions found that: • Aesthetic impacts are subjective. • impacts on private views as well as public views may be significant under CEQA. • Personal observation on nontechnical issues such as aesthetic impacts can constitute substantial evidence. • Substantial evidence of aesthetic impacts can include opinion of area residents and architects, and Planning Commission findings. • Aesthetic concerns included excessive massing of structures. • Consideration of the overall aesthetic impact of changing the visual character of the site as "significant"was not in conflict with its fmdings of non-significance with respect to specific views. These decisions are instructive in assessing the adequacy of the MND's consideration of aesthetic impacts. The Ocean View Estates decision(and many other prior cases) establishes that consideration of aesthetic impacts is required under CEQA. The Pocket Protectors decision established that neighborhood residents are considered experts on the significance of visual impacts from projects proposed in their neighborhoods. With respect to the Project,numerous comment letters were submitted from area residents expressing concern on the adverse impacts of the project to community character and aesthetics. The MND's aesthetics analysis failed to consider this "expert" opinion at all. Based on the case law summarized above, the neighbors have submitted substantial evidence that the project's overall change in the site's visual quality constitutes a significant impact. Item 14. - 263 HB -662- Members of the Planning Commission Re: Comments to Proposed Pierside Pav--ion Expansion August 13, 2012 Page 5 CEQA requires that,if disagreeing experts present substantial evidence that a project would or would not have a significant impact, an EIR is required. The local residents' expertise is greater than that of an EIR consultant's, given that the local residents have daily exposure to the visual character of a site. Therefore, as found in the Pocket Protectors decision,local residents' opinions on the significance of aesthetic impacts carry great weight. A careful review of the MND's aesthetic section finds no actual evidence supporting its conclusion of non-significance of the proj ect's aesthetic impacts with respect to the physical environment. In particular,the MND does not appear to have examined or studied views from the view corridor adjacent to the Pier Colony, from the Walnut Street end of that view corridor, or from any of the Pier Colony residences (either decks or windows). Thus the view analysis is not correlated to specific viewpoints selected based on visual importance and sensitivity. By contrast, local residents have offered their opinions that views would be materially impacted. Therefore the MND, as in the Clover Valley case (which involved an EIR,not a MND),should have concluded that the Project's overall changes to the site views constitute significant unavoidable impacts. Further, in addressing the Project's appearance, the MIND states in part that the Project "conveys a unified,high quality visual image and character that is intended to expand the existing development pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach."(MND at p. 6.) We agree that the mixed use nature of the Project is consistent with the zoning and the uses in the area, and that some of the architectural design and materials make it compatible with surrounding buildings and with the area. But we do not believe there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project conveys"a unified,high quality visual image and character." Due to its size and shape,the Project is not unified with the existing Pierside Pavillion structure because,unlike the present structure, the Project is not tiered but rather is squared off. This block-like shape reduces views and light and creates a monolithic appearance that is neither a"unified"image nor a"high quality visual image." For all these reasons,the MND failed to fully evaluate the unmitigated negative aesthetic impacts of the Project,and its generalized conclusions of no significance find no evidentiary support. 2. Conclusion of No Significant Noise Impacts Not Supported By Substantial Evidence In addressing the Project's noise impacts,the MND recognizes that"existing noise sensitive residential uses are located east of the new restaurant space on the southeastern portion of the project site." (MND at p. 23.) The MND then concludes that the Project's noise impacts "are subject to compliance with the City Noise Ordinance . . .but are not expected to be a concern due to the proposed uses,which are compatible with the character of the area and will not result in any significant noise impact." (MND at p.23.) This analysis of noise impacts is conclusory and largely ignores the fact that the additional uses include not only office space but an additional restaurant and a new rooftop bar, which,are noise intensive uses. Merely concluding that the uses are similar in character to existing uses in the area does not constitute an analysis of the impacts of those proposed uses, which is what CEQA requires. These defects are especially concerning given that the existing HB -663- Item 14. - 264 Members of the Planning Commission Re: Comments to Proposed Pierside Pavillion E�ansion August 13, 2012 Page 6 noise level already is unacceptable,and there have been and remains significant ongoing noise complaints from the existing Black Bull restaurant and bar located at the southeastern corner of the Project location. Moreover, the MND's reliance on policy compliance—i.e.,the Noise Ordinance --as a proxy for actual assessment of the noise impacts is,in itself, a flawed approach. While policy compliance may be considered as evidence of an impact's significance level, it is not determinative. See, e.g. Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Board of Port Commissioners (2002) 111 Cal.Rptr.254 595 (which found that compliance with noise policies do not necessarily assure less-than-significant noise impacts). CEQA requires a focus on impacts to the physical environment,not just policy conformance. Finally, although a noise study has been prepared, we note that the noise study was based on readings taken only in October 2011. The high season is between Memorial Day and Labor Day, during which pedestrian and auto tragic increases greatly. Moreover, significant special events occur to increase the population and traffic during this period, such as the international surfing contest. The noise study is fatally flawed in that its input data omitted significant noise levels created during the high season. Other defects in the noise study have been pointed out in comment letters such as those submitted by Jeff Smith, Bill Garrisi, Thomas Connelly,and others,which letters already are in the record- 3. .Lack of Alternatives Analysis That Would Be Provided in an EIR As discussed above,we believe that an EIR is legally required here, as potentially significant impacts exist. If an EIR is prepared,it would continue a mandatory analysis of project alternatives, including not only a"no project"alternative,but also potential variations on this Project that might mitigate or ameliorate the impacts that concern my client. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. Alternatives must meet most of the project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the project's significant impacts(CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). The alternatives analysis may be particularly useful to the Commission,the applicant, and the public, in this case. There may be other possible configurations of the Project that have not been considered which would ameliorate the Project impacts and yet still achieve the applicant's goals. The HOA is not necessarily opposed to any project on the designated site or to any version Of the Project. Thus, another benefit of an EIR is that the alternatives analysis might lead to a project that passes muster under CEQA and is acceptable to the entire community. Conclusion Based on the above,we respectfully ask that Commission not approve the MND for this Project and instead require that an EIR be prepared. An EIR is required because substantial evidence supports a"fair argument''that the Project may cause significant environmental impacts. See, e.g. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles(1974) 13 Cal.3d 69, 75. Item 14. - 265 1-113 -664- Members of the Planning Commission Re.Comments to Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansions August 13,2012 Page 7 The above comments are by no means exhaustive and we note that the concerns expressed above also have been addressed by individual EiOA members and other members of the public who have submitted detailed comment letters on the Project. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. The HOA would be happy to discuss these issues futther,to meet with Planning staff or the project applicant,and to answer any questions that you may have. Vzhomas ` , ruly yours, r LD.Mauriello cc: Mr.Ethan Edwards Pier Colony Homeowners Association HB -665- Item 14. - 266 ATTAC H M E N T #9 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012 Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021 Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007 Variance No. 11-005 iersi a Expansion (Ar%peal) 3 x� � c yea f September 17, 2012 Appellant: Councilman Joe Carchio Applicant: Michael Adams, Michael C. Adams Associates Property Owner: Joe Dalchendt, Theory R Properties LLC Location: 300 Pacific Coast Highway (at Main Street) Aerial Map sa .y tl a Subject Site ae 2 HB -667- Item 14. - 268 Project Request ® MND — analyzes potential environmental impacts from the proposed development. CDP/CUP — to permit 400 sq. ft. demo, construct 27,772 sq. ft. 4-story mixed-use building addition and 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion. ear To permit the expansion of allowable uses from the previously approved limits established by EPA No. 07-01. 3 Project Request (cunt.) To permit the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the proposed restaurant areas (2nd floor and rooftop deck). To permit shared use of on-site parking and within City parking structure. • EPA — to amend CUP No. 10-17 to modify location of existing retail carts along PCH & Main Street. ~ ❑ VAR — permit a max height of 68 ft. (plus up to 90 ft. for mechanical housing) in lieu of 45 ft. max. 4 Item 14. - 269 HB -668- 2 Analysis Primary issues include: — Suggested Modifications — Consistency with General Plan / Local Coastal Program Compatibility with surrounding land uses — View Corridor 5 Analysis ® Suggested Mods a CDP No.11-012 and CUP No. 11-021 — Require rooftop deck walls to be 42 inches in height. — Rooftop mechanical equipment(and all associated screening)shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. — Require a full height (floor to ceiling)glass window at the eastern elevation of the outdoor dining area located on the 2nd floor. — Require that the reference to new office area on the 1 sc floor plan be removed. — Revise the proposed 4-story elevations, colors, and materials,to address building mass issues; and have the DRB review the overall redesign. y 6 xB -669- Item 14. - 270 Analysis — Suggested Mods — Require the roof element of the eastern stairwell to contrast with the existing building roof design (DRB) — Require that the use of the rooftop deck shall be prohibited until a revised noise study is submitted that demonstrates compliance with the City's noise ordinance and the design of the deck is compatible with the surrounding uses. ® EPA No. 11-007 — Revise the proposed cart locations to comply with Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 (Pierside Pavilion Carts)conditions of approval and code requirements. o VAR No. 11-005 — Require that the maximum building height is decreased from top of parapet height of 68'to 62' to match the height of the existing building. 7 Analysis — Restaurants/Alcohol Shared Parking o Restaurants with Alcohol Sales — Proposed 2nd floor, rooftop deck, and infill restaurant areas fij — Subject to City Council Resolution standard conditions of approval. Shared Parking — 530 parking spaces required. — Property currently shares up to 300 of the 826 parking spaces within City parking structure. — 296 parking spaces will be provided on-site. — A min of 234 parking spaces is proposed to be utilized within City parking structure. — Shared parking is consistent with DTSP and the project will have sufficient parking spaces. 8 Item 14. - 271 HB -670- 4 Analysis ®General Plan / Local Coastal Program a Mitigation — Applicable mitigation measures from DTSP Program EIR No.08-001. is General Plan — Land Use Element of the General Plan maximum density/intensity of ®. 4-stories. — Complies with suggested mod to lower roof deck walls to max and not less than 42". m Local Coastal Program/DTSP — Complies with suggested mod to eliminate office reference on 1st story. Only visitor-serving commercial uses are permitted on ground floor. — Does not comply with maximum height(discussed later). — Exterior mechanical equipment is required to be screened from view on all sides and setback a min of 15'from edge of building.Complies with recommended condition of approval to setback a min of 15'to comply with code. 9 Analysis ® Design Guidelines o Design Guidelines Project does not fully comply with the DTSP—Design Guidelines with regard to building design. Recommend condition to revise the proposed four story building elevations, colors, and materials to: address building mass issues which can be achieved by providing additional upper-story j setbacks; improve architectural compatibility with the existing structure and adjacent buildings and overall Design Guidelines; and, address anti-bird strike solutions. Because of the above suggested modifications that result in design/elevation changes, it is recommended that the DRB review the overall redesign . Recommendation by DRB would be submitted for review and F approval by the Director. 10 HB -671- Item 14. - 272 Analysis — Compatibility n Land Use Compatibility — Alcohol Sales/Restaurants Submitted Noise Study show compliance with project as proposed (8' roof deck walls). NOR With staff recommended mod to reduce roof deck walls to not less than and a max of 42"—a modified Noise Study is required. • Subject to compliance with standard conditions of approval for restaurants with alcohol service. ri • Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7 AM to 12 AM (midnight). • Police suggests several conditions of approval to ensure public safety, such as, rooftop use in conjunction with 2nd floor y restaurant, and enhanced security. 11 Analysis — Variance/Parking o Variance Project proposes 68'topped with 8' roof deck walls and up to 90' - for architectural tower. Max height per DTSP is 45'. — Applicant's design intent is to match height of existing building. Staff suggests a condition of approval to reduce overall height by matching floor plates, and decrease the building height from top of parapet of 68'to 62'. o Shared Parking — Total of 530 parking spaces is required. — 296 provided onsite and a minimum of 234 will utilized via shared �sy s parking within adjacent municipal parking structure. — Currently up to 300 of the 826 parking spaces in municipal parking structure is allocated for Pierside Pavillion. 12 Item 14. - 273 HB -672- 6 Analysis - EPA Carts ® EPA Carts — Request to amend to amend approved layout of cart established by CUP No. 10-17. — Issues such as pedestrian circulation, intensification of uses, and maintenance of public views was reviewed by the ZA, PC,and ultimately by City Council. Staff suggests a mod to amend the site plan showing the location of carts in compliance with the conditions in CUP No. 10-017. 13 Analysis ® Planning Commission Actin a Planning Commission hearing August 14,2012 — Finding for denial of MND and project based on impacts to the public view corridor and inconsistency with General Plan and DTSP. 'a Appeal by Council member Joe Carchio \ — Appeal to review overall project including staff issues and applicant's proposal. a View Corridor Issue — CUP 88-7/CDP 88-3 approved a 40'separation between Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony. — Project maintains existing corridor width between Pierside and Pier Colony. — Applicant submitted renderings that show that public views will not be impacted. — Ground level views will be improved with the removal of the existing landscaping planter above the garage entryway accessed from Walnut Ave. r — Protection of private views is not a code requirement. — Staff recommends conditions of approval to have DRB review massing and 14 consider additional upper-story setbacks. HB -673- Item 14. - 274 Staff Recommendation Approval of the MND with findings based on the following: Project(with mitigation)will have no significant adverse environmental impacts `'. Approval of the CDP/CUP/EPA/VAR with modifications and findings for approval based on the following: — Conformance to applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and the provisions of the DTSP and Zoning Ordinance. — The development complies with all minimum development standards with exception of the requested variance. m With the suggested modifications and conditions of approval, the proposed uses, including restaurants with sale and service of alcoholic beverages and outdoor dining, amendment to cart locations and variance to maximum height will not result in increased parking demand, safety, or noise issues, above that expected in a typical mixed-use environment. 15 Item 14. - 275 HB -674- 8 COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED REGARDING AGENDA ITEM: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-0071 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021, ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007 AND VARIANCE NO. 11-005 PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION HB -675- Item 14. - 276 3rd Street View Corridor Evidence of existence, width, and laws to preserve The proposed expansion of Pierside Pavilion has been denied by the HB Planning Commission, but appealed to the HB City Council. The proposed plans show a new building that encroaches on a view corridor that was enforced on the original Pierside Pavilion project via the 1988 DTSP and the Coastal Element of the HB General Plan. The existing stairwells from the original building are encroaching on the view corridor, and have gone unnoticed until now. The proposed new building will be built in parallel to these stairwells, and will continue to violate the conditions of the DTSP, both new and old. If the original building followed code, the view corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside would have been 60', which was the width of the vacated 3`d street. The applicant is proposing to wrongfully build a new structure, out to the width of the wrongfully built stairwells. Below is supporting evidence to support these claims. Facts 1. Submitted applicant plans show a 60' view corridor, but deemed an error in staff report responses. Reference: Exhibit A—Pierside Staff Report Late Page 3 https://www.box.com/s/gtdtiyz5xtimakn3reO2 Reference: Exhibit L-Current Plans with View Corridor Noted.pdf https://www.box.co ms/rbbx3a17n1t9elik8c7l 2. Building to building, the first floor of the current Pierside Pavilion and the first floor of Pier Colony are currently separated by at least 60 feet. Reference:Exhibit Q—03092004 Staff Report CUP 03-28—Page 7 https://www.box.com/s/`x2xamfae4442lv3r286p There are staircases encroaching upon that width, but the mass of the building is separated from Pier Colony by at least 60'. The staircases narrow parts of the corridor to 40'. This is referenced in the Staff Report for CUP 03-28. 3. The new building and infill is proposed to be parallel to the staircases, and the open space view corridor would be 40', which is in direct violation of the 1988 DTSP and the current DTSP Reference:Exhibit L- Current Plans with View Corridor Noted.pdf ,https://www.box.comZs/rbbx3a17nit9el'k8c7l Item 14. - 277 HB -676- 10 Evidence that CUP 88-7 for Pierside did not izo into effect until the approval of the 1988 DTSP Reference:Exhibit M-Letter on CUP 88-7-5.6.1989.pdf https://www.box.com/s/Orcs3ait6x35tp5h5m18 Notes: The attached letter states that 88-7 would not be in effect until all the DTSP revisions were approved, which would include language about view corridors Reference:Exhibit N-pc-19880405-minutes.pdf page 15 https:/jwww.box.com/s/kek9si4oc41nyds8�9sz 16. Conditional use permit 88-7 and coastal development permit no 88-3 shall not become effective until the proposed revisions to the DTSP are approved by City Council and in effect 20 1988 DTSP Section 4®2.15 on width of Street Vacations Reference:Exhibit B—DTSP Code Amendment CA-88-3 3.15.1988 Page 60 https:j/www.box.com/s/Islsuzxc65861iei97x0 The following conditions will apply to City vacation of streets and alleys for consolidation of parcels greater than one block in size. (f)Any development proposing the vacation of streets intersecting PCH in District#2 and District#3 shall provide a view corridor not less than the width of the formerstreet between Walnut Avenue and PCH. In addition, horizon view corridors shall be maintained in District#10. No structures greater than five (5) feet in height shall be allowed within such view corridor. A pedestrian easement ten (10)feet wide shall be provided through the development generally parallel to the vacated street. 3. Street width definitions Reference:Exhibit T—HB General Plan—Circulation Element.pdf Pagel https://www.box.comjs/ttfkb&7arnu43isz35ue Total street widths are shown including sidewalks and other street features Reference:Exhibit C-Ordinance-2836-definitions.pdf Page 13 https:j/www.box.com/s/63bi4nuzyxsgzklepxlf HB -677- Item 14. - 278 9080.121 Definition of a street: A public or an approved private thoroughfare or road easement which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, not including an alley Reference:Exhibit C-Ordinance-2836-definitions.pdf Page 13 hops://www.box.com/s/63bj4nuzyxs zklepxlf 9080.122 Definition of a street line: The boundary line between a street and abutting property. Reference:Exhibit C-Ordinance-2836-definitions.pdf Page 4 https://www.box.comZsZ63bi4nuzyxsRzklepxlf 9080.127 Definition of Ultimate Right-of-Way: The adopted maximum width for any street, alley or thoroughfare as established by the General Plan; by a precise plan of street, alley or private street alignment; by a recorded parcel mop; or by a standard plan of the Department of Public Works. Such thoroughfares shall include any adjacent public easement used as a walkway and/or utility easement. 4. Parcel and other reaps showing 3rd street as 60' Reference:Exhibit D—HB Downtown—TR000155-1904.pdf https://www.box.com/s/nky5819bi4dncxh8yx5l Note: This map from 1904 is still referenced in modern tract maps. Street width of 3rd street is clearly marked as 60'. Reference:Exhibit E—TR14653-1989.pdf https://www.box.com/s/c24em5lygcslzczgpkoh Note: This map clearly shows the width to the centerline of 3rd street, one block up from the development, as being30'. Full width would be 60' Reference:Exhibit F-Record of Survey 003418(1990 3rd and Walnut).pdf https://www.box.c)m/s/n30 ppsgviieyceau4zr Note:A survey map showing the full width of 3rd street being 60. one block up from the development Reference:Exhibit G-Resolution 5989 Sample Street Vacation. Page 4 hops://www.box.com/s/zuut746166mhshysobq Note: This is a sample street vacation. Note how the street widths are noted as 60. which included all sidewalks. Tract maps confirm these streets were 60' wide from sidewalk to sidewalk 5. View corridor preservation upholding by City Council City Council Motion Item 14.'- 279 HB -678- Reference:Exhibit I-cc-19880502-minutes.pdf Page 15 https:j/www.box.com/s/a ez1klse71g7pmObove1 Note:The city council held a vote on 512188 to discuss the language of the street vacation(shall vs may). Motion fails, shall is kept in the language Planning Commission Motion Reference:Exhibit H-PC-19880315 minutes.pdf Page 7 https://www.box.com/sl12lb6lik5z60exiyomac Note.A straw vote on 3115188 to maintain view corridors in district 2 and 3 between Walnut and CH.was passed. Letter from Planning Commission Staff to maintain view corridors Reference: Exhibit W—Letter from Scott Hess to preserve view corridor.pdf Page 2 https://www.box,com/s/occi7ti2hu9l5rl9txktl 6. 2011 DTSP Section 3.2.5 on width of street vacations Reference:Exhibit -2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 66 https://www.box.com/s/yf2cl8Oze7l2mria9n9f2 Note: This is to reference the current policy on street vacations 8. Any development proposing the vacation of streets intersecting Pacific Coast Highway in District 1 shall provide a view corridor that meets the following criteria: 0 1)Shall be located between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. 0 2) Width shall be no less than the former right-of-way. 0 3) No permanently installed solid structures greater than 42" in height shall be allowed within such view corridor. 0 4) A minimum 10' wide public pedestrian easement shall be provided through the development generally parallel to the vacated street. o A 10' wide pedestrian passageway must be left parallel to the original 7. Goals, objectives and policies of the coastal zone for coastal element conflicts Reference:Exhibit K-2001 -2011 HB General Plan Coastal Element.pdf poge109 https www.box.com/s lcv90yerxds2ouog3vp2 Note: Policies that the city has adopted The following general policies shall provide the framework for interpreting this Coastal Element 1. When policies of this coastal element conflict, such conflicts shall be resolved in a manner which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources HB -679- Item 14. - 280 2. Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in any element of the City's General Plan, other City Plans, or existing ordinances,the policies of this Land Use Plan LUP shall take precedence 3. In the event of any ambiguities or silence of this Coastal Element not resolved by (1) or (2) above, or by other provisions of the City's LCP,the policies of the California Coastal Act shall guide interpretation of this Coastal Element. 8. 2011 Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element® protecting public views Reference:Exhibit K-2001 -2011 HB General Plan Coastal Element.pdf page 121 https://www.box.com/s/lcv90yerxds2ouog3vp2 Note:Reinforcing documentation protecting public views in the coastal zone, and new standards that need to be met for new development • Policy C 4.1.1 -The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. • Policy C 4.2.1 - Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: o a) Preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands. • Policy C 4.2.2- Require that the massing, height, and orientation of new development be designed to protect public coastal views. • Policy C 4.2.3 - Promote the preservation of significant public view corridors to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and the wetlands through strict application of local ordinances, design guidelines and related planning efforts, including defined view corridors. Item 14. - 281 HB -680- View obstruction from a Pier Colony Balcony K n:. h l' 4 Proposed Piersie Pavilion Building Rendering Plerside Pavilion Expansion Rendering Pierside Pavilion Expansion Rendering Thy;,.iiPri rkic� Sarta�.cribe N d— Tfssa[.iry"�PcoPeeteF-a Sutr>�evre ! tit vsrrrs�,. - . � � „- •o � � Wit(( �arr , IP n MEN HB -681- Item 14. - 282 MAURIELLO LAW FIRM,APC A Professional Law Corporation THOMAS D.MAURIELLO* 1181 Puerta Del Sol, Ste. 120 San Francisco Of *ALSO ADMI17TED IN NJ&PA San Clemente, CA 92673 350 Sansome St., Ste. Tel. (949) 542-3555 San Francisco, CA 94. Fax: (949) 606-9690 Tel: (415)677-1238 e-mail: tomm0a maurlaw.corn Fax: (949)606-9690 www.maurlaw.com September 12, 2012 VIA EMAIL A AD U.S: A 1A IL Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Re: Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion -Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. I I- 007/Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021/Variance No. 11-005; Design Review No. 11-015 Dear Honorable Council Members: My firm represents the Pier Colony Homeowners Association ("HOA"), which is located at 200 Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach. I am writing on behalf of tile HOA to comment on the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the permits and environmental review documents for the proposed Pierside Pavillion expansion project (the "Project"), which is scheduled to come before the Council on September 17. The HOA respectfully requests that the Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to deny approval of the Project, as discussed below. The HOA is particularly concerned with the Project's aesthetic impacts, view impacts, and noise impacts. We believe that the Project as proposed along with the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") violates the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), as well as the Downtown Specific Plan and the General Plan. Although the Project would adversely affect the City as whole and many of its residents, business people, and visitors, its impacts on HOA members would be particularly severe. The HOA includes residents of some 130 units of the Pier Colony residences. Some 35 of those residences, containing 70 to 85 residents, face the proposed Project, with some as close as 40 feet away from the proposed 4-story structure of the Project. Theme The Project location is 300 Pacific Coast lJighway, on the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. The site is currently developed with a 4-story, 90 foot high, mixed use building consisting of approximately 89,415 square feet of retail, restaurant and office uses, and 296 parking spaces within two subterranean levels with access from Walnut Avenue. The Project proposes to demolish 400 square feet of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells and to construct a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square-foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and 9,401 square-foot infill expansion by extending existing storefronts. Item 14. - 283 HB -682- Members of the City Council Re: Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion September 12, 2012 Page 2 The Project proposes to expand the allowable uses from the previously approved limits established by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01 by adding 10,527 sq. ft. of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurant, and 21,441 sq. ft. of office. A retail area is proposed on the first level facing the perimeter of the building and office space is located behind or within the interior portions of the first level. A restaurant is proposed on the second level and additional office areas are proposed on the third and fourth levels. Approximately 3,069 sq. ft. of outdoor terraces are proposed on the second and third levels; approximately 6,146 sq. ft. of outdoor dining is proposed on the second floor and rooftop deck. Parking will be provided within an existing two-level underground parking garage including 296 parking spaces on-site and share up to 234 parking spaces in the Municipal parking structure located at 200 Main Street. The Project includes a variance request to allow a height of 68 feet(plus up to 90 feet for mechanical housing) for the new, expanded portion of the building in lieu of the maximum 45 feet. Also, an entitlement plan amendment to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 is proposed to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property. Given the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission decision, the Council must determine whether to affirm the Planning Commission decision or to overrule that decision and approve the Project with the MND, thereby dispensing with the requirement of an Environmental Impact Report under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., 21050). CEQA Issues An environmental impact report("EIR") is required under CEQA where substantial evidence supports a"fair argument" that the Project may cause significant environmental impacts. See, e.g. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75 ("if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect"); Communities for a Better Environment, 103 Cal.AppAth at 106-107 (footnotes omitted)("CEQA requires public agencies to prepare an EIR for any project they intend to carry out or approve whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental effect"): The fair argument standard presents a"low threshold" for requiring preparation of an EIR. See, e.g., Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3rd 296, 310. The California Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized that the EIR is the `heart of CEQA' [Citations.] `Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR"protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.""' (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California(1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1123, italics added. The MND's Improper Conclusions That Project Will Not Cause Significant Impacts 1. Land Use Planning Impacts (Including Views and Aesthetics) The Project proposes to allow a variance from the current maximum height of four(4) stories plus 45 feet, to a height of four(4) stories plus 68 feet, plus an 8-foot tall glass screen wall, plus an architectural tower(mechanical housing) up to 90 feet. The MND acknowledges that the Project would not comply with the height requirement of the specific plan but that the 1113 -683- Item 14. - 284 Members of the City Council Re: Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion September 12, 2012 Page 3 variance is needed to make the new structure "match the existing building height." The MND concludes: "This deviation will not result in significant environmental impacts such as increased noise, aesthetics, and lighting." (MND at p. 6.) A. Improper"Plan-to-Plan"Analysis As an initial matter, the MND appears to analyze the incremental height of the Project only as compared to the existing adjacent structure. The MND studies potential height impacts only of granting the variance rather than the height impacts of the entire proposed Project structure. CEQA requires an analysis of all potential "on-the-ground" impacts of a project, not merely a"plan-to-plan" comparison of potential impacts on paper under different zoning or plans. Where a project proposes changing planning or zoning designations, the agency must analyze its potential impacts not only compared to the existing plan(i.e., the existing height requirement) but also compared to the existing physical conditions on the ground. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 (e), Christ yard Ministry v. Superior Court(4th Dist. 1986) 184 Cal.App. 3d 180, 190-191. In this case, the Project's height-related impacts were analyzed compared to the existing height requirement but not compared to the Project's impacts on-the-ground. This flawed approach violates CEQA and provides an incomplete and misleading analysis of impacts. B. Conclusion of No Significant View/Height_ Impacts Not Supported By Substantial Evidence After discussing the height variance, the MND concludes: "This deviation will not result in significant environmental impacts such as increased noise, aesthetics, and lighting." But it appears that there is no substantial evidence to support that conclusion. The Project proposes to add, among other things, an additional restaurant (although considered an expansion of the existing restaurant, it is in a new location), as well as a new rooftop bar. When compared to existing conditions on the ground—which presently is open hardscape without any restaurant, rooftop bar, or other structure -- these additions certainly pose additional significant impacts. These impacts are potentially even more significant given the additional height increase of up to 23 feet (68 feet compared to 45 feet provided by current zoning)plus an 8 foot wall above that. The HOA includes residents of some 130 units of the immediately adjacent Pier Colony residences. Some 35 or so of those residences, containing 70 to 85 residents, are located in the side of the building facing the proposed Project. These residences are as little as 40 feet away from the 4-floor structure proposed as part of the Project. The Project's view impacts would affect not only HOA members but also other members of the general public, both residents and visitors, who frequent and enjoy Downtown. The Project will impede and block views from street level within the adjacent view corridor starting from approximately the mid-point of that view corridor and going all the way back toward Walnut Street. Item 14. - 285 HB -684- Members of the City Council Re: Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion September 12, 2012 Page 4 In short, the Project almost certainly will have significant impacts on the views and light blockage on many residents. C. Conclusion of No Significant Aesthetic Impacts Not Supported By Substantial Evidence The CEQA standards for significance of visual impacts are discussed in a number of court cases, including: Ocean View Estates (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Montecito Water District, 116 Cal.App.4' 396),Pocket Protectors (The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal.App.4th 903), and Clover Valley (Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin and Town of Loomis v. City of Rocklin, 3rd District, July 8, 201). In summary, these decisions found, among other things, that: • Aesthetic impacts are subjective. C Impacts on private views as well as public views may be significant under CEQA. • Personal observation on nontechnical issues such as aesthetic impacts can constitute"substantial evidence"to require an EIR. • Substantial evidence of aesthetic impacts can include opinions of area residents, and Planning Commission findings. • Aesthetic concerns included excessive massing of structures. The Pocket Protectors decision established that neighborhood residents are considered experts on the significance of visual impacts from projects proposed in their neighborhoods. With respect to the Project, numerous comment letters were submitted from area residents expressing concern on the adverse impacts of the project to community character and aesthetics. The MND's aesthetics analysis failed to consider this "expert" opinion at all. Based on the case law summarized above, the neighbors have submitted substantial evidence that the project's overall change in the site's visual quality constitutes a significant impact. Moreover, CEQA requires that, if disagreeing experts present substantial evidence that a project would or would not have a significant impact, an EIR is required. As stated in CEQA Guidelines, section 15064(g): After application of the principles set forth above in Section 15064(f), and in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR. Under analogous circumstances as here, the Court in the Pocket Protectors decision gave great weight to local residents' opinions on the significance of aesthetic impacts. Local residents' HB -685- Item 14. - 286 Members of the City Council Re: Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion September 12, 2012 Page 5 expertise is greater than that of an EIR consultant's, given that the local residents have daily exposure to the visual character of a site. A careful review of the MND's aesthetics analysis finds no actual evidence supporting its conclusion of non-significance. In particular, the MND does not appear to have examined views from the view corridor adjacent to the Pier Colony, from the Walnut Street end of that view corridor, or from any of the Pier Colony residences (either decks or windows). Thus the view analysis is not correlated to specific viewpoints selected based on visual importance and sensitivity. By contrast, local residents have offered their opinions that views would be materially impacted. Therefore the MND, as in the Clover Valley case (which involved an EIR, not a MND), should have concluded that the Project may cause significant impacts to views. Further, the MND states that the Project"conveys a unified, high quality visual image and character that is intended to expand the existing development pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach." (MND at p. 6.) While the mixed use Project is generally consistent with zoning and surrounding land uses, and while some aspects of its architectural design and materials are compatible with surrounding buildings and with the area, we do not believe there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project conveys "a unified, high quality visual image and character." Due to its size and shape, the Project is not unified with the existing Pierside Pavillion structure. Unlike the present structure, the Project is not tiered but rather is squared off. This block shape reduces views and light and creates a monolithic appearance that is neither a"unified" image nor a"high quality visual image." For these reasons, the MND failed to fully evaluate the Project's unmitigated aesthetic impacts. The MND'S generalized conclusions of no significance find no evidentiary support. 2. Conclusion of No Significant Noise Impacts Not Supported By Substantial Evidence The MND's analysis of noise impacts is conclusory. The MND recognizes that"existing noise sensitive residential uses are located east of the new restaurant space on the southeastern portion of the project site," but concludes that the Project's noise impacts "are subject to compliance with the City Noise Ordinance . . . but are not expected to be a concern due to the proposed uses, which are compatible with the character of the area and will not result in any significant noise impact." (MND at p. 23.) There is no "analytical route"between the observation that the new restaurant will cause noise impacts on existing adjacent residences and the conclusion that these impacts are "not expected to be a concern." Does the conclusion that noise impacts are "not expected to be a concern" mean that there is no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the impacts may be significant? The MND does not say. If so, what is the factual basis for such a conclusion? These defects are especially concerning as the current noise level is unacceptable and there have been significant ongoing noise complaints from the existing Black Bull restaurant and bar located at the southeastern corner of the Project location. The MND's indication that the addition of office space, a restaurant, and a rooftop bar will not create significant noise impacts does not contain facts or analysis to support that conclusion. Item 14. - 287 HB -686- Members of the City Council Re: Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion September 12, 2012 Page 6 The MND's reliance on policy compliance —i.e., the Noise Ordinance -- as a proxy for actual assessment of the noise impacts does not substitute for actual analysis of noise impacts. Policy compliance may be relevant to an impact's significance level, but it is not determinative. See, e.g. Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Board of Port Commissioners (2002) 111 Ca1.Rptr.2"d 595 (compliance with noise policies does not necessarily assure less-than-significant noise impacts). CEQA requires a focus on impacts to the physical environment, not just policy conformance. Finally, although a noise study has been prepared, the noise study was based on readings taken only in October 2011. The high season is between Memorial Day and Labor Day, during which pedestrian and auto traffic increases greatly, and in which significant special events occur to increase the population and traffic during this period, such as the international surfing contest. The noise study omitted significant noise levels created during the high season, and it is thus fatally flawed. 3. The Need For An Alternatives Analysis That Will Only Be Provided in an EIR An EIR would contain a mandatory analysis of project alternatives, including a baseline "no project" alternative and also potential variations on the Project that might mitigate the PROJECT'S impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. The range of alternatives to be studied in an EIR must meet most of the project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the project's significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). An alternatives analysis would be particularly useful here. It was clear from the Planning Commission hearing that the Commissioners, Commission staff, the public, and even the applicant had generally considered the possibility of re-configuring the Project so as to avoid the most glaringly troublesome impacts of the Project while still allowing its development. Potential modifications were even discussed informally at that hearing. But no specific alternatives were formally included in the Project or were evaluated in detail or subjected to notice and public comment. The Commission had no alternative project before it. This Project is not an"all-or-nothing"type of development, where it must either be as currently proposed or abandoned or denied entirely. A robust, meaningful alternatives analysis could lead to a viable project that that complies with CEQA. Downtown Specific Plan Violations 1. Downtown Specific Plan Violations Relating to View Corridor Separate and apart from the CEQA violations, the Project plans show that the proposed new structure would encroach on a view corridor in violation of the Downtown Specific Plan. A section of Third Street was vacated as part of the original Pierside Pavillion development in 1988. The Downtown Specific Plan requires a vacated street to retain a view corridor no narrower than the former right of way that existed at the time the street was vacated. Specifically the Downtown Specific Plan, at Section 3.2.5, provides in relevant part: HB -687- Item 14. - 288 Members of the City Council Re: Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion September 12, 2012 Page 7 8. Any development proposing the vacation of streets intersecting Pacific Coast Highway in District 1 shall provide a view corridor that meets the following criteria: 1) Shall be located between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. 2) Width shall be no less than the former right-of-way. 3)No permanently installed solid structures greater than 42" in height shall be allowed within such view corridor. 4) A minimum 10' wide public pedestrian easement shall be provided through the development generally parallel to the vacated street. "Rights of way" include sidewalks. City Ordinance No. 2836 defines "right of way" as follows: 9080.127. Ultimate Right of Way: The adopted maximum width for any street, alley or thoroughfare as established by the General Plan; by a precise plan of street, alley, or private street alignment; by a recorded parcel map; or by a standard plan of the Department of Public Works. Such thoroughfares shall include any adjacent public easement used as a walkway and/or utility easement. (Emphasis added.) Before Third Street was vacated, the right of way was 60 feet. This is reflected on the tract map for Tract No. 14133, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Page 3 of Exhibit A shows the measurement of 30 feet to the center line of Third Street, or a total of 60 feet for the entire street width. This also is reflected on Survey 90-1182, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, which again shows the measurement of 30 feet to the center line of Third Street, and a total of 60 feet for the entire street width. This is consistent generally with City's traditional concept of"street" as being from the property line on one side of the street to the property line on the other side of the street, with the inclusion of sidewalks. For example, the Circulation Element of the General Plan, a copy of excerpts of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, reflects at Page III-CE-15 that streets include sidewalks.' 'Although the currently operative Downtown Specific Plan applies here because the Project is being approved today, and not 24 years ago, even if the old Downtown Specific Plan in effect at the time of the vacation of Third Street were applied, the result would be the same. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a relevant excerpt of the old Downtown Specific Plan (Code Amendment CA-88-3 3.15 (1988), Section 4.2.15, at Page 60), which provides in relevant part: Section 4.2.15 Street Vacations. The following conditions will apply to City vacation of streets and alleys for consolidation of parcels greater than one block in size. (f) Any development proposing the vacation of streets intersecting PCH in District and District 3 shall provide a view corridor not less than the width of the former street between Walnut Avenue and PCH. In addition, horizon view corridors shall be maintained in District#10. No structures greater than five (5) Item 14. - 289 HB -688- Members of the City Council Re: Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion September 12, 2012 Page 8 Because the right of way of the vacated Third Street includes property line to property line, including sidewalks, a view corridor of at least 60 feet is required between the Project and the adjacent Pier Colony building residences. See Downtown Specific Plan, at Section 3.2.5, as quoted above. Even the Project plans show a 60 foot view corridor. See, e.g., Project Site Plan/Landscape, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Nonetheless, the Project proposes a new structure that will be built only 44 feet, 10 inches from the Pier Colony residences. See Exhibit E at top right. The Project therefore violates the Downtown Specific Plan and cannot be approved. 2. Downtown Specific Plan Violations Relating to Outdoor Dining The Project proposes the addition of a second floor restaurant as well as dining in the rooftop bar to be added as part of the Project. Section 3.2.24.2.1 of the Downtown Specific Plan provides: "Outdoor dining shall be an extension of an existing or proposed eating establishment on contiguous property and shall be located directly adjacent to the eating establishment." The Project's proposed second floor restaurant, and the rooftop bar,both would be situated on different floors than the existing restaurant and therefore would not be directly adjacent to it, as required. The Project thus violates Section 3.2.24.2.1 of the Downtown Specific Plan. General Plan Coastal Element Violations The California Coastal Act of 1976 established the conservation and use policies guiding planning and regulation of land and water areas in the new coastal zone established by that law. Relative to the protection of scenic values, the Coastal Act provides, at Public Resources Code section 30251, that: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas . . . . feet in height shall be allowed within such view corridor. A pedestrian easement ten(10) feet wide shall be provided through the development generally parallel to the vacated street. 2 The fact that "street" includes the area from one property line across the street to another property line, including sidewalks, is also supported by Ordinance 2836, enacted in 1986, which defines "Street" as "A public or an improved private thoroughfare or road easement which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, not including an alley" (Section 9080.121), and which also defines "Street Line" as "The boundary line between a street and abutting property." (Section 9080.122.) HB -689- Item 14. - 290 Members of the City Council Re: Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion September 12, 2012 Page 9 Section 30009 PRC requires that the Coastal Act "shall be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives." Under the Coastal Act, local general plans must contain a coastal element. We believe that the Project as proposed violates the 2011 Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element, in particular, the following policies: 1. Policy C 4.1.1 - The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. 2. Policy C 4.2.1 - Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: a) Preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands. 3. Policy C 4.2.2 - Require that the massing, height, and orientation of new development be designed to protect public coastal views. 4. Policy C 4.2.3 - Promote the preservation of significant public view corridors to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and the wetlands through strict application of local ordinances, design guidelines and related planning efforts, including defined view corridors. The General Plan Coastal Element makes it imperative that the Coastal Policies be adhered to. The Coastal Element provides, at Page IV.C.106, that: The following general policies shall provide the framework for interpreting this Coastal Element: 1. When policies of this Coastal Element conflict, such conflicts shall be resolved in a manner which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources. 2. Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in this Coastal Element and those set forth in any element of the City's General Plan, other City plans, or existing ordinances, the policies of this Land Use Plan (LUP) shall take precedence. 3. In the event of any ambiguities or silence of this Coastal Element not resolved by(1) or(2) above, or by other provisions of the City's LCP, the policies of the California Coastal Act shall guide interpretation of this Coastal Element. Item 14. - 291 HB -690- Members of the City Council Re: Proposed Pierside Pavillion Expansion September 12, 2012 Page 10 Reservation of Legal Rights In the event that the Council reverses the Planning�'t mmission decision and votes to approve that Project,,the I IOA has instructed me to prepare and file a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior;Court challenging such decision. 1 hile we sincerely hope that litigation is not necessary to enforce the laws relating to this Project, my client reserves all legal rights in this matter. If; as I believe, my client were to prevail in such an action; California law provides that the FIOA would be entitled to recovery of its legal fees and costs from the City upon a finding of a public benefit, which would be inherent if the suit were successful. See California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Conclusions Based on the above, we respectfully ask that the Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and deny approval of the MND for this Project, and require that an EIR be prepared. There is no doubt that substantial evidence supports a"fair argument"that the Project may cause significant environmental impacts. See, e.g. No Coil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75. In addition, the Project as proposed would violate the Huntington Beach DTSP and the General Plan Coastal Element. Thank you for very much your consideration. Very;tr y yours, hem --D. Mauriello cc; Pier Colony Homeowners Association H13 -691- Item 14. - 292 EXHIBIT A Item 14 - zya HB .n,_ 674 46 ACCEPTED AND FILED AT THE SHEET I OF, 14133 REQUEST OF ALL 0€TENTAr� TRACT TRACT NO.14133 ® .AD£4A6E9e7 Ac.CROSS 3ATe Zl (`q! -- I LOT DATE OF S&RAY OECEMBER, i949 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE nMEz'-z. .rfj`S a STATE OF CALIFORNIA INSTRUMENT 0%=au BLGCX 203 OF THE MAP OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN HOOK 3, BOOK L,-Lq _PAS EI.( PAGE 35 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, COUNT'?OF ORANGE, STATE OF, CAJIFORNA LEE A. BRANCH BLOCK MTV FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES cau� RECORDER # � WALDEN & ASSOCIATES DEPUTY. DAVID L. WALDEN, R.C.E. 19402 DECEMBER, 1989 J'ATNERSH[P CERTIFICAfiE ENGINEER'S STATEMENT V&,TH w uL w$PNCa, SE�AG Ati flPDCS IIXANI MY RECORD TITLE OITEREST d HERf:BY STATE�T I M(A R`ECIST9R€C CP6A,_ENCINT,.ER Or_THE'SATE-'� IN THE-LAA3D CtY4ET 0 HY TFIE MAIP,OO H{'RC„TY COONSENT TO THE PREPARATION CALIFORNIA.;THAT TH S MAP'CONSISTING OF 9 SHEETS AND THE---TFLUC AND- ANO TFEtis iDAT;O':•1.Of gn1Y3 M.AP,�� t9JW.v''WI€H,u TIgE DMT'NCTriIE BORDER COMPLET.SUMTY MAPDE IN D€CMDER. 7YFA NH`�'H PT OQRRfCTL-Y RCPR£SEMTS, ' HERESY.DEI•tsCCAYE t0 T+ff PUBS:TC FCut'STREET ^'„RPOSES: MAIN THRE BOTH WAGEBy ME-Sift-UTs4ER MY,@tRE£7N'1?.;..�4Fk.AT THE MD,YtAMCRTS ARE i^3" STREE.WALNUT AVZNUCn EHIl?SLR£.�ET.AND 01SYL AVENUE- THE x^ddP.,PPADTFA AND�I'CO f= (OR Y{iCS.�TkC.GUE"Y}'h'HI+'PC�S3flq;<S INJ hTFT-F^s"{ SAD AHD THE MO7NTM-%T NOTES NOTED'-THEREOF,ANT;THAT 24"k d R14;FNT5 By: HUNTINCTON BEA04 REDEVELOPMENT,AGENCY.A PUHL`C BODY CORPORATE ARE,SEIFPCIENT TCT ENABLE THE SJIIRVE't TO 6E RETdtACF,D..AND RVIT - /'' Gyx.Td.�� It ..iC. -t..--, -X..c • -- C•i3+sT{.. .acrs'.ffa.,!. '�y - CONNiE BP70C:KWAY I EXPIRES _AVXPIID ID L WA'DE1F,PCE.�t9At;2 £XPI %�{f+JP_MAlL IPRATEME'ORE•CTTT nF CI.,R�'K- C_.t�`*° G]� RES9 30-�93 1-liit3T'INI.+""rLYnl �GW t$i.3r_.i"t'te.S,LiTCT*�1 E�Gt�G?S �'••�. `a'^"V cu'7FF1eUr AVE-ftCY f�'A`".'X::VC=t,sY"TAFATT ,�•rara.k','.✓ .. :..I;:'. COI)NTY SHRVEY0R'S STATEMENT I "RT _R uE",-BFiNF.'K;ART UNDER DEED OF RRUS1 RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT I H#RF„C3f'STATE TttA-T HAVE EX"INED OiS MAP KRD HAVE FOUND THAT RUs 82-=ti.F i OFFICIAL RECORDS, ALL.MA�:C Pik SIONS 09''N9E��.°HIIPu75lG"N MAF''Ar'T HAVE BEEN GbMR U£D WRYI AND I AM SAM'IDD SAID MAP IS TEoHNr-&LCY:'CORGECT RExATNE TO I THE TRACT MAPBOUNDARY. ?A ll#- _ ......»,. DATE THIS�.�._.DAY OF ROVERT-7' �DUNTv sclR:=EtoR LAT P J'A IY EmTFnn�tx N; ,1•UAr? i;lh L S-413e 1..12L.s -a v2. "� A CITY ENGINEERS STATEMENT tiL t HEREHY."ST•ATE THAT-I HAVE.EVAMINED-THIS MAP AND FOUND iT-TO REEOPETANTAL _ ' I AMENDED',AP;C.Mr"d?V,,FD BY THE tie FILED r PLANN`No COMMPSSi0P:�THAT ALL WITH,.. 'F,RU4S_IONS OF THE SUUMN13ION MAP ACT AND ONSUBDEeMON REGULA- _ T0N HAVE 9€E,CoNpLi£D WITH ARID THE-MAP IS TEL'HNtCAL.LY CORRECT IN ALL R€SPECTS NOT CERTtflED TO ICY THE COUNT`a°.:SUR`TYIYEi R' DATED THIS 4ah DAY OF_-..w3 —. 1490' ROBERT E,VVHOt.ATT.RCE 20921 OLINTY TREASkWER-TAX COLLECTOR'S CERTIFICATE - EXPIRES,9-30-93 CALIFORNIA 1 C - S'9ATE OF R"Y EN,-.tN£ER OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COU?d'Y OF ORANGE J R-HEFM:PY CERT"s THAT,',OONUN'=TO THE Rf.C'LRVS or MYOFFICE THERE A,RG NO UE.i-Rf+.dlia$T THE.-LAk;D DOVE RE By THIS MAP-OR ANY PART THEREOF-FOR-- CITY ITe..�?td�"VIN�i ±JI'MiSSI(}j+� CERTIFICATE U��=5T+ATE.COUNTY.MENiICIPAL OR t.00Mt TAXES OR-FPCO ASSESSMENTS - - COLLECTED,AS TAXES,EXCEPT TAXES OR SPECIAL ASS_ESSMEN'TS COLLECTED AS I h,,jtA£L e_6�^v&S,.SE�ETARw'S6 THE F'SAA.rTSNG.CtUStM .,ItYN z7£Th'E C9Tv TAXES NOF YET PAYABLE. e}F,HUfCRNCfif7N flFRh1.-OA.4TF03UdT4, DJ HEREBY CERTIFY TWIT'I FAJE£XAMTN- ., I ALSO CERP.FY TO THE RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY THAT THE PRCNISIONfi OF ENE TO TWS-MAP AN RNA_pj)tR D a TO-T3E 5G'�T-ANT6ALUe THE CAME AS THE SUERM^ISION MAP ACT'HAVE BEEN COMPILED WITH REGARDING DEPOSTS TO SECURE. TENTAYi6'I•_'VAP AS FILED WITH.A.MCNDEO AND APPTF(TVCO DY THE HUNTINGTON THE PAYMENT OF TAXES OR 5F'CC01 ASSSESSMCN S COLILCTFP AS TAXES ON THE LAND BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION_ COVERED BY THLS;.AP'. >� d°�. d'T DATED THIS DAY OF A�-.ta3D, I _--- } DATED THP;fWDAY o ._—, 19 1d_. r =. 4}� i 5€Ch'FTARY 70 THE PIP.NNi"JG COMMISSION ROSERT L. CITRON COUNTY TREASURER-TAX C01,LECTOR LI£Pi.ET1'TREASURER-FAA COLLECTOR - ."^-,AidICN3h8LI'if NIOTE: -PUR3§,MJHT To$fCTION V499 20 1/2 a'N' THE SUkHtkPTTSd MAP ACY.NE FIUNC OF TEciR MAP'!eHM.,t cDN TTOT£AISANDONMENT OF IHOSE STREETS,kLEYS'ANTI -'Ify C,- r+jFI NCTa'DN RF.,,AC*4 By,UK'MAP OFMAP-kIlD fTONwHCHEBEACH 9FTC.caor-OFHIE IN BOOK 3 PAa[; ;36.t!F frA#5CE.4.LANCOLt.°a GtARu.N,£CLYftDS IF,O�RA.^dGE.C{)IUN7 CM IFORNIA. CRY CLERK'S CERT€;"1CATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA J }SS COUNTY OF ORANGE } CITY OF HUNTINGTON BCA-. ) 0 NENFtTS'-CT..`Tx'TwF'T°TIMAT'WIS NaAA"'WA PRE'1.CN'TED FOR A^PwwmM O THE c,FTY 'CO.PNGRi,RR'-THE CIPE OF HUN7)NGTGN'BEACH ATA REGULAR ME'CTIN.THEREOF MT1.O ON-THC 4^x'.U.__DAY OF T990 A 0 THAT THISItUFION S/ND'. (,thfNCR-IXO,-Efi AN ORDER CU_"Y T'A`.StO AIYTi ENTERED.APPROVED SAID MAP N§O DID ACr-,CP1-CN etHAI..F OF THE PUBLIC-Tai€'a-DEDICATnN FOR STREET PURPOSES:=Qk-N STREET.WkNLIT AVENUC.THIRD STREET AND OLIVE AVENUE: WE ALSO HERE91?ABANDON, PURR°SIARMT TO SECTKTN,664-9,20 1 j2 OF TiHE -SJBD,TS'^.TN BAP ACC',ALL TR ETA.ALL£T Awn CASEMENTS WITHIN THE CO NGARY.RYF TMIS,LOAN'11 H WERE A^O.71FED Fr THECITY�OF HUHTENGTON-- 9CACH '.',RH68'A"N'[iN A 4A R£S'RkDETl 1�GTOflM.A, PACE wC OF M :Gz.kAtdCf tt MhPS, RECTTRDS OF ORd:NGE COVNET,O.IFORNIA:... DATED TII DAY OF...e7&dGdaSF , T<39D. a" V CONNIE DROCKW.AY By: 4- C"CLERK OF THE CRY OF HIINTINCTEIN RFACH x.- m HB -693- Item 14. - 294 674 47 ALL Or-ffl",Alllr T-4&NO>14133 AC.m'�rs TRACT NO. 14133 DAIF Of SiJF,'``Y; DECEMKR, 1981, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES WALDFN & ASSOCIATES DAIAD L. WALDEN, R.C.E. 19402 DECEMBER, 1989 NOTARY ACKNOINLED(;EMONT SICNWTURE OVISSIONS: TO S-CrON 6&4?!VAj(3)Or HE VjeDIVSJDN MAP ACT,TnE: rD' I 9WNr S;CNAiip' H"s RUN OWITTIED, COUNTY OF ORANGF.: 6-WATKN-',LESSEE WNDEZ LEASE RECORDED IN R')OK 2qIII, PACE ON Mir ME, A NOTARI PUBLIC IN'Ali'FCR SAID STATE, ]"ifiqONALLY PERSONALLY KKCI'N.70 ME PLLOIL-ORFOR�,riON� I. LE ETD.,A CORPOWKIN, E UN CER lf"FU 144A&IQN-TH-oFw�,')TO BE IIMMOW RF.CORDEO IN BOOK FAI.E AND IN BOOK 2931. P—F 443, OF TKE IREOEV�:IOPWNT AGENty OF I Olt CITY Or HunFNlTCW RCAI-M,"FHOOZ AND N BOOK 23vI,o.kCE !ilb,AND ITT FIC0K 2931.PAC;E 521,AI� nC -UT D TH WITHIN B,�. 2g3l pAC, -,. Aq�D i, B�I)K ?931.PAI�'-529,ALL Or KOO',COqEORATT)N AND rOU TH�CC�OIQRATICN TH&T E�F:17 F c JOsTnUV AOD KNQ.N TO ME�C"'F.t'Fo TO eF�N 'F� L ENT '5'5 pr orr.-IA.'FIFCt9Rp— IIATOFACTORY VADE-K-C) To VE-TIE PER��QN kinkU ECIIPEV THE WTIIIN 4N5IRUVEN7 ON SEHI,CF DF:SNG,QoRpORAFIOIa 04D ME THkT S I VCk E.CR,,*ORD,LESSEE NEEr LFASE pE�,OPDED M BOOK 294B, 1 -C.OkDs SUCH CORPORAMN EXE'-wTW11 TK PACE 591 DF OFFICIAL BE W"NEV,VY HANEI 4, R. K. Slaimm-, INC., A LFS'EE UNDER LEASES r, 'E I:I34,AND IN BOOK !4306,PAGE ` PA�' OK '430b "'o-D My PBNC;FlAj. P: E OF 11K,:NI-S,; 7 AC M�-- -10 iN FOOK i�12t, PAi-,F. 867,ANO AS NSTRLWENT NO,82- "4,7w,—'op, ."ZF,ITA-'-€- pi,: a"-A paAw-S. -IT, C)75055,.'-i OF OFF.GtAj. 1S EN 5, EDWARD F. BRAY AND P�FATi".CF E. HCi-VER OF MNERL RID' NAME wy'O"WIDN' PE^)RflFD tN BOOK 11621,PAGE 724 OF OFFICIAL,RECORDS. 6 WUY:Wn'90TH AND EU2ARLTH M. LINDEROTH, HOLDFIR OF M.NMA' Rt- Rr,,F, PAGE 997 OF OFnDAL RECORDS -1 _IN BOOK iplj, -11,DER OF 'j- c .,R=CROEO iN k-- j 7. EDITH FAINOR Robl,'xSON,Hf MINEr Ri iI� BOOK 13722, P.OF W;j OF OFFICIAL RTCQRDS. DF CAHFr-RNiAl'- S. ACAM RtBzKAq LODGE 1314 11P.0,F.,HOWER OF MINERAL RIGHTS 53 RE"ORDEO It"- 800K 13845, PAGE 659 OF OFFICW RCCORDS, 9. MAR"D. REYNOLDS DOING BUcINF&s AS PHOENIX"�"TMFNT ?a LIFO L ME, gOVIIAly,1,0.DIR Or M:HEA4L R13-T' RECOROco"N EOOK 1+121, Wo WE JOEr O� OFF-11AL CrORDS, T AS TRUSTEE IF TIE PERSO�.'LLY APPEARED ,BERT J, KCiJRY, FTqGONAUY KNOW 0 ME OR rpuyEo TO-ME 0% THE& IS OF SA7ISWTW f EVIDENCE) 10 BE THE Io_ EFWAR(I,R-'�TIJEI?i AND PAUL A.TA PERSON DE�'CRBED IN,-,,C WHOSE NAME I';S'JBSCFI6EU TO WITHIN THE STEFHFN L TAWS-kil TRIJ'ST DATED FEBRUARY 29, 1982. riOWER OF TO VE THAT HE PECUTED THE S-XII, MINERAL FIC49TS RECORDIp IN INgRUVE11I No.88-230971 OF OFF.CIAL RECORDS, WITNESS MY"A"D, 11, TRANCES U. HN,.,�10'01ER OF WNERAt R'WHls RECOReLD Il wly PRINCI-k PLACE")I BV50ISS N-STRUNrIT NO. LII-2G12CD U 'QCORO��. NOTART ROMIG N AO)FOR'�AIIO O:WE 1 -6 ;11 ,yL�,IA S.SjWiO.qjCK AND A.V.f.5 A. SHANDRCK AND 5HARON C. IS p 12. E � HMD=p Of MWERAL RICH'FS RrCORSED 1NSTROM-NY NmIF My 00MM5SQN E)71RES,—i OF OTlCiAL RECORDS. of Item 14. - 295 HB -694- 674 48 FA .1 14133 TAT:W �1■pp�CR13AC, CROSS T� @6RVEY,' GECEMBER, 1984 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES WALDEN & ASSOCIATES DAVID L. WALDEN, R.C.E. 19402 DECEMBER, 1989 6A5'S OR BEARINGS: MONUMENT NOTE.+= 9FAE.t4GS SHOWN HEREON ARE EASED lJ£'L?N THE GENTcpu"E OP 1' LRCN P1pE W/TAC.STAISPEO'RCf 1A4df''OR-� .$riKE.&WA—CR STAMPED WAL`:UT AVENUE 9EINO NORTH 4TO7'4T WV', PER TRAL7 NO. `RCE 19402' OT. LEAD TACK kND TAs STOAFTO'RtE i9402' To 9E SET AT 13727, 636/38-41,ikiSC'[i.LtNEOUS MAPS, RECORDS Oe URANCl- ALL.LOT AND 601.9Zi Ri_:E:r;S{"NERS, S"TREE`M''..C;ENTERUN�E�tNTER*,E'CI NS,RIC,'S, OOi3N5T.CALifORNaA. E G`5.4N0 Aii 0-,ify=pOINI5-OF C NfRO1-,VVL'fHTN Pii OA, AFEER ACCEPTANCE OF alPROVEMENTS. ---A—PRNWES FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTF0. CT'a CAL TRANS FIELD BOOR. CHRP{.1 -ory OF HUNT0NGTON BEACH FIELD ROOK ( j -RECORD DATA PER At AS'OF HUNTiNCTON REACH" 7/36 M.M € ] - RECORD DATA F'ER TRACT Na 636f3Ef-4t Y SCALE: �>� _ .'f _✓✓# Ursa-`�F* �.SY'tu.�'k�..'++S{!A'd F8 r9- f cag_7a' i`710) ;y'aCi`rf"E�"�v"9� a � A7,41AI kl �i a 8 C_ r V fi G's GOT / 915 AC+4--S-NET• W q ti `a. Q u�T9"` 1 r1,oW? N 4s R. Ed.dO' S 5SL"._ ff R a'ri-.vmas- 01 v .e- HB -695- Item 14. - 296 Item 14. - 297 HB -696- 134 38 af..UMD non ML a> . : RECORD OF SURVEYMAU �bT � (j'''"�} .._- V L sra�R mT u ,.�.�.9137 f{'� .a Y j HALE v. ._.... .E :•"1" Ul! HUis I .:C1UNT*'E a. },arcr' OWN 7 er,':^.h 7115zFiis L:.5f.�,s7 r b y ll u"u�'mnnmys only } 3^' -�_ 02 '�h maw RW s-sd ee x , YAW/ t'3 i171"SS k� - _ ... aw . Kt c &y -nit!!out I.=i.5'vq or.'fcrt?^ .i_e r,.—A le re., 'ICY Ak- tl1 "' Ail t` Z it tE�'<-i,Ct7 A7'.P. dS>P F`TFtl O€t`£F3(ERr [t LIS'E i84Lp P`iY tL { f k' - — _ ---- ...... I h r.., < all, 1 -> FA* r M`ts r � i i u i �.. �.. grt dR t➢ 9T.14 � j .e�p,•" � Ge"R Tpg+.7�.,$'•'ei,# 27. 36,j�4d.,+»-- tt � r _i, �E� S{ N U AVE, , W ! W co xB -697- Item 14. - 298 Item 14. - 299 xB -698- s 1 § m r Cld -GE L.P : , HUN" iNG"::: 1D., A HB -699- Item 14. - 300 Item 14. - 301 xs -700- R/W Row 100` i 50' 50' s 8' 42' ` 42' 81 # 2 9' 13' 13` 1 .7' 7' 13' 13' 3` 2 3 �,— — 29 1 27. _ s n d4 0 1 r-. 1 I. PRIMARY ARTERIAL STREET R fW Rlw 80' 40' 40' s 8, 32 32' s 2, s 29 29_ 0.17 — p ; 0.17' l SECONDARY ARTERIAL STREET R/W R/W 112 `R W` 1 2 'R W' s 'PK' 1 L2 'P• s 1 2 ' '" .PK. 1 s 2 P' 2 r s 29 I 27. c 0.17' i —_V L 0.17' 1 COLLECTOR ARTERIAL STREET (see CE I2.I) TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTIONS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN III-CE-I5 x$ -701- Item 14. - 3 02 Item 14. - 303 HB -702- (d) A landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with the zeopted Design Guidelines shall b�: subject to approval by the Director• And partment gf public Works prior to the Issuance of building permits'. (e) All parking lots shah provide a decorative masonry wall or landscaped berm installed in the setback area. all lan&ciping shall be installed within the parking lot area, in ac«rdance with the Huntngton Beach Ordinance Code. Parking strtw-tares must all screen street-level parking areas from the. Vublic ROW. Such screening mint be approved by the Director. The setback area shall be landscaped In accordance with the folio-wing guidelines and a landscape plea shall be submitted to and aproved by the Director: • Planting material shall include at a minimum one (1) fifteen (15) gallon size tree and three (3) five (S) gallon size shrubs for each seventy-five (75) square feet of landscape 4 area and at least one(1) l gLIM inch boy. tree for each one hunJred and fifty (150) square feet of landscaped area. The setback area shall be planted with suitable gr .cover° The landscaped area shall be provided with an Irrigation system which conrorms to the sta lards speclMd for landscaped medians by the Department of Public Works. • All landscaping shall be maintained In a neat and attractive manner. d.2.JAIS a„et Vacat€au. The following conditions will apply to City vacation or streets and alleys for consolidation or parcels greater than one block in size. (a) Streets shall be vacated arty after the City has analyzed the Impacts on circulation patterns and determined that the vacation will not be detrimental. (b) ftfre streets are to be vacated, the cost of re®creating all utilities shalt be borne by the developer; the City Council may waive this requirement. (c) Any public parking but by street vacations must be replaced either on or off +ite or through in Meet fees. Such parking shall be in addition to required parking for the proposed use. ( ) Consolidations that require vacation of a portion of Main Street north or Orange Avenue shall provide a public pizza saace that will enhance the Main Street corridor to the pier. The type of facility and its design shall be approved by the City. (e) At the discretion of the City, all or portions of Main Street may be used for a pedestrian mall. (f) Any developmentproposing the vacation of streets Intersecting PCH In p1strict 2 A0djZjqkL1shall pmvide a view corridor no.t ten that) the width of th fornor street between -Walnut Avenue and PCH. No',structures Ater than rive'.($) feet in hei tit shalt allowed within such view,corridor. A pedestrian easement team('1 ) feet witte shalt be provided throvSh the development Senemlly. parallel to the vacated street. a. HB -703- _::_ Item 14. - 304 EXHIBIT E t 44r,tit ga .......... ri, \ Di n AnjAcENr BUILDINGS "f a%,esk.m,..meairw. ADinfft a •rw`1wf'S. sip ffi r— wv- a - r . W A-0 - - �iElL'tM�SG'MRE R4.kR i xs -705- Item 14. - 306, F H CITY OF I-I NTIN ,, . 1 City Council nter0 ` a Communication ., TO: Joan Flynn, City Clerk FROM: Joe Carchio, City Council e ber DATE: August 16, 2012 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLAN ING C MISSION'S DENIAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -007/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007/VARIANCE NO. 11-005 (PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION) I hereby appeal the Planning Commission's denial of MND No. 11-007/CDP No. 11-012/CUP No. 11-021/EPA No. 11-007NAR No. 11-005 to permit the expansion of Pierside Pavilion. The Planning Commission denied the request with findings on August 14, 2012. The primary reason for my appeal is to have the City Council review the proposed project including staffs issues and the applicant's request to permit the expansion of Pierside Pavilion. The entitlements are proposed to permit: a) the demolition of approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four- story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and approximately 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts; b) the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the restaurant areas; c) to expand the allowable uses within the Pierside Pavilion development from the previously approved limits established by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01 and the Owner Participation Agreement (executed in 2009 and amended in 2011) by adding 10,527 sq. ft. of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurant, and 21,441 sq. ft. of office; and, d) permit shared parking. Also an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property is proposed; and a variance to permit a maximum height of 68 ft. (plus up to 90 ft. for mechanical housing) in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. is requested. The proposed project includes an MND that analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. 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. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Chair and Planning Commission Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Robin Lugar, Deputy City Clerk Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager Ethan Edwards,Associate Planner Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Kim DeCoite,Administrative Secretary Travis Hopkins, Director of Public Works ���w ��z ���/�\ :��:. . �.��) k 2LRr�� ��s ��`°. . ��� ���. /� �( ��. ��� � e City '" Huntington c 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachca.gov b � Office ®f the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Date: August 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: Councilmember Joe Carchio Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11- 007/Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021/Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007/Variance No. 11-005 (Pierside Pavilion Expansion) Date for Public Hearing: TBD Copy of appeal letter attached: Yes Fee collected: none Completed by: Patty Esparza,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 CLLi{Iz'"�`: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 g��sr 112, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, September 17, 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 planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-007/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007/VARIANCE NO. 11-005 (APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION) Appellant: Councilmember Joe Carchio Applicant: Michael Adams, Michael C. Adams Associates Property Owner: Joe Daichendt, Theory R Properties LLC Request: MND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. CDP/CUP: To permit: a) the demolition of approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and approximately 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts; b) the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the restaurant areas; c) to expansion of the allowable uses within the Pierside Pavilion development from the previously approved limits established by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01 and the Owner Participation Agreement (executed in 2009 and amended in 2011) by adding 10,527 sq. ft. of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurant, and 21,441 sq. ft. of office; and d) permit shared parking. EPA: To amend Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property. VAR: To permit a maximum height of 68 ft. (plus up to 90 ft. for mechanical housing) in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. Location: 300 Pacific Coast Highway, 92648 (northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street) Project Planner: Ethan Edwards 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is located in the non appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No.11-012, filed on 09/13/11, in conjunction with the above request. 2. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for item #1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item #1, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 C:\Documents and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GOTRZ514\091712 (Pierside Pavilion Appeal).docx Main Street, and available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Division, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request 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, September 13, 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.qov/HBPublicComments/ C:\Documents and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GOTRZ514\091712 (Pierside Pavilion Appeal).docx CLASSIIC> _ ,. R,0. ° , ADERTlSlNGs Prlr►ted 5 0602 Patricia Gainints — 1� � Aug 29.2412.f 01 A am , Salesperson: i I r�xPhoile_ All#"35TEiti6rQ J >{1CCOttFti IlltfQlttta Qh _' 111f0 {OIn . r :Pharle# (714)536-5227 S'tart+date 09-06-12 H S1ze 1 x 187.340 City Of Huntington Beach(Parent) Stb dit� 09-06-12 Bated 12e 18.50 TCN Inch 'A'tidCesS PC)Sox 784 i;se 1 KeyuvQTd, Huntington Beac CA 92648 ° ; ttsao+ e 8rLegat Huntington Beach Adlyp+e= Liner $ " p ;Taken{iy�0602 Patricia Gamino z, ACci B "CU00070479 l Cass . 13040-Legal Notices Crosnce" $t48.00 TCN HBI FistpitCe. $148,0D Cller►f City Of Huntington Beach-Clerk's 0 Placed isy.; Patty Esparza $148 00 x FaX#t (714)374-1557 a sots]ct to Note Amount t3ua is e discounts, _._. td1i3'nge due.to t:- ,. neoustaes oroUtercharg� " Ad Copy: NOT0 OF PUBUC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNG!, OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, September 17, 20I2, 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 planning and zoning items: Q 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION NO. 11-007/ COASTAL DEVELOP- MENT PERMIT NO. II- 012/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11- 007/VARIANCE NO.1 I- 005 (APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION'S DENIAL OF THE PIE RSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION)Appellant: Councilmember Joe Carchio Applicant: Michael Adams, Michael C. Adams Associates Property Owner: Joe 0aichendt, Theory R Properties LLC Request: MND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. COP/CUP:To permit:a) the demolition of ap- proximately 400 sq, ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a con- necting four-story, 90 foot high,approximately 27,772 square foot mixed use, visitor serv- ing/office building and approximately 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts; b) the sale .-..,.._.,-.._.-..._.......,W,- ..,�_.,_,..-...-... _.�..,......._..d-,-....._.._-, v...__...... .._ .w._..._.A.�,..�w.n.......u..,-,..._...an3—eoitsumP on o'f..,�. .....�.........:.....�...�.�.,:....--..�,...,..�,w_.....�...,�___�..,,..._wv....-..��......,..... ,._._._ ad proof pg.I --- Jr f'1LJV5rITJS1IVl7'_ _ s t Printed by.0602 P G atricia amino Aug 29,2012,10:14 am { Salesperson: Phone: Ad#35166614 alcoholic beverages within the restaurant areas; c) to expansion of the allowable use within the Pierside Pavilion development from the previously approved limits estab- lished by Entitlement Plan Amendment No.07- 01 and the Owner rti Pacipation Agreement (executed in 2009 and amended in 2011) by adding 10,527 sq. ft. of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurant, and 21,441 sq. ft. of office: and d) permit shared parking. EPA: To amend Condi- tional Use Permit No. 10-017 to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property. VAR: To permit a maximum height of 68 ft. (plus up to 90 ft. for mechanical housing) in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. Location: 300 Pacific Coast Highway, 92648(northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street)Prolett Planner:Ethan Edwards 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is located in the non appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Devel- opment Permit No.11- 012, filed on 09/13/11, in conjunction with the above request. 2. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assess- ment for item #1 was processed and complet- ed in accordance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act. It was determined that Item#1,with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative dec- laration is warranted. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, and available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Plan- ning Division, or by telephoning (714) 536- 5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request 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 Clerkos Office on Thursday,September 13, 2012_ ALL INTERESTED PER- attend said hearing and --- ad proof pg.2 --- G LAS 'FI " i a Pnnfed by:0502 Patricia Gatnino Aug 29,2012,10:14 am ' Sales rson: 1 express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above.If you challenge the City Councils 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 corre- spondence 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,Cali- fornia 92648 714.536-5227 http:// huntingtenbeachea.gov/ HBPublicComments/ Published H.B.Indepen- dent September 6,2012 --- ad proof pg.3 --- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, September 17, 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 planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 11-007/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-007/VARIANCE NO. 11-005 (APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION) Appellant: Councilmember Joe Carchio Applicant: Michael Adams, Michael C. Adams Associates Property Owner: Joe Daichendt, Theory R Properties LLC Request: MND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. CDP/CUP: To permit: a) the demolition of approximately 400 sq. ft. of the existing structure including an elevator shaft and two stairwells; and construct a connecting four-story, 90 foot high, approximately 27,772 square foot mixed-use, visitor serving/office building and approximately 9,401 sq. ft. infill expansion by extending existing storefronts; b) the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the restaurant areas; c) to expansion of the allowable uses within the Pierside Pavilion development from the previously approved limits established by Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01 and the Owner Participation Agreement (executed in 2009 and amended in 2011) by adding 10,527 sq. ft. of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurant, and 21,441 sq. ft. of office; and d) permit shared parking. EPA: To amend Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 to modify the location of the existing retail carts on public and private property. VAR. To permit a maximum height of 68 ft. (plus up to 90 ft. for mechanical housing) in lieu of a maximum of 45 ft. Location: 300 Pacific Coast Highway, 92648 (northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street) Project Planner: Ethan Edwards 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is located in the non appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No.11-012, filed on 09/13/11, in conjunction with the above request. 2. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for item #1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item #1, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 C:\Documents and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GOTRZ514\091712 (Pierside Pavilion Appeal).docx Main Street, and available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Division, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request 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, September 13, 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/ C:\Documents and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GOTRZ514\091712 (Pierside Pavilion Appeal).docx 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 9 25 25 Environmental Board Chair California coastal Commission California Coastal Commission Robert Smith Theresa Henry South Coast Area Office South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, 1 Oth Floor 21352 Yarmouth Lane 200 Oceangate, 1Oth Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Long Beach, CA 92802-4302 26 44 45 Depar anent of Transportation, Dist. 12 Downtown Business Association Downtown Residents Association Christopher Herre,Branch Chief Mr. Steve Daniels Ms. Marie St. Germain 3337 Michelson Dr., Suite 380 ! : 200 Main Street#106 505 Alabama Irvine, CA 92612-1699 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 49 Coastkeepers Gary Brown 3151 Airway Ave. Suite F-I 10 Costa Mesa, CA 92663 I � � I I i I , I I I . i E6gq�al�t#�aPra�Y��rrm7x���rmrr�omp��tif����e�r�ffi�8�ffi660 maw Occupant Occupant Occupant 502 Walnut Ave 510 Walnut Ave 506 Walnut Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 512 Walnut Ave 205 5th St 218 5tn St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA Occupant Occupant Occupant 218 5tn St#A 208 5tn St#A 208 5t'St#B Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Thomas Caverly CA Dept. of General Services Occupant 553 Temple Hills Dr 707 3'd St 470 Pacific Coast Hwy#1 Laguna Beach, CA 90814 W.Sacramento, CA 95605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 470 Pacific Coast Hwy#2 470 Pacific Coast Hwy#3 470 Pacific Coast Hwy#4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 470 Pacific Coast Hwy#5 470 Pacific Coast Hwy#6 470 Pacific Coast Hwy#7 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I Occupant Occupant Occupant 470 Pacific Coast Hwy#8 414Pacific Coast Hwy 416 Pacific Coast Hwy Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 317 Pacific Coast Hwy 101 Main St#101 101 Main St#109 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 101 Main St#111 101 Main St#112 101 Main St#200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 101 Main St#220 101 Main St#230 101 Main St#240 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �� � I�b��l;t�eel1'iC�2�i�8'cotrop�tilz�ar�titl5ffiA�B3ffi80 Occupant Occupant Occupant 101 Main St#250 101 Main St#255 101 Main St#260 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 101 Main St#275 1 101 Main St#280 101 Main St#285 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 101 Main St#290 101 Main St #300 101 Main St#330 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 101 Main St#340 101 Main St#355 101 Main St#360 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 101 Main St#380 101 Main St#400 126 Main St#104 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 116 Main St#1/2 218 Walnut Ave 220 Walnut Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 114 Pacific Coast Hwy#2 114 Pacific Coast Hwy#3 114 Pacific Coast Hwy#4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 114 Pacific Coast Hwy#5 114 2"d St#B 116 2"d St#B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 116 2"d St#A 112 2"d St#B 103 Pacific Coast Hwy Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant 201 Pacific Coast Hwy Huntington Beach,CA 92648 911 Laser Labels 09L8/�9L94fAAd^ A�algjji?ddQa�}�T Ira�w9z�>?wjojap �2 gdg0 ajtanbp Compatible withAvery®5160®Template '09L$/¢$ u�i'}d M3% Tkd0�!s lager 024 144 04 024 144 12 024 146 09 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEN ADAM TRAINER RONALD &J WOOD 6771 WARNER AVE 26165 RINCONADA DR 19681 QUIET BAY HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 CARMEL VALLEY CA 93924 HUNTIN BEACH CA 92648 024 146 10 024 146 14 024 147 01 RONALD WOOD ANDREW STUPIN CITY OF HUNT�/IIW BCH 19681 QUIET BAY LN 215 5TH ST 2000 M WS HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 . HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 WAGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 03 024 147 05 024 147 08 DONALD GALITZEN CORP DOIRE CITY OF HUNTIN 1 EACH PO BOX 151 210 5TH ST PO BO � HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 1 GTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 09 024 147 14 024 147 15 SEQUOIA DOUGLAS LANGEVIN CDB LAND& FRAMING LLC 414 Wp; T AVE 4124 LEONARD RD 215 1/2 MAIN ST NGON BEACH CA 92648 GRANTS PASS OR 97527 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 23 024 147 25 024 147 28 TIMOTHY PATRICK TURNER RICHARD HARLOW ROBERT KOURY 18052 FRESHWATER CIR 1742 MAIN ST 200 MAIN ST#206 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 29 024 147 30 024 147 31 CITY OF HUNTI ,.{ EACH CORP DOIRE CITY OF HUN IFV: ON BEACH PO BO - r'' 210 5TH ST PO BO.- 90 R. CNGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 GTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 33 024 147 35 024 147 36 CITY OF HUNTIN TgN',B ACH TAYLOR COAST SPECIALTIES ORANGE 2000 MAI 220 VIA SAN REMO 633 E CHAPMAN AVE HUIy.TT-- .G- N BEACH CA 92648 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 ORANGE CA 92866 024 147 37 024 147 38 024 147 39 Jeffe" F1Sher JOHN GALLAGHER SR. 221 N MAIN STREET BEACH 23901 CALABASAS RD#1065 208 5TH ST 26165 RINCONADA DR CALABASAS CA 91302 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 CARMEL VALLEY CA 93924 024 147 40 024 147 41 024 150 06 THOMAS CAVERLY ROBERT KOURY CITY OF HUNT BEACH �1jt N1Q1(1 S 200 MAIN ST#20 PO BO 1 IF'iVR Tl F�ch,� '97.10-48 HUNTI BEACH CA 92648 H INGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 15016 024 153 04 024153 05 STATE OF CALIFORNIA D JAMES LANE RONALD MASE 2020 HURL #105 637 FRANKFORT AVE 16642 INTREPID LN S ENTO CA 95825 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 E ser label siwWW.W/d tible with Avery 05169/816P Co it516011doAvery®��_�� Ftiquttte de fkMRWAkW1mcompatibleavecAver�65160/8160 08/R9L5afu a! !jdo Q�fw SZjewaoj ap apanb;Laser Labels ager:099 lCompatible with Avery®5160®Template 3 owl 024 153 07 024 153 11 024 153 17 117 MAIN HB LLC BAGSTAD GROUP TWO GEORGE DRAPER 3500 W GARRY AVE 9C)t CajajtnQ AVe 1210 PECAN AVE SANTA ANA CA 92704 seat beoch, CA 90'40 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 153 18 024153 21 024 153 23 1 FRANK ALFONSO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BCH ABDELMUTI DEVELOPMENT 6630 VICKIVIEW DR 2000 MAIN ST 7575 REYNOLDS CIR WEST HILLS CA 91307 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 024 153 25 024153 L6 IN�� 024 15 3 27 SHIRLEY WORTHY CITY OF FMNTIN BCH CIM & HU ,GTON LLC 801 13TH ST 2000 MAI if 6922 H WOOD BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUN �NN BEACH CA 92648 LOS ELES CA 90028 024 153 024154 01 024 154 02 CITY OF HUNTI,N� N BEACH MAZEN MUSTAFAZEIDAN SANG LIM 2000 MAIN,SS, 301 17TH ST 3810 WILSHIRE BLVD#911 HUNTIN., ON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LOS ANGELES CA 90010 024 154 03 024154 04 024 15417 MORNING JADE CORPORATION LINDA DIANE BIGGS PIERSIDE PAVILION LLC 2855 PULLMAN ST 125 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 2620 RIVIERA DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 024 162 05 024 162 06 024 162 07 PCH PCH PCH 1043 S MATTHEW WAY 1043 S MATTHEW WAY 1043 S MATTHEW WAY ANAHEIM CA 92808 ANAHEIM CA 92808 ANAHEIM CA 92808 024 162 08 024 162 09 024 162 13 PATRICIA IRENE EVANS PATRICIA IRENE EVANS MICHAEL RICHARD COLLINS PO BOX 13639 800 E WARDLOW RD#13 419 MAIN ST#A ARLINGTON TX 76094 LONG BEACH CA 90807 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 16 024162 17 024 162 19 DELHI WINN SON FRANKLIN ALDEN DECATUR MITCHELL 222 2ND ST 220 2ND ST 2919 GARDENA AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SIGNAL HILL CA 90755 024 162 20 024 162 21 024 162 22 DENNIS REDMAN JAMES MELTON DELHI WINN 1010 W AVENUE S14 206 2ND ST 222 2ND ST PALMDALE CA 93551 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 624 162 23 024 162 24 024 162 25 ALICE PARNAKIAN MARK NASHED RAY HUNNICUTT 205 1ST ST 412 OLIVE AVE#165 4776 GREENE RD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 JOHNSON VALLEY CA 92285 o E ser C_} � label"e 4'�cf'i/dM$*tible with Avery 05160/8160 Co �; t 51600 do Avery-// etiquette de f�r� ��� m compatible avec Avery 5i60/8160 Laser Labels 0St8/p9I.5m Haan. anln olgltat�RR WT��l �uw gZ teuaaol op a anba 3 Compatible with Avery®5160®Template ' 09 l$/ ���� �U}l"��f t�° F00$i��3�Ob is lagq 024 162 26 024 162 28 024 162 29 ZOLTAN & KES L& INGRID BAROT THOMAS MOORE 2405 LWORTH AVE 2100 OHIO AVE 404 N BERRY ST I- ANGELES CA 90039 SIGNAL HILL CA 90755 BREA CA 92821 024 162 30 024 163 01 024 163 02 TIEN THUY NGUYEN CITY OF HUNTINGTO C=H- ATLANTA MAKALLON i 236 2ND ST PO BOX 190 4100 MACARTHUR BLVD#200 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUV'T T N BEACH CA 92648 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 024 163 03 024 163 08 024 163 09 DOMINICK FIORILLO TK'S FAST GRILL INC DOMINICK FIORILLO 11721 VULTEE AVE 110 PACIFIC COAST HWY 11721 VULTEE AVE DOWNEY CA 90241 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 DOWNEY CA 90241 024 163 12 024 163 13 024 163 14 ALLEN NELSON ALLEN NELSON BANK FIRST NATL AMES IA 8404 LEXINGTON RD 11721 VULTEE AVE PO BOX 846 DOWNEY CA 90241 DOWNEY CA 90241 AMES IA 50010 024 163 15 024 164 07 024 16414 ATLANTA MAKALLON JD 6TH STREE COAST SPECIALITIES ORANGE 4100 MACARTHUR BLVD#200 2421 BA S ' RE DR 2123 GRANADA AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 'NE RT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661 024 165 02 024 165 03 024 165 07 PATRICIA IRENE EVANS KATHRYN CALVILLO ANTHONY PEARSON PO BOX 13639 215 2ND ST 1517 RACHAELS RDG ARLINGTON TX 76094 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HERMITAGE TN 37076 024 165 08 024 165 09 024 165 10 ROBERTALLEN 3H CONSTRUCTION INC RAMIRO FERNANDEZ 327 CREST AVE 21902 TOBARRA 218 3RD ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MISSION VIEJO CA 92692 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 165 11 024 165 12 024165 13 RAMIRO FERNANDEZ RONALD HSUEH JEFFREY lk ES MASON 214 3RD ST 19046 STONEHURST LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 165 14 024 165 15 024 165 16 KHANH VU KIM THI VU J JEFFREY A.. JASON 214 WALNUT AVE 11210 LAVENDER AVE ` HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 024 165 18 024 165 19 024 165 20 DEWEY DAVIDE ROBERT REIDER JEFFREY HANSLER 209 2ND ST 2112ND ST 213 2ND ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 !HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 E ' ser label sdnv41�6U6 i/t tible with Avery 05160/8160 Co it 51600 de Avery®/ ftiquktte de compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 Laser Labels 09l8/Q91.5@,faany Ac alq!jcd�o� w gZ lcwiol ap a}tanbE}3 Compatible with Avery®5160®Template '09��/ u}!A3�i�C �4 ©%5d�1d0 es laq-el' ' 024 165 21 024 165 23 024165 25 RICHARD BERRY HUY HUYNH STEPHEN ZAJICEK 219 2ND ST 227 2ND ST 221 2ND ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 165 26 024165 27 024165 28 DAVID BRIAN MCHOWELL JOHNNY NGO DEWEY DAVIDE 223 2ND ST, 225 2ND ST PO BOX 911 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 02416529 29 024 165 30 024 281 14 DEWEY IDE WILLIAM VOGT CITY OF HUNTING-:OtBEACH PO 911 2108 PACIFIC COAST HWY PO B0 NTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 f TINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 281 15 937 192 32 !'/ 937 192 33 BEACH CO HUNTINGTON CITY OF HUNTINg_.ON�BEACH 200 MAIN STREET LLC PO BOX 285 2000 =51! 200 MAIN ST#206 HOUSTON TX 77001 H.U1�lTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 10 939 505 11 939 505 12 DENNIS HONG DEREK FULLER MICHAEL MING-PING TSAI 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#101 5000 GREENHAVEN ST 17546 EDGEWOOD LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 YORBA LINDA CA 92887 YORBA LINDA CA 92886 939 505 13 939 505 14 939 505 15 LOUIS NEMETH WELLS FARGO BK NA GARY& LORI BAKER PO BOX 6113 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#105 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M40 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 16 939 505 17 939 505 18 �. RUDOLPH SANCHEZ FRANCISCO FABREGAS JR. HARPER EN LC 1036 LA CRESTA PL 18401 HAMPTON CT PO BO 36 FULLERTON CA 92835 NORTHRIDGE CA 91326 BE LY HILLS CA 90213 939 505 19 939 505 20 939 505 21 GUY DOMINGUEZ CHRISTINE NGUYEN GORGEN YOUSSEFIAN 4264 PEPPERWOOD AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#111 40 WILLOWBROOK LN LONG BEACH CA 90808 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 POMONA CA 91766 939 505 22 939 505 23 939 505 24 DAVID BARTLETT MICHAELJOHNSON ERNEST& KATHRYN HWANG 607 7TH ST 8065 THOROUGHBRED ST 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#115 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ALTA LOMA CA 91701 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 25 939 505 26 939 505 27 DIERK HALVERSON WILLIAM GRIFFITH LAILA WAGUIH MORCOS 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#116 11986 TILDEN PL 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#118 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 RIVERSIDE CA 92505 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 E ' ser (� label srr�'vV'9M / tible with Avery°516Q/816P Co o it5160®de Ave �/_ €fiq4tte de fin$ m compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 Laser Labels 09t8/p9t9d fAAV, aAe alglltlNcWW ql tWw 9Z lewao}ap apaobF Compatible with Avery'5160®Template '09t$�P 939 505 28 939 505 29 939 505 30 SASHA VICTORINE BRIANA MILLER MARIANO CRUZ 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#119 8892 BAINFORD DR 12641 MISTY PL HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 CERRITOS CA 90703 939 50531 939 505 32 939 505 33 KIMBERLY MEGGISON WILLIAM GARRISI JR. WILLIAM COPELAND 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#122 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#123 2024 9TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LA VERNE CA 91750 939 505 34 939 505 35 939 505 36 VIDAL ESPELETA ROZEMARIE SWEET ARMANDO ENRIQUEZ 2746 N VISTA HEIGHTS AVE 20071 BIG BEND LN 1932 PINE ST ORANGE CA 92867 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 50537 939 505 38 939 505 39 PAUL BYRNE III KHANH TRAN JOHN DOUGLAS PARRISH 5571 OCEAN TERRACE DR 26541 PASEO CALLADO PO BOX 5670 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CA 92675 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615 i 939 505 40 939 505 41 939 505 42 HB CAL LLC MARIAN GRANT JOANNE BOHNKE 1544 MANCHA DR 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#132 4927 N LOUIS RIVER WAY BOULDER CITY NV 89005 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 TUCSON AZ 85718 939 505 43 939 505 44 939 505 45 RANDOLPH PAYNE ROBERT STARR STEVEN CHIDESTER 6201 MORNINGSIDE DR PO BOX 486 30 SIDRA CV HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SURFSIDE CA 90743 NEWPORT COAST CA 92657 939 505 46 939 505 47 939 505 48z-11 KEVIN & HEATHER SHANNON MICHAEL WOMACK ROBERT sTb6KEY 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#138 7205 SHERWOOD DR / HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 �f 939 50549 939 505 50 939 505 51 RODNEY ALBRIGHT DAVID BARTLETT DAVID BARTLETT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#141 607 7TH ST 607 7TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 50552 939 505 53 939 505 54 RONALD LEROY KIMBROUTH SHU MEI TSAI MINA PROPERTIES LLC 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#144 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#145 315 ARLINGTON AVE#1601 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 CHARLOTTE NC 28203 939 505 55 939 505 56 939 505 57 MICHAEL ROBINSON RICHARD THEIL JR. MICHAEL COLACARRO JR. 8 GHIBERTI 628 MAIN ST 23325 53RD AVE S IRVINE CA 92606 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 KENT WA 98032 E -� ser � � II, ; label s�wvj' c5d9r'i/t otible with Avery 05160/3160 Com it 5160®deAvery®// ,L; ;Etiquette de f���WI J: m compatible avec Ave4y°5�60/8160 9Ae% /� 09k8/49lSc;tiany any 2Ig1 N,!� � m 9Z��wao�ap a}}anbl�3 Laser Labels ;og�g/ and u�i s Iaq�l; ; Compatible with Avery®5160®Template am ape ©- , 1`bo�'e 939 505 58 939 505 59 939 505 60 TODD RYNEARSON DAVID DEGRAZIO JACK FRYER 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#150 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#206 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#208 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505.61 939 505 62 939 505 63 PIER COLONY CONDO HUNTINGTON BERYL QTIP AMSPOKER TING-1-1 CHEN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#209 36449 TIERRA SUBIDA AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#216 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 PALMDALE CA 93551 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 64 939 505 65 939 505 66 ELBERT CHANG EDMUNDO AGUILAR III JULIA ANN NIZNIK 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#217 6808 GRETNA AVE 18551 SAN MARCOS ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 WHITTIER CA 90606 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 939 505 67 939 505 68 939 505 69 ERIC YAO MANOUC SIMSIAN TBF PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 17196 927 CRESCENT DR 2935 BLUEBELL AVE IRVINE CA 92623 MONROVIA CA 91016 BREA CA 92821 .93950570 939 505 71 939 505 72 ALFONSO RAGUS LLACUNA ADEL ALBADAWI MARIO RICCIARDI 50 SHOOTING STAR 2408 SANTIAGO 1019 AMARILLO DR IRVINE CA 92604 LA VERNE CA 91750 CLAREMONTCA 91711 939 505 73 939 505 74 , 939 505 75 LENA BEDIKIAN THEODORE FR .NKIEWICZ ASHKAN TAHVILDARAN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#240 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#250 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 76 939 505 77 939 505 78 HAZEM SABRY RICHARD MILLER JAMES LIM 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#300 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#301 1762 SOMBRERO DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MONTEREY PARK CA 91754 939 505 79 939 505 80 939 505 81 WARNER SCOTT MCKELVEY KATHY ATKINS 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#303 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#304 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#306 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 82 /� .939 505 83 939 505 84 PIER COLONYCOND0-HUNTINGTON KELLY DITMORE MICHAEL MUSCARELLA 200 PACIFIC C �T HWY#307 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#309 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#311 HUNTI B N .F N EACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 85 939 505 86 939 505 87 ANDREW MCDONALD DONALD HARDY EDWARD HAHN 113 6TH ST 1484 S JOHNSON ST 2904 E ECHO HILL WAY HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LAKEWOOD CO 80232 ORANGE CA 92867 �� _ E ser labelv1'.'3QWtible with Avery 0516 0160 � Co it 5160 de Avery ,, , , Etiquette de fd-t& �a5Tia?gym compatible avec Ave 5i60/8160 Laser Labels 09[9/Q9�5aaay ealggPd�ioo �C �w gz1 101 op a�anb1p Compatible with Avery®51600 Template '09 G9/ q1!A 3!� _ ,, p S laqui' MY ' 939 505 88 939 505 89 93950590 MARK AND N LORETTA LEE HAMILTON MARK ANTHONY MILLER 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#316 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#317 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 91 939 505 92 939 505.93 EDMUND EVANGELISTA JEFFREY SMITH MICHAEL WILLIAM BARSOM 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#319 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#320 1558 N PACIFIC AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 GLENDALE CA 91202 939 505 94 939 505 95 939 505 96 GAIL PICKART MAMDOUH KHALED IRWIN TIfG- 7 SAN MATEO WAY 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#324 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 i 939 505 97 939 505 98 939 505 99 WAYNE RYLSKI BARRY COLE JAMES PATRICK DAVIDSON 730 13TH ST 1500 E KATELLA AVE#SONE 1343 CADENCE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ORANGE CA 92867 HENDERSON NV 89052 939 506 00 939 506 01 939 506 02 MICHAEL SCOTT METKO EILEEN CALLAHAN RANDOLPH PAYNE 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#332 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#334 6201 MORNINGSIDE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 03 939 506 04' 939 506 05 ERNEST FELD QUAN DUONG OKACHI SHOJI CO LTD 1957 MALCOLM AVE 4962 RUTTNER CT 359 SAN MIGUEL DR#100 LOS ANGELES CA 90025 SAN JOSE CA 95111 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 939 506 06 939 506 07 939 506 08 JACK PARKS STEVEN SACHAROFF RICHARD ROSENBERG 42524 SHERRY LN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#342 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#343 MURRIETA CA 92562 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 09 939 506 10 939 506 11 WILDCAT PROPERTIES LLC SUSAN DEGUIDE PATRICK NIXON 4800 COLLEGE BLVD#204 200 PCH#346 PO BOX 237 FARMINGTON NM 87402 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MONROVIA CA 91017 .939 506 12 919, 0613 939 506 14 ROBERT BRYANT PAUL'S�TRAIN LIN LAN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#348 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#350 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 i 939 506 15 / 939 506 16 939 506 17 JAMES FARRAR, I ADAM LOUCKS JOSEPH SANDERS 240 WESIGATE DR 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#404 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#406 WAT NVILLE CA 95076 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 E �M.ser ��� label siz&N.x .6�, A tible with Avery 05160/8160 Co it 516 de Avery® �s tiquttte de compatible avec Avery 0)5io/8160 9� �� 0918/Q919a�+any ne aigl�otl oo to gZ;atuaoj ap aanbl3 Laser Labels ,09I 9/ u1, '�;� �q� s iaq�I, Compatible with Avery 5160 Template �� t�`=a,�E1�ff?�r1�� 939 506 18 939 506 19 939 506 20 DAVID ABU LOUIS CHAVEZ EUGENE IANSITI 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#408 1267 W KILDARE ST 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#413 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LANCASTER CA 93534 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 21 939 506 22 939 506 23 LINDA LMS SCOTT RODOLFO NONATO JEFF SANDERSON 18608 SANTA ISADORA ST 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#416 1 BOBBY JONES LN FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 COTO DE CAZA CA 92679 939 506 24 939 506 25 939 506 26 THOMAS CONNOLLY VALERIE BIAN HOLWERDA THOMAS MCCANN 19744 BEACH BLVD#209 PO BOX 49958 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#426. HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LOS ANGELES CA 90049 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 i 939 506 27 939 506 28 939 506 29 THOMAS EDWARD MCCANN MARY SEIF PERRI SOFIAN PUTRASAHAN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#426 1200 IMPERIAL DR 937 CREEK VIEW LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 GLENDALE CA 91207 REDLANDS CA 92373 i I 939 506 30 939 506 31 939 506 32 ADEL ZEIDAN LESLIE PINCHUK ROBERT LAN 7586 OCEAN POINT DR 11425 DONA EVITA DR 16346 BROOKSTONE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 STUDIO CITY CA 91604 LA MIRADA CA 90638 939 506 33 939 506 34 939 506 35 SONNY RUBIN GASTON VILLALBA SANTIAGO ORTIZ 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#44'j 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M9 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M17 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 36 939 506 37 939 506 38 STEVE & KELLY WIERE JANET D ELAN EY GARY BAKER 1641 CALLE YUCCA 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M30 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M40 THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 39 J 0 H N & NAANc-,r- VIENS 200 COAST HWY#M50 HUfVT-INGTON BEACH CA 92648 I 911 E ser label$yjW4'Wc MjQQ5Wtible with Avery ID5160/8160 Co ` it 5160®de Avery® ;Etiquette de ftFi5@M59ifa13231m compatible avec Avery°5J60/8160 Laser Labels 09L8/09L5r'luau ne algl}ec%g,3V% kwul 5Z IEuaol ap aganbV] Compatible with Avery®5160®Template 024 144 04 024 14412 024 146 09 TENANT TENANT TENANT 316 OLIVE AVE 303 3RD ST 201 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 146 10 024 146 14 024 147 01 TENANT TENANT TENANT 207 5TH ST 209 5TH ST 411 OLIVE AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 03 024 147 05 024 147 08 TENANT TENANT TENANT 218 5TH ST 210 5TH ST 204 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 09 '-� 024 147 14 024 147 15 TENANT TENANT TENANT 414 ,-'-- - E 217 MAIN ST 215 MAIN ST TINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 23 024 147 25 024 147 28 TENANT TENANT TENANT 213 MAIN ST 211 MAIN ST 205 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 29 ( 024 147 30 024 147 31 TENANT TENANT TENANT 206 5TH ST 208 5TH ST *NO SITE ADDRESS* HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 CA 00000 024 147 33 024 147 35 024 147 36 TENANT TENANT TENANT 212 5TH ST 224 5TH ST 222 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 37 024 147 38 024 147 39 TENANT TENANT TENANT 207 MAIN ST 209 MAIN ST 221 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 J 024 147 40 024 147 41 024 150 06 TENANT : TENANT TENANT 201 MAIN ST 214 5TH ST 1 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LADERA RANCH CA 92694 024 150 16 024 153 04 024 153 05 TENANT TENANT TENANT 455 PACIFIC COAST HWY 127 MAIN ST 123 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 E ' ser \ label 9 eR "N4 0W/l*p0atible with Avery 05169/81QO C' Cow it5160®1eAvery6"—' �°� ;Etiqu6edegrAgP2P r ;� nmcompatibleavecAve�Y°5i60/8160 / // Laser Labels 091.8/0919atu9ny Ae alggdW jp, taw S3 g ujol ap a:�anbg3 Compatible with Aver}e5160®Template '09Gg/ @ U}!A'�l�l�p�,'�� E dr81,�Rslagel, 024 153 07 024 153 11 024 153 17 TENANT TENANT TENANT 117 MAIN ST 400 PACIFIC C WY 121 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HYNI ON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 15318 024 153 21 024 153 23 TENANT TENANT TENANT 119 MAIN ST *NO SITE A * 101 ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 CA 0 H NTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 153 24 024 154 01 024 154 02 TENANT TENANT TENANT *NO SITE AD 126 MAIN ST -W 103 124 MAIN ST CA 0 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 154 03 024 154 04 024 154 17 TENANT TENANT TENANT 120 MAIN ST 116 MAIN ST 300 PACIFIC WY HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 H GTON BEACH CA 92648 ,02416205 024 162 06 024 162 07 TENANT TENANT TENANT 1ST ST 1ST ST 1ST ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 yldN INGTON BEACH CA 92649 H TINGTON BEACH CA 92649 I 024 162 08 024 162 09 024 162 13 TENANT TENANT TENANT *NO SITE ESS* *NO SITE A S* *NO SITE AD CA 0 CA 0 CA 02416216 02416217 02416219 TENANT �. TENANT- " TENANT 222 2 220 2ND *NO DDRESS* /= H ,F%GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUfj1 f TON BEACH CA 92648 CA 00000 024 162 20 024 162 21 024 162 22 TENANT TENANT TENANT *NO SI DRESS* 206 2e T' 230 2ND ST 0000 HU ;T�ION BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 23 024 162 24 02416225 TENANT TENANT TENANT 205 1ST.ST 201 1ST ST NO SITE ESS* H I: N BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 CA 0 024 162 26 024 162 28 024 162 29 TENANT TENANT TENANT 234 2ND ST 240 2ND ST 238 2ND ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 E ser label sin 4.WcWM/MajMtible with Avery 0516018160 Co it 5160®0, iery�'j/_ /� �t!quttte de lr l� t m compatible avec Avery°5 60/8160 j� ��� Laser Labels 09i.8/Qm5faaAV At'alg j*ed s� f'r f { m 5Z}pwao;op a}tanb!,3 Compatible with Avery®51600 Template 024 162 30 024 163 01 024 163 02 TENANT TENANT TENANT 236 2ND ST 101 WALNUT AVE 121 WALNUT AVE W4 TINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 163 03 024 163 08 024 163 09 TENANT TENANT TENANT 118 2ND ST 110 PACI 11 COAST HWY 114 PACIFIC COAST HWY #I HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUN. TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 163 12 024 163 13 024 163 14 TENANT TENANT TENANT 114 2ND ST -4:V- A 112 2ND ST # A 102 PACIFIC COAST HWY HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 163 15 024 164 07 024 164 14 TENANT TENANT TENANT i 120 PACIFIC COAST HWY 301 2ND ST 302 3RD ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 16502 024165503 024 165 07 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 2ND ST 215 2ND. 211 OLIVE AVE H GTON BEACH CA 92648 HU TfNGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 16508 024 165 09 024 165 10 TENANT TENANT TENANT 224 3RD ST 222 3RD ST 218 ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 NTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 165 11 024 165 12 024 165 13 TENANT - ' TENANT- TENANT 214 3RD:-STJ 210 3RD 200 3 HUO NGTON BEACH CA 92648 HU-N INGTON BEACH CA 92648 H NTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 165 14 .7�' 024 165 15 024 165 16 TENANT. ",` TENANT TENANT 214��,A-LNUT AVE 216 WALNUT AVE 202 3RD ji.r BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 H INGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 16518 024 165 19 024 165 20 TENANT TENANT TENANT 209 2N©-- 211 2ND ST 213 2ND ST HIjLN,, GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 165 21 02416523 024 165 25 TENANT] TENANT TENANT 219, ST 227 . ' DST 221 ST NTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 NTINGTON BEACH CA 9268 NTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Et er label%iwl.'31rRcSdff/m�atible with Avery 05160/8160 Com t5160®de Avery® .biottette de tbrl 5�1` n 294M compatible avec Avecy 05160/8160 09t8/ 915c�Iuany ane IDITTr d o to gz 1etujo a a anbu Laser Labels Ros�g/ u>I^^ I �a 5 s laa�lp c3 Compatible with Avery 5160®Template 3����e c��31(� 024 165 26 024165 27 024165 28 TENANT TENANT TENANT 223 T 225 2N ST *NO SITE INGTON BEACH CA 92648 HINGTON BEACH CA 92648 CA 9 000 024 165 29 024165 30 024 281 14 TENANT TENANT TENANT *NO ADDRESS* 2012ND ST 315 PACIFIC COAST HWY CA 00000 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 281 15 937 192 32 937 192 33 TENANT TENANT TENANT 201 PACIFIC COAST HWY *NO SITE ADDRESS* 200 MAI #206 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 CA 00000 HU . GTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 10 939 505 11 93950512 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#101 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#102 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#103 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 13 939 505 14 f 93950515 TENANT TENANT / TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#104 200 PPA�—Q., COAST HWY#105 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#106 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HU "NG I ON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 16 93950517 93950518 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#107 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#108 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#109 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 19 939 505 20 93950521 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#110 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#111 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#112 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 22 939 505 23 93950524 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#113 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#114 200 PA AST HWY#115 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 H Il�(GTON BEACH CA 92648 i 939 505 25 939 505 26 939 505 27 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC-CO; ST HWY#116 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#117 200gPC-T'FTOC6AST= HWY#118 H�L1�1 TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HNGN BEACH CA 92648 939 505 28 939 505 29 93950530 TENANT ��—�" TENANT TENANT 200 PACK CST HWY#119 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#120 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#121 H TI' .C- ON BE EACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 E 1 ser , label vh' /WA0tible with Avery 05160/8160 Com it 51600 de Avery® �tiqujtte de fmr5s Rfff3 B?-51m compatible avec Avery°5i60/8160 / �_ Laser Labels 09t8/0Pl5aA1any nealglted 100 1 � w 9ZIewao}ap a#tanblp Compatible with Avery®5160®Template '09 �tP�t lb� Iagel 939 505 31 939 505 32 939 505 33 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PAC-1FIC COAST HWY#122 200 PACIF ,COAST HWY#123 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#124 Hl Wl' GTON BEACH CA 92648 H NT141ON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 34 939 505 35 939 505 36 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#125 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#126 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#127 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 37 939 505 38 939 505 39 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#128 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#129 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#130 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ,93950540 939 505 41 939 505 42 TENANT TENANT -�'°r TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#131 200 PACT OAST HWY#132 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#134 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 y. N.GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 43 939 505 44 939 505 45 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#135 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#136 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#137 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 46 939 505 47 93950548 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#138 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#139 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 49 939 505 50 939 505 51 TENANT =% TENANT TENANT 200 PACIF��.IC',COAST HWY#141 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#142 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#143 HUNTk 6TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 52 939 505 53 939 505 54 TENANT TENANT �i' TENANT 200 PAgFIC`COAST HWY#144 200 PACIFIC C�T-HWY#145 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#146 HUTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINTO'N BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 55 939 505 56 939 505 57 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#147 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#148 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#149 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 58 939 505 59 939 505 60 TENANT TENANT = TENANT 200 P��,,�r C�COAST HWY#150 200 PACIFI_CCOAST HWY#206 200 PAC.FfC COAST HWY#208 1-16 INGTON B A H CA 92648 HLLN-TINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HU -'FNGTON BEACH CA 92648 E = ser , label"X.3t2.6ffigaMatible with Avery 05160/8160 Co ' it5160®de Avery® ttiqu�tte de fcritc2-3MF542RMm compatible avec Avery 115160/8160 q// //�--- Laser Labels 09f8/g91.9c1/u8ny Aeaiq!tea a A yywgZlpwjojopapanbip Compatible with Avery®5160®Template 09�$/ ��y}!"�S ��p, @ 3r 4�01 S lagai� 939 505 61 939 505 62 939 505 63 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC CO"AST HWY#209 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#211 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#216 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 64 939 505 65 939 505 66 TENANT TENANT TENANT i 200 PACIFICAST HWY#217 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#218 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#220 HU�I�=1° GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 67 939 505 68 93950569 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#226 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#229 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#230 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 70 .939 505 71 939 505 72 TENANT TENANT TENANT .200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#231 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#233 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#239 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 73 939 505 74 939 505 75 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PAC." COAST HWY#240 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#250 HU f GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 76 939 505 77 939 505 78 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFICCOAST HWY#300 200 PACIFJ-AST HWY#301 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#302 HUTON BEACH CA 92648 HUINtTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 79 939 505 80 939 505 81 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC CAST HWY#303 200 PACIFIC-COAST HWY#304 200 PACIFIC COA.S-T-HWY#306 HUNT TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTI�TI0 BEACH CA 92648 939 505 82 939 505 83 939 505 84 TENANT �;,{'' TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIGCOAST HWY#307 200 PAC IFfICyCOAST HWY#309 200 PACIF _ OAST HWY#311 HUNTI O. TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNT, GTON BEACH CA 92648 G 939 505 85 939 505 86 939 505 87 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#312 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#313 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#314 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 88 939 505 89 939 505 90 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 P Ei* OAST HWY#316 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#317 E4NGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 E ser label s��l'�.6fflifat�iatible with Avery°516q/816Q Co it 51600 de Avery® Etiquitte de compatible avec Avery °5180/8160 911 � � Laser Labels 0gi.8/49GgGtiany Ae elglled q viyw gz lewaof ap aponbll3 Compatible with Avery®5160®Template '0 ujll��ro� �jpor1�( �5 lagel' ' 939 505 91 939 505 92 939 505 93 TENANT TENANT ������- TENANT 20013 I:P COAST HWY#319 200 PACIFIC CO" WY#320 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#322 H�IPITINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNJI N EACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 94 939 505 95 939 505 96 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#323 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#324 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 505 97 939 505 98 939 505 99 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#326 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#328 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#329 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 00 939 506 01 939 506 02 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFJ�&e ST HWY#332 200 PACIFIC CO�AST,I�1/Vr#334 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#335 IFd'fINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTQN" ""EACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 03 .939 506 04 939 506 05 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#336 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#337 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#339 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 06 939 506 07 939 506 08 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#341 200 PACIFIC HWY#342 200 PACIFIC C ASS' WY#343 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUN I TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNrT TON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 09 939 506 10 939 506 11 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#345 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#347 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 50612 939 506 13 939 506 14 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIF"COAST HWY#348 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#349 200 PACLFI;•- AST HWY#350 HUPT NGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LiU ':I•NGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 15 939 506 16 939 506 17 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#402 200 PACJ COAST HWY#404 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#406 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HYN' GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 50618 939 506 19 939 506 20 TENANT TENANT TENANT 20�A ( COAST HWY#408 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#411 200 P k COAST HWY#413 I-t NTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 INGTON BEACH CA 92648 E r ser label siwvV'WW/i tible with Avery 0516Q/816Q Co it 5160®de Avery® Etiquttte de fkA P§r�4?gym compatible avec Av0j 05160/8160 ��� Laser Labels o9tsi®s15 r�aan anzalq!pe�gq � ,gI�Mw gZlewao�epa}tanbtt3 Compatible with Avery®5160®Template '091§/ ' y F1�U�!' � 4 .�� id0 'S loga; MM- 93950621 939 506 22 939 506 23 TENANT TENANT , . TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#415 200 PACIFIC GO`"5TA HWY#416 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#418 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUI\T�N BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 24 939 506 25 939 506 26 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#.420 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#422 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#424 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 27 939 506 28 939 506 29 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC,- TS HWY#426 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#436 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#439 HUN>T1" ON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 30 939 506 31 939 506 32 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#443 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#445 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#447 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 33 939 506 34 939 506 35 TENANT - � TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC HST WY#449 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M9 200 PACIFI AST HWY#M1.7 HUNT TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 H --19GTON BEACH CA 92648 939 506 36 939 506 37 939 506 38 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M29 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M30 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M40 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 93950639 TENANT TENANT TENANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M50 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 TENANT TENANT TENANT J TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT nz- E=1 . ser label%Irzev4.W( M/im1mtible with Avery 05169/816.0 Cornt 516011de Avery® :Etigv�lte de compatible avec AveV ID5160/8160 Laser Lapels 09f9/0915®fd9nyiealgl}2dwoo u,ua L$�,yy�� 1 a�Ianb3 Compatible with Avery®51600 Template 091�/0R66d FLAW Pm apl-edtuoo„g/g Z x t azls lagap 024 147 09 024 147'15 024 147 15 Tenant Tenant Tenant 412 Walnut Ave. 215 1/2 St. 215 Main St., Unit A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H " gton Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 926.48 024 147 25 024 147 25 024 147 28 Tenant Tenant Tenant 211 Main St., Unit A 211 Main St., Unit B 205 1/2 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 14730 024 147 30 024 147 40 Tenant Tenant Tenant 208 50i Street, Unit A 208 5th Street, Unit B 201 Main St., Unit A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 14740 024 14740 024 147 40 Tenant Tenant Tenant 201 Main St., Unit B 201 Main St., Unit C 201 Main St., Unit D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 14740 024 15323 024 15323 Tenant Tenant Tenant 201 Main St., Unit E 109 Main St. 111 Main St. -Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 15323 024 15323 024 15323 Tenant Tenant , Tenant 113 Main St. 101 M.1 Unit 2A 101-M 'n t., Unit 2B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 15323 024 15323 024 153 23 Tenant _ - Tenant Tenant 101 Maip- Unit 2C 101 in St., Unit 2D 101 t., nit 2E Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 153 23 024 15323 024 153 23 Tenant Tenant Tenant 101 Ma' , Unit 2F 101 Men t.,Unit 2G 101 idain St., Unit 3A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 15323 024 15323 024 153 23 l Tenant Tenant Tenant 101 Maul S., Unit 3B 101 Ma��nit 3C 101 Main St.. Unit 3G Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 15323 024 15323 024 15323 Tenant Tenant 101 Main St., Unit 4A 410 Paoc Coast Highway 412 P�aci Ti fr l y Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ® //_ label size 1"x 2 5/8"comp9&vA A"1j51t6Q/816Q ®/zany p909T9Iuege8aloamelq!jedwo0 �� �tiqudtte de format 25 mm x 67 nwmfA�t�i NEVRk1R�ery°51p0/81�� _//4'asej sallanbt13 Laser Labels 09G8/0ql gay Jany e algllsdwoo ww ZqA WWjpAi4h-�p a anbtt3 Compatible wbAvery®5160®Template 09G�/0S4&jNW qjp apledwoo„2/5 Z x ,L azis lager sm 024 15401 024 15401 024 154 01 Tenant Tenant Tenant 126 Main St., Unit 101 126 Main St., Unit 102 126 Main St., Unit 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 15402 024 154 04 1 Tenant Tenant 124 Main St. 118 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937 19233 937 19233 Occupant Occupant 200 Main St., Unit 101 200 Main St., Unit 102 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 "" Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937 19233 937 19233 937 19233 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200 Main St., Unit 103, 200 Main St., Unit 104 200 Main St.,Unit 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937 19233 '937 19233 937 19233 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200 Main St., Unit 106 200 Main St., Unit 107 200 Main St., Unit 108 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937 19233 937 19233 937 192 33 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200 Main St., Unit 109 200 Main St., Unit 110 200 Main St., Unit 113 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937 19233 937 19233 937 19233 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200 Main St., Unit 114 200 Main St., Unit 115 200 Main St., Unit 116 j Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937 19233 937 19233 937 19233 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200 Main St., Unit 117 200 Main St., Unit 201 200 Main St., Unit 202 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 J 937 19233 937 19233 937 19233 Occupant Occupant Occupant 200 Main St., Unit 203 200 Main St., Unit 204A 200 Main St.,Unit 204B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937 19233 937 19233 937 19233 Occupant Occupant - Occupant 200 Main St., Unit 205A 200 Main St., Unit 205B 200 Main St.,Unit 206 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compeMV96"9-6060/8160 ®/Zany p®09T9Iuege5alcanealgiledwo0 M I---Id,,, Ptiqu�tte de format 25 mm x 67 rW9NN1RRNFaa+/". er' 051�0/816Z? ',_�JD5CJ sa1.�enbI13 Laser Labels 09f8/Q9t9a1u9ny ne elgij�dwoa ww L��f p�jRj,6b_,p affanb!l3 Compatible with Avery®5160®Template �09L9/0 � ul!nn alq!�Edtuoo„g/g x«L az!s lageh 024 154 17 02415417 02415417 Tenant Tenant Tenant 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 100 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 101 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 103 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 154 17 024 154 17 024 154 17 1 Tenant Tenant Tenant 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 104 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 106A 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 106B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 15417 024 154 17 024 154 17 Tenant Tenant Tenant 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 107A 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 107B 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 108 Huntington Beach; CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j 024 154 17 024 154 17 024 154 17 Tenant Tenant Tenant 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 109 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 110 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 112 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 154 17 024 154 17 024 154 17 I Tenant Tenant Tenant 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 113 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 114 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 118 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 154 17 024 154 17 024 154 17 Tenant Tenant Tenant 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 201 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 202 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 203 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 154 17 024 154 17 024 154 17 Tenant Tenant Tenant 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 301 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 302 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 303 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024 154 17 024 154 17 024 154 17 Tenant Tenant Tenant 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 305 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 308 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 310 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j 024 154 17 024 154 17 024 154 17 Tenant Tenant Tenant 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 401 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 402 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 405 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i 024 154 17 024 154 17 024 154 17 Tenant Tenant Tenant 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 406 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 408 300 Pacific Coast Hwy, Unit 410 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 / label size 1"x 2 5/8"compaOWgT49Eif&m§616Q/8160 f®/Janya e09TSIIJ8 15aloenealclgedwo9 Etiqudtte de format 25 mm x 67 nWquY"MM8VfN�ery°51�0/816P!I�1� aesei sailanbi43 Laser Labels 09L8I0919�tiany e algl�edwoo wtu l y ;LA. a;�anb 3 Compatible with Avery®5160®Template 09l$/O�b yl1.nn alglfedwoo„g/g x„L szls lager 024 14703 024 147 03 02414614 TENANT TENANT TENANT 218 '/z 5TH ST 220 5TH ST 209 5TH ST, UNIT A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 146 14 024146.14 024 146 14 TENANT TENANT TENANT i 209 5TH ST, UNIT B 209 5TH ST,UNIT C 209 5TH ST, UNIT D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ' 02414735 02414735 02414736 TENANT TENANT TENANT 224 5TH ST, UNIT A 224 5TH ST, UNIT B 222 5TH ST, UNIT A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 14736 024 147 39 : 024 147 39 TENANT TENANT TEFT 222 5TH ST, UNIT B 221 MAIN ST ,UNIT A 221ST , UNIT A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 H NGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 14739 024 147 39 024 147 39 TENANT TENANT TENANT 221 MAIN ST, UNIT B 221 MAIN ST , UNIT C 221 MAIN ST, UNIT D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 i 024 147 39 024 147 39 024 147 39 TENANT TENANT TENANT 221 MAIN ST , UNIT E . 221 MAIN ST, UNIT F 221 MAIN ST, UNIT G HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 39 024 147 39 024 147 39 TENANT TENANT TENANT 221 MAIN ST , UNIT H 221 MAIN ST , UNIT I 221 MAIN ST ,UNIT J HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 14739 024 147 39 024 147 39 TENANT TENANT TENANT 221 ST , UNIT K 221 MAIN IT L 221 , UNIT M TINGTON BEACH CA 92648 GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 147 39 024 147 39 024 147 39 TENANT TENANT aINGT�ON T 22 ST , UNIT N 221 MA IT 0 IT P HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 BEACH CA 92648 024 147 39 024 147 39 024 147 39 TENANT TENANT TENANT 221 M T , UNIT Q 221 MA IT R 221 MA IT IT S FFO-RTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUN INGTON BEACH CA 92648 '` . HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 label size 1"x 2 5/8"comP91bW ftAve► @W 60/8160 ®tiaAd p®09T91pege6 al ow,agledwoo ' / /� �tiquttte de format 25 mm x 67 rfffflcn �RPth@WY*er 05 0t60/816(`/z�j aasel sagq.anbiq.� �a5�r r_ar1�r5 09t8/0915gMany ea!q!}edwootutuLQAL&i3F319A4 401}anu3 Compatible with Avery®5160®Template '09G8/09664 NW Ul!M @!q!lzdwoo„g/g Z x„G oz!s!aqe!- 024 14739 024 147 39 024 147 39 TENANT LltMA T TENANT 221 MAIN ST IT U 221 MA IT V HUNTgNGTON BEACH CA 92648 ON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 05 024 162 17 024 162 17 TENANT TENANT TENANT j 231 1ST ST 208 2ND ST 208 1/2 2ND ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 22 024 162 22 024 162 22 TENANT TENANT TENANT 230 2ND ST, UNIT 1 230 2ND ST, UNIT 2 230 2ND ST, UNIT 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 " HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 22 024 162 22 024 162 22 TENANT TENANT TENANT 230 2ND ST, UNIT 4 230 2ND ST, UNIT 5 230 2ND ST, UNIT 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 22 024 162 22 024 162 22 TENANT TENANT TENANT 230 2ND ST, UNIT 7 230 2ND ST, UNIT 8 230 2ND ST, UNIT 9 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 16222 024 162 23 024 162 23 TENANT TENANT TENANT 230 2ND ST, UNIT 10 207 IT ST 209 IT ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 24 024 162 24 024 162 24 TENANT TENANT TENANT 201.1 ST ST, UNIT 1 201 1ST ST, UNIT 2 201 1ST ST, UNIT 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 162 24 024 16224 024 162 24 TENANT TENANT TENANT 201 1ST ST, UNIT 4 201 1 ST ST, UNIT 5 ` 201 I ST ST, UNIT 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 i 024 162 24 024 162 24 024 163 02 TENANT TENANT TENANT 201 11T ST, UNIT 7 201 1ST ST, UNIT 8 117 WALNUT AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 02416312 02416312 02416312 TENANT TENANT TENANT 114 2ND ST; UNIT A 114 2ND ST, UNIT B 116 2ND ST, UNIT A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 m label size 1"x 2 5/8"compRiRTdvWAvK315P60/8160 41anyap®09Zgl!jegeBeioaneolq!ledwoC hquette de format 25 mm x 67 rrRIflF5eHbN *tAQ^very 05i60/8160 � �aasel sallenbi;D Laser Lapeis 0918/99�91 many ne a!q!teauaoo uaW L9 4�f �e @i �P atann t3 Compatible with Avery"5160®Template '0 ii@V ui!m alq!}edtuoo„g/g Z x«l az!s lagef 024 163 12 024 163 13 024 163 13 TENANT TENANT TENANT 116 2ND ST,UNIT B 112 2ND ST, UNIT A 112 2ND ST, UNIT B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 164 14 024 165 07 024 165 08 TENANT TENANT TENANT 302 3RD ST 217 OLIVE AVE 226 3RD ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 16508 1024 16509 TENANT TENANT TENANT 228 3' ST 222 3' ST, UNIT A 222 3' ST, UNIT B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 165 09 024 165 09 024 165 16 TENANT TENANT TENANT 222 3RD ST, UNIT C 222 3' ST, UNIT D 218 WALNUT AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 165 16 TENANT 220 WALNUT AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 153 24 024 153 24 TENANT TENANT 500 PACIFIC COAST HWY 155 5TH STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 15324 024 153 24 024 15324 TENANT TENANT TENANT 155 5TH STREET, SUITE 101 155 5TH STREET, SUITE 141 155 5TH STREET, SUITE 175 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024 15324 024 153 24 024 153 24 TENANT TENANT .. , TENANT 155 5TH STREET, SUITE 183 180 5TH STREET, SUITE 100 180 5TH STREET, SUITE 120 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 label size 1"x25/8"sompaDZtDT96AVC96'5g60/8160 ®tieAVaP®09T91pege5aloaneegjedwo0 �tiquttte de format 25 mm x 67 r�fi��i �il�G�^Rder'y 05t0/8160 aase1 sa}}anbi�� . � � 024 16226 �024 164 07 024 165 13 Leslie Alsenz iJd 6th Street :Jeffery Andres Mason 1746 Park St 3185 Airway Ave#f2 825 12, St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Euntington Beach, CA 92648 939 505 18 ; ; 939 505 48 939 505 74 trews John A ;;Robert Stookey ' heodore Frankiewicz 3653 Beach St '200 Pacific Coast Highway#140 :erritos CA 90703 g y ZW Poc tf i c coasfi Huey # z`i5 :Huntington Beach, CA 92648 J'; i ,��n rtngton geaGh,cA RZb4a 939 505 82 -:939 505 88 ;939 505 96 Pier Colony Condo Huntington Mark Anderson i'::Irwin Ting 10801 Walker St#200 ; 200 Pacific Coast Highway#315 :200 Pacific Coast Hwy 4325 ,Cypress, CA 90630 : ''Huntington Beach, CA 92648 :, 'Huntington Beach, CA 92648 , 939 506 13 939-506-15 '939-506-39 Paul Strain 9112 Mahalo Dr ; Gerard Lucas Dustin Carpenter Jerald L Huntington Beach, CA 92646 935 Nw Valley View Dr 22580 Green Mount PI Grants Pass, OR 97526 :Yorba Linda, CA 92887 024 14709 Sequoia 414 Walnut Ave Huntington Beach 92648 J . cow : �+ FPROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY O F ORANGE ) ❑'1. MITIGATED KEG, MND: To analyze the and consumption oY al- ATIVE DECLARATION potential environmental coholic beverages within �NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NO. 11-007/COASTAL impacts associated with the restaurantt as• c) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT the implementation of to expansion of'the al- am a citizen of the United States and a: BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL N 0 11.-0 1 2/ the proposed project. lowable uses,within the CONDITIONAL USE PER- CDP/CUP:To permit:a) Pierside Pavilion devel- resident of the Count of Los Angeles; I OF THE MIT NO. 11-021/ the demolition of .ap- opment from the pre- y g CITY OFHUNTINGTON ENTITLEMENT PLAN proximately 400 sq. ft. viously approved limits am over the age of eighteen ears and BEACH AMENDMENT N0: 11- of the existing structure established by- Entitle- g g y � 007/VARIANCE NO. including an elevator ment Plan Amendment NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- 11-005 .(APPEAL OF shaft and two stairwells; No.07-01 and the Own- not a party to or interested in the notice IEN that on Monday, THE PLANNING COM- and construct a con- e r. Participation 'September 17,`2012, at MISSION'S DENIAL.OF 'necting ,four-story, 90 Agreement (executed in published. I am a principal clerk of the i6:00 p.m. in the City THE PIERSIDE PAVILION foot high,,approximately 2009 and amended in Council Chambers, 2000 i EXPANSION)Appellant: 27,772 square foot 2011) by adding 10,527 HUNTINGTON BEACH!Main Street, Huntington Councilmember toe mined-use, , visitor sq:;ft. of. retail, 5,705 Beach, the City Council Carchio Applicant: 'Mi- serving/office building sq. ft. of restaurant, INDEPENDENT .which was ad d ed a'will hold a public hear- g chael Adams, Michael C. and approximately9,401 and 21,441 sq. ft. of mg on the following Adams Associates'Prop- sq. ft. infill expansion office; and d) permit newspaper of general circulation on�planning and zoning erty .Owner: Joe by extending existing shared parking.,EPA:To items: Daichendt, Theory R storefronts; b) the sale amend Conditional Use September 29, 1961, case A6214, and- Properties LLC Request: Permit No. 10-017 ,to June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the - Clt of Huntin ton Beach Count/ of modify the location .of the Coastal Zone and Mitigated Negative Dec- may be limited to rail y g J the existing retail carts includes Coastal Devel- laration is.on file at the ing only those issue Orange and the State of California. on public and private opment. Permit No:11- City of Huntington you or someone els property. VAR: To per- 012,'filed on 09/13/11, .Beach Planning and raised at the publi Attached to this Affidavit is a true and mit a maximum height in conjunction with the Building Department, hearing described in thi of 68 ft. (plus up to,90 above request. 2000.Main Street, and notice,or in written cot complete copy as was printed and ft for mechanical hous- 2. NOTICE IS HEREBY available ,for public in- respondence delivere ing) in lieu of a maxi- GIVEN. that the initial spection and comment to'the City at, or prio published on the following date(s): mum of 45 ft.Location: environmental assess- by contacting the Plan- to,the public hearing. I 300 Pacific Coast High- ment for item #1 was ning Division,or by tele- there are any. .furthe way, 92648 (northeast processed and complet- phoning(714)536-5271. questions pleasecall'th .t corner of Pacific Coast ed in .accordance with ON FILET A copy of the Planning and Buildin Thursday, September 6, 2012 Highway and Main the California Environ- proposed request is on Department at. (714 Street) Project Plan- mental .Quality Act. It file in the Planning and 536-5271 and refer t ner:Ethan Edwards was determined that Building Department, the above items. Direc 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY Item#l,with mitigation, 2000 Main Street, Hun- your written communi GIVEN that Item #1 is would not have any sig- tington Beach„ Califor- cations to .the Cit located in the non ap- nificant environmental nia 92648, for inspec- Clerk. certify (or declare) under penalty pealable jurisdiction of effects and that a miti- tion 'by the public. A Joan L.Flynn;City Cler4 gated negative declara- copy of the staff report, City of Huntington Beacl tion.is warranted. The will be available to in- 2000 Main Street,2nd of perjury that the foregoing is true terested parties at the Floor City Clerk s Office n Huntington Beach, and correct. Thursday, September California 92648 13,2012. 714-536-5227 ALL INTERESTED'PER- http:%/ SONS are invited'to at- huntington beach ca.gov, tend` said hearing and -HBPublicComments/ express opinions or sub- Published H.B. Indepen mit- evidence. for or, dent September 6,2012 Executed on September 12� 2012 against the application — — — - as outlined above.If you challenge the City Coun- at Los Angeles, California cil s action in court, y / ud P Signature SUPPLEMENTAL Esparza, Patty IM11NMI11`II['Annm From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 4:38 AM M#*Ong Date; To: gary@gbakers.com' Cc: Esparza, Patty; Lugar, Robin Subject: Re: Ager►da Item No. Thank you for your correspondence Mr. Baker. We have entered it into the public record,will place it into the meeting supplemental communication packet which is uploaded to the website, and will make copies available to the public if requested. I will see you at Monday's meeting if you are in attendance.Joan Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From: Gary Baker [mailto:gary@gbakers.com] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:12 PM To: dhanson@surfcity-hb.org <dhanson@surfcity-hb.org>; connieboardman@surfcity-hb.org <connieboardman@surfcity-hb.org>; Bohr, Keith; Carchio, Joe; mathewharper@surfcity-hb.org <mathewharper@surfcity-hb.org>;joeshaw@surfcity-hb.org <joeshaw@surfcity-hb.org>; Dwyer, Devin Cc: Fikes, Cathy; Stephenson, Johanna; Lugar, Robin; Flynn, Joan September 14, 2012 Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St . Huntington Beach , Ca. 92648 Re; Proposed Pierside Pavilion expansion-Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial Of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007/ Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012/Conditional use Permit No.11-021 Nariance No. 11-005: Design review No.11-015 Dear Honorable Council Members: My name is Gary Baker, and I am an owner/resident of Pier Colony @ 200 Pacific Coast Hwy , Huntington Beach , Ca. 92648. I am writing you, re: the above appeal for the Pierside Pavilion Expansion, which will come before you on September 17, 2012 . I am asking you to uphold the Planning Commissions decision to deny this project. This seems like this should be a very easy decision for the City Council, given that the planning commissioners have been very diligent in their effort to conform to current Zoning, City Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, Coastal Development, etc. They have investigated all aspects and found that this project as designed has many flaws/violations. And as I understand, the planning commissioners are appointed by the City Council Members, therefore your good judgment in appointing these members can only dictate that their conclusions be something that you also would agree with. However,just in case you might like some extra fact findings, let me offer you this: 1. In 1988 there was an area known as the 100 block of 3rd St. It was vacated to make room for a mixed use area, now known as Pierside Pavilion/Pier Colony (Main/Pier re-development Phase 1). And as you know the CUP (88-7 & 88-3) was in place only if it complied with the new(about to be i .a adopted).Dowptown:Specific Plan. Also as you know the DTSP states that all vacated streets (1988 DTSP'section 4:2':1`5 alsb DTSP section 3.2.5) shall provide a view (2830 jpeg)corridor not less than the width of the former street. According to the American Land Title Association (ALTA) (see appendix A&B (4084,40861jpg)) conducted July 27, 1988 the width of 3rd Street was 60 feet. Clearly if this project is built as proposed, this will impede upon the View Corridor. Even the developers in their plans (AO) (see;appendix.0 (2687.jpg)) show a 60 foot view corridor and still are trying to build over the limits. 2. On a second note, I would ask how it is that there are presently two staircases that are in violation of the DTSP View Corridor? Of course, I understand that was not your decision, but please don't allow yourselves to compound this previous error. We cannot change our history, however, we can keep it from happening in our future. 3. Let's stray from the legal aspects for a moment and talk of aesthetic. I know, it's all very subjective, however, with previous City Councils and yourselves, you have been very specific and consistent about the downtowns architecture.As you drive down Pacific Coast Hwy passing Beach Blvd you notice a large beautiful hotel,the Hyatt, a great rendition of Mediterranean architecture. Further as we pass the Hilton Waterfront Hotel, another wonderful example of the Mediterranean architecture, not the same, different in their own right, but Mediterranean none the less. Next will be the New Pacific City , and from the renderings I have seen, which I believe you have approved,"village"approach with the same Mediterranean theme. As we pass Pier Colony, who just recently spent over $300,000 in updating the color scheme and landscaping to match new development in the downtown area (i.e. parking structure on 3`d and Walnut and Main Street) we notice the same feel and consistency. Next is Pierside Pavilion, now while they recently renovated the old theater, the existing front of the building is as it was in 1989. And you know what? It still fits in your downtown theme. The new proposed contemporary"box" style building, See appendix D(2830 jpeg)) certainly is not in keeping with the existing architecture or the "Downtown Experience". a. As a side note the Design Review Board approved the project, then denied the project they re-approved without any changes made. At the Planning Commission meeting Mr. Peterson (member of the DRB) was ask about findings at the DRB and his recollection was very vague, stating that he remembered discussing the colors, but not about architecture, mass, height, parking, etc., and yet it was approved? 4. Now, lets look at the effect you will have on the city and residents of this great city should you allow this project to proceed. In particular the residents of Pier Colony will be faced with losing drastic amounts of their view, hence equating to extensive losses in property values. And as a matter of fact,the losses are not just the homeowners that face the Pierside Pavilion Expansion project, but, the entire building, as well as other Pacific Coast Hwy homes with ocean views. The comparative prices will affect every homeowner in the area. Even if personal views are not protected, certainly property values are. One neighbor should not be allowed under a well developed city as ours, to destroy property values for another. Next you must consider that a great many of the homes directly adjacent to Pierside Pavilion Expansion have limited windows for light and air circulation. A building as proposed would drastically cut off air flow, available light, etc. resulting in more power consumption for our city and state. Now, I know with Pacific City they did a shadow effect survey for summer months and again for winter months. Do we have a report showing any of this? Certainly not that I have seen. Pierside Pavilion, as you know, is requesting a proposed 4 story structure. Plus the extensive use of noise amplifying, reflecting glass will greatly add to the noise element. When the original CUP (88-7 & 88-3) was issued it was apparent that commercial and residential are a very difficult challenge. But precautions were put into effect, i.e. Pier Colony had to be raised 8 foot above grade, all doors and windows had to be dual glazed, energy efficient, a 60 foot wide view corridor in place, a set back of upper level floors, along with an open courtyard for open air space and sound dispersion. This plan was the most applicable for the two projects. 2 a. What about the Fire Department? Can they access the top floors of the buildings from the smaller corridor? (see Appendix E (2817 jpeg)) According to the Fire Department, this would be of serious concern. (this has been noted in the Staff report) 5. Next, for a moment, let's assume you pass this Pierside Pavilion Expansion project. I ask you, What happens to the Kiosk/Carts CUP (no. 2010-017)?. Currently the owner has I believe the right to 18 carts. Based on the available footprint of the proposed building there would not be an area to place carts that do not impede pedestrian traffic. I believe the existing CUP states that the carts should be placed parallel to Pacific Coast Hwy and to Main St . However, on any given day, the owner allows the cart renters to place their carts perpendicular to both Pacific Coast Hwy and Main St . What about visitor friendly areas? What about pedestrian traffic close to the very busy Pacific Coast Hwy ? Given the proposed 15 foot sidewalk, a cart is approximately 6.5 feet in length, and the storefront door opening is 3 feet, plus there was to be additional landscaping on PCH. This is clearly not a viable solution for safe and unobstructed pedestrian traffic. 6. What is the real reason for the Pierside Pavilion Expansion? Currently from his own admission, the owner of Pierside Pavilion has struggled to lease current available spaces. So would the roof top bar or new restaurant bring more commercial/office tenants to this area? Or would the roof top bar and new restaurant bring enough revenue to pay for the empty office spaces? And would the roof top bar and new restaurant be much more appealing to a new buyer? Perhaps. After all, 130,000+ sq ft of downtown Huntington Beach is very attractive unless you know that perhaps 50% is vacant. But I would guess that's not your problem either. Your problem is however, it is not a good thing for Huntington Beach to have a huge amount of empty office/retail spaces. When you or future members are promoting this city, I'm sure it is best to have few vacancies, with businesses that are thriving in your cities economy. So you must ask yourselves, how does this project help the city of Huntington Beach ? Is it the revenue from the new build project? Is it new tax dollars? Additional sales tax dollars? Is it new industry being brought into the city? A short term lease with businesses going out in 90 days does not create revenue. Empty office space does not create revenue. An empty store front does not create revenue. A large, over scaled, "block"building does not add to the ambiance of a well developed city. So again I ask,how does this help the City of Huntington Beach? There are a great many opportunities for a Pierside Pavilion expansion, without the severe effect on its neighbors and the city. With a little creativity and planning I am sure an expansion could be developed that would not create a hardship for everyone except the owner/developer. So many possibilities for open air courtyards are utilized in many cities across the country. On a few occasions I was involved in meetings with the owner/developer and each time they were very assured that this project as proposed would fly through Planning Commission and after the denial they again felt the City Council would pass without any objection or any changes made to their design and dimensions. So I ask you City Council Members, please deny this appeal and keep this city on the correct path it was intended as it was redeveloped. The last 20 + years have been good for the city and with your wisdom and good judgment we shall continue to be the bright light for Orange County . Please support your Planning Commission, the great citizens of Huntington Beach and deny this Pierside Pavilion Expansion Thank you Sincerely, Gary Baker 3 Gary Baker 4 � 1 +� �` t ill ; p 71, • i I « lei STREET _ ! �I r� 7I i[ 4 �< - � {I� i I'm _ .�..�ra.n..•. f .. •W A L �N U .,.,•o.• , N I A V E N U E Fl J/MMrI►.IE� 1 , F- 7��a* .CNMwr� �ILAIIr/lYMY J�+• .a. is ur.�e •raev j3 W f salt 9 is�f Fyrr.vr.., /Wr1� t - �� rt,t^+515 rYt •v(Ec /Fc 'A 3 wrD �.rCC •,y[ ' v7 av Z/ �„� ir+iaS iw O• ."�°K vI � y ItsK !2 •OL !'J • to \ I _ — <g o !a,•cL� • -ram ° w—� �yy I ` FdMC INfl 4.i /A `r •..^ 3 s. ,3 I J 12 / / If• I I G/Lr , i I • ° t � y ILL •'! •.e w• . i 1 ti s to z w Mi 4 low Ron i ,. ...: i i 1-7 fit - I %1 in 1 , r gi r ' it Jill III? _ g r Et My s FOTE MAN/ PERSDE PARR { r b AMDlCAPE mop owe r•... M«n►awrn.l La�, 1ppp- Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 12281 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Barry Cole Description: City Council members— This is the cut down version letter sent to the local media and all the hundreds of local condo owners in Huntington Beach. The Pierside Pavilion expansion will ruin home owner's lifestyles. This overbuilt commercial project is too close to a residential neighborhood structure and must be denied. We are not just talking about taking away value, we are talking about taking away the historic and well thought out standards of the city's master planning we have had for decades that should never change. This change is not for an emergency for the city's eminent domain project but for uncaring developers who don't give a darn about HB, but only contribute to HB politicians. The over building developers are telling our elected officials to change the city's master plans by just a variance, which the planning commission has recently rejected, so they may over build and make PCH and Main Street a mess. The owner/developers are expanding their existing building by adding a new building protruding 10 feet in front of the existing building to PCH (it will be the only monstrosity you will see) and widening the building too close to our building at 200 PCH. When driving up on PCH, it will wipe the view of Main St. and retail stores. God forbid if there is a major fire between buildings. Shame on anyone who votes for letting this dense over building variance blunder to continue. There are hundreds of resident voters and neighbors like us who want to see you turn down this project. Expected Close Date: 09/12/2012 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item No. i SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION September 13, 2012 M> Date: �� 4 To: Don Hansen, Mayor Agenda Item No. Concerning: Pierside Pavilion Expansion Appeal-September 17,2012 Dear Mayor, would like to comment on my support of the planning commission's Denial of this project. A hearing is scheduled for Monday to appeal the decision of Huntington Beach's Planning Commission for further expansion (as an exception) of Pier side Pavilion development. I have been the owner of unit#124 in Pier Colony (200 Pacific Coast Highway)since 2000,which is adjacent to the proposed project. We oppose any additional development on the commercial space currently in use at Pierside Pavilion. Here are the reasons for this opposition: #1—Our condo unit already is subject to heavier foot traffic than normal since the extension of 3rd Street to PCH serves as a corridor for all parking lots located on Walnut.This space was designated by the Coastal Development Plan to remain as designed to allow for this foot traffic flow. #2—Allowing this access space to be further narrowed will only make the corridor less conducive to a normal flow and will restrict access to the coast. Future plans for Main Street to be closed to through traffic will further complicate "how'visitors get from the back street garages and parking spaces to PCH. This proposed tightening of the space will only add to congestion, noise and backlogs of human traffic flow. #3—Our view of the original design of the Pier Colony Residence was that adequate space existed between commercial enterprises and residential Condominiums to allow for a balance due to the larger separation.We feel the original plan is the best and while there is noise from foot traffic and bar revelers, it works as it exists and can be cleared in a relative short period of time. #4-The addition of additional restaurant/bar combinations with only serve to put further pressure on the existing businesses,that, at time struggle with enough business to maintain profitability.The turnover within the downtown area should serve as an indication that we do not need any more capacity for bars or restaurants, especially when it infringes on design plans for space formally established by the development in the 1980's. #5-The development of Pacific City,which will eventually take place, will add more to the consumption of open space within our community. Projects need to be in compliance with a consistent plan rather than modified due to the deep legal pockets or Influential activity to push through development that is not in the interest of the existing businesses or private property owners who live in the immediate and adjacent area. We maintain that the current design plan works as it should, as it was intended during its concept and inception; any change to that only furthers our beautiful town and "Surf City" image to be driven .-towards over built and over-commercialized open-space.This will make Huntington Beach less desirable as a vacation destination and more like the rest of the Beach communities to the north of us in the South Bay and Santa Monica vicinity-nothing but concrete to the beach. Maintain the quality of our residential area Limit further development so we maintain a well designed community Repect the Coastal Development design plan Keep the business area vibrant, not overdone Thank you for your consideration in upholding the denial of the Pierside Pavilion Expansion. Sincerely, William A. Copeland & Bonnie S. Copeland, owners 200 Pacific Coast Highway#124 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION 9- Bill Garrisi Aphdd 1kn 200 Pacific Coast Highway,#123 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE:Proposed Pierside Pavilion Expansion—Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007/Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021/Variance No. 11-005,Design Review No. 11-015 Dear Honorable Council Members: As is written,the proposed development at 300 Pacific Coast Highway, referred to here as Pierside Pavilion, has numerous areas where the plan deviates from the codes guiding development in Huntington Beach, particularly the Downtown Specific Development Plan and the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance. Some of these deviations have been noted in Staff Reports accompanying the project, but some have yet to be discussed. Approval of this proposed project would trample upon the intent behind the Downtown Specific Plan, infringe upon the property rights enjoyed by current residents of the area, and set a precedent for uncontrolled development that will be difficult to correct. In addition, approval of this proposal has the potential to be a significant financial liability to the city, both due to the loss of property values and the taxes to be collected from that, as well as via potential litigation. Each of the areas where I have noted a potential area of non-compliance in the proposed project is summarized below,with references to the appropriate supporting documentation. This documentation is all publically available, but for convenience each pertinent section of the referenced documentation has been attached to a printed copy of this letter. Third Street View Corridor The most egregious of these deviations is in regards to the view corridor that was to be maintained after the vacation of 3`d Street in 1988-1989. As is discussed below,there was a very clear requirement in the 1988 DTSP providing for a view corridor to be left roughly where 3`d Street was to be vacated by the City of Huntington Beach. This corridor was to be the width of the former street, as is defined below, and should be left there in perpetuity. 1. Huntington Beach city officials discussed the necessity of a view corridor in official documentation as far back as February of 1988 Reference:Exhibit W—1988 Environmental Assessment showing View Corridor.pdf https://www.box.com/s1occj7tphu915r1 9txktl Reference:Exhibit P—03291988 Meeting Minutes https://www.box.com/s/C/46eszfjmepl bgl43ix 21 t 2. The original Pier Colony/Pierside Pavilion project was proposed as either the current mix of residential and commercial uses,,or as a single.commercial site'with a'h'otel situated where the current Pier Colony development now stands. It is interesting to note that even in some of the earlier proposals, a view corridor was drawn into the plans. Reference:Exhibit R—03211988 Staff Report Proposals A&B.pdf https://www.box.com/s/p f yk0etxg40zl iopoj 76 Reference: Exhibit S—03211988 CC Minutes.pdf Page 7 h ttps://www.box.com/s/m3ankkc2zf3ngpo8bd6g 3. The City of Huntington Beach chose to accept the proposal including a mix of commercial and residential. This was not allowed due to the restrictions on types of development allowed in District 3. As of the 1985 DTSP, residential was not allowed south of Main Street in District 3. Rather than seek a variance, approval for Conditional Use Permit 88-7 was restricted to be granted when City Council approval was granted for the 1988 DTSP. Reference:Exhibit N-pc-19880405-minutes.pdf Page 15 https://www.box.co m/s/kek9si4oc4/n yds8g9sz 16. Conditional use permit 88-7 and coastal development permit no 88-3 shall not become effective until the proposed revisions to the DTSP are approved by City Council and in effect Reference:Exhibit S—03211988 CC Minutes.pdf Page 7 https://www.box.com/s/m3ankkc2zf3nqpO8bd6g 4. The original Pier Colony/Pierside Pavilion project was approved via Conditional Use Permit 88-7, which explicitly stated that approval for the project was contingent upon acceptance of the 1988 Downtown Specific Development Plan. Reference:Exhibit M-Letter on CUP 88-7-5.6.1989.pdf https://www.box.com/S/0rcs3ait6x35tp5h5ml8 Notes: The attached letter states that 88-7 would not be in effect until all the DTSP revisions were approved, which would include language about view corridors Reference:Exhibit N-pc-19880405-minutes.pdf page 15 https://www.box.com/S/kek9si4oc4/nyds8g9sz 16. Conditional use permit 88-7 and coastal development permit no 88-3 shall not become effective until the proposed revisions to the DTSP are approved by City Council and in effect 5. The 1988 Downtown Specific Development Plan had a very clear requirement that any multiblock consolidation that resulted in a street vacation between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway was to leave a view corridor not less than the width of the vacated street. Reference: Exhibit B—DTSP Code Amendment CA-88-3 3.15.1988 Page 60 https.,Ilwww.box.com/S�`//slsuzxc65861iej97xO The following conditions will apply to City vacation of streets and alleys for consolidation of parcels greater than one block in size. (f)Any development proposing the vacation of streets intersecting PCH in District#2 and District#3 shall provide a view corridor not less than the width of the former street between Walnut Avenue and PCH. In addition, horizon view corridors shall be maintained in District#10. No structures greater than five(5) feet in height shall be allowed within such view corridor. A pedestrian easement ten (10)feet wide shall be provided through the development generally parallel to the vacated street. 6. The language regarding street vacations in the 1988 DTSP was discussed at several different points prior to approval, and in each case,votes were held to maintain the "shall" language rather than "should" in regards to view corridors. Planning Commission Motion Reference:Exhibit H-PC-19880315 minutes.pdf Page 7 https.11www.box.com1s/121b61ik5z60exiyomac Note:A straw vote on 3115188 to maintain view corridors in district 2 and 3 between Walnut and PCH was passed. City Council Motion Reference:Exhibit 1-cc-1 9880502-minutes.pdf Page 15 https.-Ilwww.box.com/S/0ezlk/se7/q7pmObove/ Note: The city council held a vote on 5/2/88 to discuss the language of the street vacate on(shall vs should). Motion fails,shall is kept in the language 7. Planning Commission approval for CUP 88-7 was made after a public hearing on 4/5/88. During that same meeting, prior to discussion of CUP 88-7,the Planning Commission had discussed and accepted the final language for the Downtown Specific Plan, including the language regarding street vacations Reference:Exhibit H-PC-19880315 minutes.pdf Page 7 https.11www.box.com/S//2/b6//*k5z6Oexiyomac Reference:Exhibit R—pc-19880405 minutes.pdf h ttps://www.box.com/s/pf yk0etxg40zl is paj 76 8. Based on the definitions found in Ordinance 2836, a Street is defined as "A public or an approved private thoroughfare or road easement which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, not including an alley." The definition is not explicit as to whether or not sidewalks are included in this measurement,so it becomes necessary to examine the definition of Street Line. A Street Line is defined as "the boundary line between a street and abutting property." Based on these two definitions, it is clear that a street is measured from property line to property line. This is further clarified by referring to tract maps of the area during that era,all of which show 3`d Street as being either 30'to the centerline, or 60'wide. For further clarification, please refer to the California Streets and Highways Code, Division 9, Part 3,Chapter 3, Section 8308 which defines Street to mean ""Street" and "highway" include all or part of, or any right in, a state highway or other public highway, road, street,avenue,alley, lane, driveway, place, court,trail,or other public right-of-way or easement, or purported public street or highway, and rights connected therewith, including, but not limited to, restrictions of access or abutters' rights,sloping easements,or other incidents to a street or highway." Reference:Exhibit C-Ordinance-2836-definitions.pdf Page 13 https://www.box.com/s/63bj4nuzyxsgzkl epxl f Reference: Exhibit D—HB Downtown—TR000155-1904.pdf https://www.box.com/s/nky58l9bi4dncxh8yxSl Reference:Exhibit AE—CA Streets and HWY Code Section 8300-8309(Definitions).pdf https://www.box.com/s/epsf h b38gb3 u m93pz 125 Reference:Exhibit F-Record of Survey 003418(1990 3rd and Walnut).pdf https://www.box.com/s/n30gppsqvijeyceau4zr 9. Submitted applicant plans show a 60'view corridor, but deemed an error in staff report responses. Reference: Exhibit A—Pierside Staff Report Late.pdf Page 3 https://www.box.com/s/gtdtiyz5xtjmakn3reO2 Reference: Exhibit L-Current Plans with View Corridor Noted.pdf https://www.box.com/s/rbbx3a17nit9eljk8c7i 10. Building to building, the first floor of the current Pierside Pavilion and the first floor of Pier Colony are separated by at least 60 feet. There are staircases encroaching upon that width, but the mass of the building is separated from Pier Colony by at least 60'. This is referenced in the Staff Report for CUP 03-28. Reference:Exhibit Q—03092004 Staff Report CUP 03-28—Page 7 https://www.box.com jsjx2xa mfae44421v3r286p 11. The new building and infill is proposed to be parallel to staircases that already infringe upon the 60'view corridor, and the open space view corridor would be reduced to less than 40'. This view corridor should be measured from the edge of the existing retaining wall between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion (first permanent structure 5'tall or greater) Reference:Exhibit L-Current Plans with View Corridor Noted.pdf https://www.box.com/s/rbbx3a17nit9eljk8c7i Front Yard Setbacks The proposed new development extends the wall of the building to within 6 Y2'from the property line. This replaces a large open space, and serves to visually and physically project the new building into the scenic view corridor along Pacific Coast Highway. By narrowing the existing sidewalk width, pedestrian traffic will be forced closer to Pacific Coast Highway,which is a high speed thoroughfare. Interactions between pedestrians and traffic are virtually unavoidable, and will most likely result in a lawsuit against the city at some point. 1. Asper the 2011 DTSP, Section 3.3.1.10, a 15' minimum dedication of sidewalk area from edge to the property line for parcels fronting Pacific Coast Highway between 15t and 6th Street is required. Reference:Exhibit l-2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 109 https://www.box.com/s/yf2q8Oze7l2mrja9n9f2 Reference:Exhibit AB—Setback Measurements.pdf https://www.box.com/s/z8xoedqpu8zb65sms8vd 2. As can be seen in Figure 3-28 of the DTSP,the front yard setback is measured from the property line to the edge of the building envelope. As the plans are drawn, this distance is 6%feet, and thereby in violation of subpart 2 above along Pacific Coast Highway a. Had the original intent of the requirement have been to leave a set separation between the curb and the building,than the requirement would have been written as the one for Main Street, which shows a dedication from the center line of the roadway Reference:Exhibit —2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 109 https://www.box.com/s/yf2g80ze7/2mrjogngf2 3. In the original plan application,this requirement was noted and a variance requested. Justification for said variance was that allowing for a 6' setback will allow the proposed building to come in line with the existing Pier Colony building. This justification is false;the building envelope at Pier Colony is well over the 15'setback called for in the DTSP Reference:Exhibit V—Pierside Pavilion Staff Report.pdf Page 58 https://www.box.com/s/s3za9vvvo8pmv74y8pi9 Excessive Building Height The proposed building calls for a maximum building height of 68 feet,with an additional variance increasing the overall height to 90 feet. This additional variance represents a 22 foot variance added to the top of a 68 foot tall building. In addition,the proposed rooftop dining area has a glass wall over 42" in height. In sum,this proposal is calling for a building to be built taller than the existing building,and with excessively high protrusions on the roof. This will add clutter to the view from Pacific Coast Highway, and draw attention away from Main Street. The proposed high wall along the rooftop dining area would constitute a 51h floor to the building,which brings an additional level of noncompliance. 1. As per Section 3.3.1.8 of the DTSP (Building Height),the maximum height for a building of this size is limited to 45' and/or 4 stories. Reference:Exhibit —2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 108 https://www.box.com/s/yf2g80ze7/2mrjogngf2 2. Asper section 3.2.8 of the DTSP (Exceptions to Height Limits)and Chapter 230.72 of the HBZO (Exceptions to Height Limits), limitations are placed upon the height allowed for mechanical equipment and other appurtenances to being 10' above the height of the roof. This proposal is requesting a variance allowing for a 22' increase. Reference:Exhibit —2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 69 https://www.box.com/s/yf2g80ze7/2mrjogngf2 Reference:Exhibit X—HB Building Code Chp 230.pdf Page 36 https://www.box.com/s/hlr2rhr9cjqnmgldhdIn 3. The requested rooftop dining area as proposed plans for a wall over 42"tall along the perimeter. As per Section 2.7 of the DTSP(Definitions), being over 42"tall constitutes a separate story which brings the project to a total of 5 floors and out of compliance in that regard. Reference:Exhibit —2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 58 https://www.box.com/s/yf2g80ze712mrja9n9f2 Improperly Recorded Tract Map Drawings When the Pier Colony/Pierside Pavilion project was first conceived and built,several parcels were seized by the city of Huntington Beach via eminent domain and consolidated into two tracts. Those tracts are referenced as 13478 and 13722. A restriction of approval for CUP 88-7 was that the tract maps be drawn to accurately reflect the division between residential and commercial sections of the project. This was not properly carried out. As can be seen from the developer map,the boundary between the two tracts is located several feet into the Pier Colony development, past the existing retaining wall and in the landscaped area of the residential complex. This error has been the source of some friction between the two properties over the past several years, but has never been thoroughly researched. Residents of Pier Colony have begun the process of working to have this error corrected, but are expecting the process to take significant time. While the documentation regarding this is clear, it is expected to cause additional friction between the two properties. This proposed development takes advantage of this error and uses land that should belong to Pier Colony as a part of its open space requirements and landscaping requirements. While the current proposal is already not in compliance with the landscaping requirement of the Open Spaces section of the DTSP (discussed below), moving this lot line to where it was originally intended will further bring the project out of compliance. Reference:Exhibit Y—CUP 88-7 as approved.pdf Page 27 https://www.box.com/s/xfga0eag883yergn tlzx Reference: Exhibit Z—Pierside Plans 7-5-12.pdf Page 1 https://www.box.com/s/5gx9019bt1nyy7ntj9z3 Outdoor Eating Facility The proposed project plans for a 2nd floor dining establishment with rooftop dining allowed above the 4th floor. As per Section 3.2.24.2 of the DTSP "Outdoor dining shall be an extension of an existing or proposed eating establishment on contiguous property and shall be located directly adjacent to the eating establishment." The proposed dining establishment is situated 2 floors from the proposed rooftop dining area, and thereby does not meet the definition of being directly adjacent. Reference:Exhibit —2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 84 https://www.box.com/s/yf2g80ze712 mrja9n9f2 Residential Buffer In Staff comments letter,comments were made as to the validity of the residential buffers as pertaining to this project. This comment suggests that as per section 3.2.21 of the DTSP, Residential Buffers need not be applied. This requirement refers to Figure 3-10,which delineates where residential buffers shall apply. The area between Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony is not delineated as requiring a residential buffer. If the position of Staff is that the two sites should not be treated as a commercial site adjacent to a residential neighborhood,than Section 3.2.14 of the DTSP(Mixed Use Projects) must apply as per the original Conditional Use Permit 88-7. In that case, significant buffer areas are to be left between noise and odor generating facilities and the residential portions of the site. Architecture is to remain consistent across all aspects of the project, and buildings must be sited so as to reduce conflict between residential and commercial portions of the site. Reference:Exhibit —2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 73,74,77 https://www.box.com/s/yf2q80ze7l2mrja9n9f2 Reference:Exhibit V—Pierside Pavilion Staff Report.pdf Page 147 https://www.box.com/s/s3za9vvvo8pmv74v8pi9 Reference:Exhibit Y—CUP 88-7 as approved.pdf https://www.box.com/s/xfga0eag883yergntIzx Ground floor visitor serving The proposed project includes a significant amount of office space planned for the ground floor, in violation of Section 3.3.1.3 of the DTSP. This is in addition to the 4891 square feet listed on the floor plans as being currently used as office space, also in violation of that same statute. Reference:Exhibit J—2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 103 https://www.box.com/s/yf2g80ze712m rja9n9f2 Public View Significant areas of the corridor separating Pier Colony from Pierside Pavilion will no longer have views of the Pacific Ocean in this proposal. In particular,the entire 2"d floor area along that corridor, listed currently as being public access open space,with have either severely restricted or no view of the ocean. No studies have been shown detailing the loss of public view from within the corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion,specifically from on the second floor public access area adjacent to the wall of the Pierside Pavilion building. As per Section 3.3.1.14 of the DTSP,a Public View Analysis must be performed from all affected areas, and increased setbacks may be required to protect this valuable resource. Reference:Exhibit —2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 110 https://www.box.com/s/yf2q80ze7l2mrja9n9f2 Public Open Space As per Section 3.3.1.15 of the DTSP, 30%of the open space in a project must be landscaped. According to the plans released by the developer, 1,555 square feet of the 8,880 square feet of open space is considered landscaped. This is 17.5%, not the 30% minimum as required by the DTSP. In addition,from the plans released by the developer, it would appear that some of the area considered landscaped would actually be area considered to be a part of Pier Colony. This should not be included in the calculations for Pierside Pavilion. Reference:ExhibitJ—2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 110 https://www.box.com/s/yf2g80ze7l2mrja9n9f2 Reference: Exhibit Z—Pierside Plans 7-5-12.pdf https://www.box.com/s/5gx90l9btlnyy7ntj9z3 Rooftop Mechanical Equipment As per HBZO Chapter 230.76 Screening of Mechanical Equipment, all mechanical equipment is to be screened from view from adjacent properties, and shall be set back 15'from the edge of the roofline. This proposed property does not comply with that; in fact it intends to have the mechanical equipment right at the edge of the roof. This is of particular concern due to the close proximity of the building with it's neighbor, as well as the fact that the neighbor in question is a residence located in the same vertical plane as the proposal. Reference: Exhibit X—HB Building Code Chp 230.pdf Page 37 https://www.box.com/s/hl r2rhr9cjgnmg/dhd/n Pedestrian Corridor Narrowing As is written, the developer plans show a 9'6"walkway between the edge of the Black Bull building wall and the existing stairway. This is less than the allowed 10' minimum pedestrian easement required by the DTSP. This is a safety hazard, as well as a violation of the intent to use that pedestrian corridor as a public route to the ocean. Reference:Exhibit J—2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 25 h ttps://www.box.com/s/yf2 g80ze7/2m rja9n9f2 Reference:Exhibit J—2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 66(Street Vacations) h ttps://www.box.com/s/yf2g80ze7/2m rja9n9f2 Reference:Exhibit B—DTSP Code Amendment CA-88-3 3.15.1988 Page 60 h ttps://www.box.com/s/Islsuzxc65861 iej97x0 Reference: Exhibit Z—Pierside Plans 7-5-12.pdf Page 1 https://www.box.com/s/5qx9019bt1nyy7ntj9,z3 Design Issues The proposed structure is a monolithic,glass walled block placed squarely in between where the current edge of Pierside Pavilion ends and the edge of the Pier Colony complex. It is proposed to be taller than both existing buildings,does not utilize a similar"wedding cake"style of upper floor setbacks, and is of a drastically different architectural style than the existing buildings. It has been stated several times that this building is designed to stand out from the existing buildings. In addition to the obvious areas of noncompliance with the Downtown Specific Plan,this design causes the project to be out of compliance with the Coastal Element of the DTSP. For this, it is informative to read the guidance memo written by the California Coastal Commission, in which it is noted that public views of the beach area from the water are considered a protected resource. In this case,the view is seen daily by thousands of visitors from the pier, and view along Pacific Coast Highway is considered to be a scenic route. A large glass walled, monolithic building will by design stand out from the Mediterranean architecture found in the remainder of that area, and will thereby detract from the harmonious landscape currently existing. Reference:Exhibit U—Coastal Commission Memo regarding Views from Ocean to Land.pdf https://www.box.com/s/krd28qzahooa4vnO5lhm Safety In the Staff Report, it was noted that with the proposed development, it will no longer be possible for an Aerial Rescue truck to gain access between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion. Due to how close the proposed building is to the retaining wall along the Pier Colony property line,the close proximity of the proposed building to the edge of Pacific Coast Highway, as well as the clear width of the corridor between buildings, access for larger fire apparatus will become impossible. In the case of a fire at Pier Colony, residents on the upper floors cannot depend upon the fire department for either rescue,or in all likelihood,to have the ability to fight a fire from the exterior of the building. This is a severe health and safety risk to those living in Pier Colony, and should this project be approved, an extremely large liability to the city. Reference:Exhibit V—Pierside Pavilion Staff Report.pdf Page 76 https.11www.box.com/s/s3za9vvvo8pmv74y8pi9 In addition, the Huntington Beach Police Department states that"the requested modifications will significantly affect the quality of life for the local residents by creating public nuisances and adding to the already congested Downtown area". (Page 89 of the Pierside Pavilion Staff Report) Noise is already an issue in that area, and the addition of another alcohol serving facility will only add to the severe issues faced in downtown in regards to public intoxication. Reference:Exhibit V—Pierside Pavilion Staff Report.pdf Page 89-90 https://www.box.com/s/s3za9vvvo8pm v74 y8pi9 The addition of planters and trees at the immediate border between the sidewalk and the road has the potential to decrease driver visibility of the sidewalk as well as increase the severity of potential vehicular accidents in that area. The area between 2"d Street and Main Street, on Pacific Coast Highway, has a huge volume of pedestrian traffic, particularly in the summer. Instances can be observed daily where pedestrians are jaywalking there, or trying to cut across traffic lanes to beat the walk signal to cross Pacific Coast Highway. Reducing the ability of drivers on Pacific Coast Highway to observe the entirety of the sidewalk can only lead to accidents. Unfortunately too,the downtown area does see a significant number of drivers driving under the influence of alcohol, and adding more distractions and obstacles within the immediate vicinity of the street can only lead to an increase in both the number as well as severity of accidents. Parking Parking is a significant issue in the downtown area, and the addition of a large office building will only serve to exacerbate the issue. With that in mind,there are several areas where this proposed project fails to conform with both local as well as federal regulations. The amount of Handicapped Accessible parking spaces is insufficient. Parking level P1 shows 139 total spaces,with 4 shown as being handicapped, and parking level P2 shows 150 total spaces, with 3 handicapped. As per section 208.2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act,Table 208.2 requires 5 handicapped accessible spaces on each level. Reference:Exhibit AA—2010ADAStandards.pdf Page 69 https://www.box.com/s/ghtszc675ri8/XSbkedy The proposed project takes advantage of a shared parking agreement with the City of Huntington Beach, and utilizes spaces available in the parking garage located at the corner of 3`d Street and Walnut Ave. In the original agreement,the lions share of the shared parking was required due to the existence of a theater in the complex. However, in more recent iterations of the shared parking agreement,the usage has shifted from being driven by the theater requirements towards predominantly office space. As per Section 3.2.26.11.8 of the DTSP (Shared Parking Agreements),these agreements can only exist if the land uses have distinctly different hours of operation, or hours that do not overlay each other. In this case,the two dominant land uses (office and retail), have hours of operation that significantly overlay each other. Office hours are typically considered to be 8 AM to 5 PM,while many of the retail operations in the area open between 6 Am and 8 AM, and close between 6 PM and 9 PM depending upon season. Reference:Exhibit —2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 96 https://www.box.com/s/yf2g80ze7l2m rja9n9f2 Figure 3-16 in the DTSP provides for additional parking spaces to be required by the planning commission for new development in the downtown area. Office space will by nature require that each occupied parking space will be occupied for many hours each day, placing additional strain upon the already taxed parking structures in the immediate area. While the current DTSP allows for a minimum of 2 spaces required per 1000 square feet of office space, it would be logical to utilize the 4 spaces per 1000 square feet requirement that is in effect for the remainder of Huntington Beach. Reference: Exhibit J—2011 Downtown Specific Plan.pdf Page 90 https://www.box.com/s/yf2q8Oze7l2mrja9n9f2 Noise The addition of the restaurant/bar, both on the second floor as well as any rooftop usage,will increase the noise at the residential area to the south. (Pier Colony) The city of Huntington Beach commissioned a study to determine the potential noise impacts of the proposed project. As a part of this, long term (4 day) readings were taken of ambient noise levels in the pedestrian corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion. These readings were taken from Friday, October 28 2011 through Monday, October 31 2011. As pointed out in city documentation,the downtown area experiences significant seasonality in traffic patterns,with peak pedestrian traffic occurring between Memorial Day and Labor Day every year. The validity of a noise study performed in late fall, when pedestrian traffic is at a minimum is questionable, particularly when dealing with the impact of a business such as a restaurant. In this case,the majority of the noise generated will come from speech,and as the ambient noise increases,the noise emanating from said restaurant or bar will increase as people increase their volume of speech to compensate. In addition, a significant amount of the measured noise is coming from the existing Black Bull restaurant and bar at the southeastern corner of the project, a use that has already been the source of a multitude of noise complaints. The noise study itself uses measurements taken 10 years prior to this study at a restaurant in Rancho Mirage, which is a small (10% population of Huntington Beach,trending toward an older demographic) town in the Palm desert. Nowhere in the noise study are details of the measurements taken, or their relevance to the proposed development. At a bare minimum, detail should be included showing the number of tables,any on site mitigation at the reference location,foot traffic at the reference location, and some detail on microphone heights used in testing. In addition,the testing was performed in January of 2002. The Palm Springs area, like downtown Huntington Beach, will experience seasonality in their visitors,and it is questionable if measurements taken in January would match those taken at a time when visitors to the area are at their peak. As referenced above,the level of noise emanating from this baseline source would be higher should the ambient noise levels be higher. The noise study assumes that noise from the proposed development will propagate from the source outward equally;while this proposed development will be at both corners of what is proposed to be essentially a long hard lined tunnel (the pedestrian corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion). This corridor already has the propensity to channel and focus sound;the proposed narrowing will only exacerbate that situation. Some modifications to the measurements need to be made to account for this impact. In addition,the proposed new restaurant will cover 2 floors, both with outside seating,and the noise impact of each should be evaluated both separately as well as in conjunction with the other. Further study should be done to determine the impact of the noise at multiple elevations. Pier Colony has homeowners on 4 floors;a thorough noise study must include the impact at each level of the residential area given that the proposed development plans to include noise generating aspects on multiple floors. In addition,the noise impact study did nothing to account for the narrowing of the pedestrian corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion. Assuming pedestrian traffic remains the same or increases with the addition of new businesses in that area, channeling those same people through a smaller area, now covered in glass and concrete,will increase the intensity of noise in the residential area. Reference:Exhibit AD—6-12-12 noise study.pdf Page 1-47 https://www.box.com/s/2uh2uolcxjppp9izobu7 Construction Noise Construction is anticipated to last 12 months,with self imposed hours of operation between 8AM and SPM. (9hrs per day) Based on the noise study submitted,the noise involved in the construction will range from a low of 76dB in the Physical Improvements stage to a high of 89dB in the Site Preparation stage. Again, I would challenge these estimations,as the majority of the work will be performed in an area that is basically a narrow concrete tunnel,which has a propensity to focus and reflect sound rather than allow it to dissipate. Even should these assumptions prove to be accurate,these are very high sound levels to subject a residential area to. According to OSHA, 21CFR Part 1910, "Protection against the effects of noise exposure shall be provided when sound levels exceeded those shown in Table G-16" (21CFR 1910.95(a)). The accompanying table shows sound levels down to 85dB,which is within even the optimistic estimates shown on the noise study. These noise levels are considered by OSHA to be dangerous, and would require mitigation even in an industrial facility, let alone a residential area. Reference:Exhibit AC—OSHA Reg 21CFR1910.95.pdf Page 125 https://www.box.com/S/gcnq/ai5469m66b/rrnm Reference:Exhibit V—Pierside Pavilion Staff Report.pdf Page 92-93 https://www.box.com/s/s3za9vvvoBpmv74y8pi9 Reference:Exhibit AD—6-12-12 noise study.pdf Page 43-49 https://www.box.com/s/2uh2uo/cxj p p p9izobu7 Summary In summary,with the exception of the issues surrounding the loss of the view corridor, most of these issues individually seem to be relatively minor. However,when viewed from the perspective of the total project,these issues all add up to an ill-conceived project that tramples upon the intent behind the Downtown Specific Plan and will irreparably damage the ocean centric view many people still have of the downtown Huntington Beach area. This proposal is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to add a massive office building to some of the most valuable real estate in Huntington Beach;a building that would be much better suited in a dense urban area similar to downtown Long Beach. Planning staff noted many of these issues in their Staff Report, and noted many potential changes that if implemented could bring the proposed project closer to being in compliance with the DTSP, but even in the staff report it was noted that with all of the proposed modifications,the project would still not be in full compliance with the DTSP. Due to both the scope as well as the quantity of the known issues with the proposed project,approval will most likely result in a significant liability to the City of Huntington Beach. Development in the downtown area is a desirable, perhaps even vital opportunity for the city to grow, and by extension improve property values and quality of life for those of us who are lucky enough to reside here. However,these opportunities should not be used by developers to push upon the city projects that are ill conceived, not within the spirit of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,and frankly ill-suited to serve the general public. Failure to adhere to a strict interpretation of the guidelines set forth in the Downtown Specific Development Plan would also set a dangerous precedent for future development in the downtown area. There are currently several vacant lots in the close vicinity of this area, and should the precedent be set that the Downtown Specific Development Plan can be modified to this extent, any developer interested in building would be expected to request their own variances. This would make it very difficult to achieve the overall desired look of the downtown area. I would be happy to discuss my concern with you in greater detail at your convenience, and I look forward to hearing your responses to my comments. If the proposed project does go forward, I reserve my right to pursue any and all options available to me to appeal the decision, both through administrative appeals as well as via the court system. Thank you for your time Bill Garrisi Bill Garrisi 200 Pacific Coast Highway,#123 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE.Proposed Pierside Pavilion Expansion—Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007/Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021/Variance No. 11-005; Design Review No. 11-015 Dear Honorable Council Members: I am writing this in response to one of the staff attachments for the meeting to be held on Monday, 9/17. Attachment 7 shows the tentative dimension plan accepted on the 4/05/1988 approval of CUP 88-7. Hand drawn onto this plan was a measurement showing a 40'view corridor between the two planned facilities. It is important to note that the view corridor noted on that attachment was drawn in recent times, not during the approval process in 1988. Attachment Exhibit Y—CUP 88-7 as approved.pdf, submitted to the city council as an attachment to my letter dated 9/13, shows the original document as accepted by the city in 1988. When referring to the full document, it becomes apparent that the acceptance of that site plan was not to construe acceptance of the plans, but as a conceptual idea of the differences between the hotel and condominium projects. That same plan was submitted originally in the 3/21/1988 Staff Report, in which the planning commission was requesting guidance from the city council as to which proposal should be pursued,the condominium project or the hotel. Furthermore,to quote from the conditions of approval for CUP 88-7, CQNDITIONS OF APPROVAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7: 1. The site plan,floor plan and elevations received and dated March 25, 1988, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the modifications described herein: a. Number of units shall be reduced from 160 to 130 in order to create a greater separation of the residential from the commercial portions of the project; provide an increase in the average unit size; provide for a better overall building profile;and to provide greater view opportunities. This referenced document does not in any way show that a 40'wide view corridor was to be deemed sufficient. However, even had that been the case, based on the documentation in my previous letter, it can be seen that would have been an improper approval. Settled land use cases have proven that prior improper development is not to influence current proposals, and so it would be legally indefensible to base acceptance of the current project upon development improperly performed in the past. ThankYou SUPPLEMENTAL Bill Garrisi MUNIC ION References Reference:Exhibit 5—03211988 CC Minutes.pdf Page 7 h ttps://www.box.com/s/m3ankkc2zf3ngpO8bd 6g Reference:Exhibit H-PC-19880315 minutes.pdf Page 7 h ttps://www.box.com/s/12/b6/ik5z6Oexiyomac Reference: Exhibit R—pc-19880405 minutes.pdf https://www.box.comislpfyk0e txg40z1 iapaj76 Reference: Exhibit N-pc-19880405-minutes.pdf page 15 h ttps://www.box.com/s/kek9si4oc4/nyds8g9sz Reference: Exhibit y—CUP 88-7 as approved.pdf h ttps://www.box.com/s/xfga0eag883yergnt/zx c,y,#1617- H N T I N G 0 N H C 0 L 0 N Y H U N T I N G T 0 N B E A C H C A E I OYNER ARCHITECT : LANDSC CALIFORNIA RESORTS TOGAWA & SMtTfi ARCHITECTS PLANNERS LAWR %05 Walnut Avenue. Huntington Beach. Caifornia 92648 2914 Main Street. Santa Monica. California 90405 51307 V (Z".13) 51)L -- 150f �= ^ w�^ _-__- � ~ '� - . a . sa.«•a s.a r • '+ `�• reel. SECOND rLOOR �i,�ari FLOOR HUNTINGT0N • PIER • C0L0NY PLANS EN T fE R TAINUIEN T CIEN TER 19' CALIFORNIA RESORTS 305 waUwt A.~. "UntiAgton 990Cto, Cedetesnitl 92648 TOCAWA tar SMITH ARL"T¢CTS PLANNERS 7*14 MqM Sle"t. Sant•Monica. tdtfivW4 0040E r 1 � }"" 1 r.+rt a/s.• .01 .to. IE Hill I 1 I� IT{� ! 1 1 i lalfni°°6H elf LieR[W PNI°°.6 4Mlfwf�oatL'NT I"lIKLR PA/h17YG fail as.L ►oaMW�Lvk. 777 STALLS re°i741S H U N T I N G T 0 N PIER • C0L0NY GARAGE E N T ERTAINME NY CENTER CALIFORNIA RESORTS 305 Walnut Avenue. Muni"lon Beocf% Cahtornw 92648 J ` TOGAWA &c SMITH ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 2914 Mom Street, Santo Monrco, Cotlta+nro 60405 q:at 9 a N WAL MOJS 6 ._ -- ' lil_ilil ' { a.1 1 1 b 1 1 f d / a . � -=: �' � • '.il � iil1ll' 1 ! Ill � c li' ; t - ! I j . .� i1 � lll ; ! ! ! i ! ► fa3.`. � � ill ,.� / r' wrsr••+Sh1o.® ,rw+a'».prr, r w L •S• a-s i �.4 4 I ~e► , � Ijl ; f • . «_ IV1IIiillIIIIIIIliill- i Al •� 1 L b e e • s .r..e�e v-. , t +e.+-a+--++..•.�..e�{mr i 1 � ..M: a1tI � � 11 • itfififtl ,r t�. —� � �• t i lip elt a ("6 s lilltlli : �— j 1 ti ii tt trDJ I / a + s 6 / • � 3 —. • '�enK�'v �J' i Id'•.:1 � ree•:M M v �.L;.r id.:�!�� • �• _ _——� � �._.�._—_��—. ...-� e�iSlC CMS9 I.w, per..-..� {, No fL Vi, NO C0fdb0h�IAl VAf 090 Loft Lf At Ca mel AAM, ,j 1®e BiWS 1611.SIALLa IW 61 µt6 fh .s. HUN TIN GTON ° PIER • C0L, QNY GARAGE 4 =. CALIFORNIA RESORTS _ .,a #f SOS %alnUf Avenue. Ilunttngtan 6rou,. Cai.lanlo 9264e 4 4, TOGaWA & SM17Pi ARCHITECTS PLANNERS f 29t® main Steeet. Santa Monica. Cahiorn.a 90409 ea'p pe L@Em9 tart' i tt Ftaj L t � r WTMQQIA FLAT `a"' � I 1�I�pj�fLaT �� 2 BfDRaO►t FLAT LI N HUN TIN GTON • PIER ° COLONY SECTION P CALIFORNIA RESORTS 305 Walnut Avenue, Hvntington Beach, California 92648 TOGAWA & SMITH ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 2914 Mein Street, Santa Monica, California 90405 e ' PATIO 1 \ 1 [reaeNl Ltym 1 1 wvq" l/ � 1 PAN* mr elate 2 BEDROOM FLAT "hw° e70 San. OaTO Lx 6 _. J �anw,o l i 1� 1 9 i� i i i Trli 1 i 10 1 BEDROOM FLAT i BEDROOM TOWNHOUSE Tfe Saft. Try Sarr. e HUNTINGT0N • PIER ° COLONY CONDOMIN p CALIFORNIA RESORTS 305 Walnut Avenue,Huntington Beach, California 92648 TOGAWA & SMITH ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 2914 Main Street. Salto Monka, California 90405 0 Y L OUT~ 00 1 IL OM UP so" 1010wo uP U -------------- apow emeoar Ld U UP U%" L PANG 14 eftcoxv tmd Mu um"LIM to'go UAL IWPie?A, 2 BEDROOM TOWNHOUSE I BEDROOM LOFT Her Wt oil w I, H U N TIN GTON - P I ER - COLON Y CONDOMIN11 CALIFORNIA RESORTS 305 Walnut Avenue. Huntington Beach, California 926413 TOGAWA & SMITH ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 2914 Main Street, Santa Monica. California 90405 is�Y-'•rq ��+,.—� � „ 'ry��, �wy��e���4 1 �a��d.=� itjy�'(� l��I�a3f 'i J5 '1�y♦ •e.1 1• ,f�.r w �,g�' ar d7il.1 _r' �_.� 1''(� r`=1l _ d7—.". •�L � �asi.7 } i f`>I� r�c'�' F '�'g 1"--� �-... '-•fir n� - ,, r ..'•'�. J ° y y 1• • �� } �~ ' c•• , i �' 1 �•r F�7e L Jy �6 ; b {�{• �'�'�+ 4' •'ate ,.,--�— � H U N T I N G TON P I E R ° C O L, ON Y E Al r 9 R T A f N eA E N T C C N T E R yKy CALIFORNIA AESOWS 7J!fta 4l A.aF•.o M-I-opM caaw..Cm.1aw yTSaO TOCAwA R SUITM ARCHITECTS PLANNERS "I'S�SamL Stang ma wa.fmdw.w 03403 s r- t� 1 ju Or 1 ° �' TfUTL71J OG rltj _ ►} r� L • HUNTINGT0N • PIER • COLONY E N T E R T A 1 N M IF N T C E N T E R ip CALIFORNIA RESORTS 305 Wdnut A—.H—ingl4 9+och.Caif-n 97646 TOGAWA & SMITH ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 7914 M° Str"f. Smto Momco.Cd.1—90405 • ` � t a r 1 o s H U N T I N G T 0 N P i E R C 0 L 0 N Y CALIFORNIA RESORTS 3"1maMw1 A. -1M.leglon 8.0m.C4hM0 92648 TOGA. 4t SMITH ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 7914 Wm.Slnei.S�10 Mm m C.*.rm..*98e05 r . HuwIiaGTDM•pIQR•C0t0MV 't°=:f`is,::P'_`�• 1 � ee .a.v. � i t 17°' aw ��N0�97'9 1+4A 1•�w, 4 �Y.���i•f?!T LOS"EP.A . roe, too ..e. .+ - r= so I I + °@.,y,er. .11tR.•°4 a+,4*! y R I � - { s-�'*-j' I p,lb I _ { 1 e &af'r s'R's y• an'eN Arta I Mid wv .N,+4 l:•m,e.=. 4• lT p' °i ' .,.��, I . ta.,r aiiswv so,19p !a fr e+re ,W,.pq row 4{9O4 r Tom, 'P ' t! i a u w vv six i �'.•::'.;y, �—✓�l+R"rL +4 4'M.s Ord\"r sl• eAb! pa � �� •��ti•.-:::,:. � .ate I •.ti1�j�;� lt-�j I t2% _ vim e. . � �,f ....:..�:��'n r,�,•a fit• :.� # •x I oza nae „� { ae..-C��O•�•a� { ae. I i �D! {2K fos is L HUNTINGTON ° PIER ° CO LONY SITE CO E N T E R T A I N M E N T C E N T E R e >• CALIFORNIA RESORTS e I ' 304 lhotnul %.enue. munt,ngton Beach. Coldorme 92645 TOGAWA & SMITH ARCHITECTS PLANNERS X 2914 Mad% St+eet. Santo Mon{[o. Cat{Iorn,o 90405 a ' U. s At • .._ �..— e/,f-".'"-'�'_`p�.� _—.��-•�_rS— � j�'zr��rt_+"°-7�'_�°T�d+�'°p�,uL�r. L'lt-a"�—� ' ' •ff t,,..�—_ ..t - it� — �H U N T I N G T O N ° P I E R • C O L O N Y DIMENSION e+. E H T E R T A I t! M E H T C E N T E R CALIFORNIAESORTS SOS wolnut a�rwt AvMu6. Muntmpta+► bcucn, CWdureuu 47549 �9d TOGAWA & SK41TH ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 2914 Mom Steact. Santa womca, Cal+torma 90405 ° 1O w °Slat ATIAC MAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ollHuntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. ®G1X 1t0 CALIFORNIA 92648 April 19, 1988 California Resorts/ City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13478 REQUEST: To develop a mixed use project with a 90,000 square foot entertainment complex, including retail, office and a 6-plex movie theater in addition to a 160 unit condominium project. LOCATION: The area approximately bcunded by Pacific Coast Highway, Main Street, Walnut Avenue and Second Street ' DATE OF APPROVAL: April 5, 1983 FINDIPdGS FOR APPROLJAI, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VQ, 88-7: 1. The proposed mixed use project with an entertainment/commercial center (a maximum 1,750 seat theater; 23,575 square feet of commercial, 15,925 square feet of office space; Io,000 square foot restaurant with 3,500 square foot outdoor deck area; and a maximum 3,000 square foot night club) and 130 condominium units will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the vicinity. All required parking for the proposed project will be provided on-site for the residential portion with a minimum of 300 spaces on--site for commercial. The remainder (approximately 675 spaces) will be provided within a parking facility adjacent to the proposed site. 2. The proposed mixed use project with entertainment/commercial center and 130 condominium units is designed to be compatible with existing and proposed uses in the vicinity. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13478 Page Two 3. The location, site layout and design of the proposed mixed use project with entertainment/commercial center and 130 unit condominium project is properly related to the streets, drives and other structures and uses in the vicinity in a harmonious manner. 4 . The architecture and design of the proposed mixed use project is in conformance with the adopted Design Guidelines for the Downtown Specific Plan. 5. The general appearance including architectural features of the proposed mixed use project shall enhance the orderly and harmonious development of the Downtown Specific Plan. 6. The proposed mixed use project with entertainnent/commercial center and 130 condominium units is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plane PIZJDxNQS FOR APPRQYbL a SPECIAL PE _11ITS: 1. The following special permits for deviations to the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan promote a better living environment and provide maximum use of the land in terms of site layout and design; exceeding the required amount of common open space. a. Setbacks of 1.0 feet in lieu of 15 feet along Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut for encroachment of a colonade. b. A reduction in the required alley width from 30 feet to 27 feet and a reduction in the main accessway width from the required 28 feet to 27 feet. c. An increase in site coverage to create a better project profile and to help reduce the potential conflict of adjacent residential and commercial uses is necessary. Residential will have a maximum site coverage of 59 percent and commercial a maximum of 60 percent. At the request of the Planning Commission the residential site coverage was increased from 50 percent to a maximum of 59 percent. 2. The approval of the special permits for encroachment in setbacks, accessway widths and increase in site coverage will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of - the neighborhood in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood. i CONDITIONAL USE PEP-MIT NO. 88-7 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13478 Page Three 3. The special permit requests for encroachment in setbacks, accessway► widths and increase in site coverage are consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the parcel and compatible with the surrounding environment. 4. The special permits for encroachment in setbacks, accessway widths and increase in site coverage are consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City9s General Plan and the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENMIVE MY= 13478: 1. The proposed two lot subdivision for condominium and commercial purposes of the 170,912 net square foot parcel of land zoned Downtown Specific Plan-District 3, is proposed to be constructed having 130 residential condominium units and 90,000 square feet of commercial and retail. 2. The property was previously studied for a greater intensity of land use at the time the land use designation and Downtown Specific Plan-District 3 zoning designation were placed on the subject property. 3. The Huntington Beach General Plan is designed with provisions for the type of land use proposed, mixed use with entertainment/commercial center and residential, as well as setting forth provisions for the implementation of the proposed project. 4 . The site is relatively flat and physically suitable for the proposed density and type of development. 5. Tentative Tract 13478 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. EINDINGS FQR AEF!RQV GQASTAL DEV=ZMENT PERMIT 88-3: 1. The proposed mixed use project with entertainment/commercial center and 130 residential condominium units conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13478 Page Four 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 88®3 is consistent with the CZ suffix and the Downtown Specific Plan as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the project. 3. The proposed mixed use project with entertainment/commercial center and 130 condominium units shall be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Land Use plan of the General Plan. 4 . The proposed mixed use project with entertainment/commercial center and 130 condominium units conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 5. The Mellow Bill Affordable Housing requirements, Government Code Section 65590(d) , are satisfied in the following manner: a. The City has provided density bonuses within three rules of the coastal zone which have provided affordable housing. b. Due to the location and economics involved it would not be feasible to develop affordable housing on this site. The value of the land coupled with the need to provide subterranean parking on site would prohibit the ability to provide for affordable housing. MI,DITIONS OF APPROVA ® CONDITINAL USE PERMIT N0, 88®7 1. The site plan, floor plan and elevations received and dated March 25, 1988, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the modifications described herein: a. Number of units shall be reduced from 160 to 130 in order to create a greater separation of the residential from the commercial portions of the project; provide an increase in the average unit size; provide for a better overall building profile; and to provide greater view opportunities. b. The finished floor of the first level units and adjacent common open space areas of the residential portion of the project shall be elevated to a maximum of 8 feet above existing grade for the creation of a greater physical separation of the residential from the commercial portions of the project. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13478 Page Five c. The residential building elevations adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and Second Street shall be modified to show a greater degree of upper story setback or other building wall movement, subject to review by the Design Review Board. d. The vallet/passenger drop off area adjacent to Walnut Avenue shall be modified to reduce the potential conflict of pedestrians and vehicles entering the project, subject to review by the Planning Commission. e. The residential project shall include the following sound mitigation features: (1) Double glassing on all exterior perimeter windows (2) Intensified landscape materials with water feature (3) Vertical separation from pedestrian accessway f. All private open space shall comply with the minimum dimension and square feet requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan. g. Parking layout shall show minimum 26 foot aisleways with all spaces dimensioned at 8-1/2 feet by 18 feet except those adjacent to a wall over 42 inches in height which shall be 12 feet in width. h. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method approved by the Community Development Director. i. Depict commercial electrical vault in a location that presents the least public hazard subject to review and approval by the Fire Department, Public Works Department and Community Development Department. J . Adequate trash enclosures shall be provided with a method of trash lick up subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Community Development Department. k. The three security gates in the residential parking structure shall be located so no dead-end driveways are created for guest parking. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7 WITH SPECIAL. PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13478 Page Six 1. Circulation in the entertainment center parking structure shall provide a continuous flow on the first level down to the second level subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Department of Community Development. m. Site coverage shall not exceed 59 percent for residential and 60 percent for commercial. n. Parking layout shall be modified to add an additional 155 spaces on-site. If it is not feasible to incorporate the total additional spaces on-site, the shortfall must be made up in the off-site adjacent parking structure as identified in Condition No. 5. 3 . Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Street improvements as determined necessary by the Fire Department. b. Water mains and fire hydrants shall be installed and operating. c. All existing or abandoned oil well sites must be abandoned pursuant to Department of Gas and Oil and Fire Department standards. d. A circulation and parking management plan by a traffic engineer addressing valet parking, ingress and egress to the site, the allocation and assignment of parking spaces for residential tenants, and the need for a second ingress and egress ramp to the residential subterranean parking structure shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development. e. Prior to combustible or above grade construction, a fire protection plan, pursuant to Article 87 of the Huntington Beach Fire Code, shall be submitted for approval by the Fire Department. The plan shall have provisions for: phased installation of sprinkler systems, on-site security, and telephone for emergency notification. f. Final tract map for the subject site shall be accepted by the City Council and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7 WITH SPECIAL, PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13478 Page Seven g. A copy of the revised site plan, elevations and floor plans, pursuant to Condition No. 1 of this report shall be submitted as record for the conditional use permit file. h. A landscape and irrigation plan pursuant to the Downtown Design Guidelines and Article 960 shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Department and Public Works Department. i . A rooftop mechanical screening plan submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development. j . An affordable housing agreement plan to provide affordable housing within 3 miles of the Coastal Zone for the replacement of the 12 existing units displaced as a result of this project shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. k. Hydrology/hydraulic drainage studies shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval . 1 . A grading plan and soils report shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval. m. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. n. The applicant shall post a cash deposit for the public improvements on one-half width of Main Street from Pacific Coast Highway to Heidi's adjacent to the subject property in an amount to be determined by Public Works. o. The parking facility identified in Condition No. 5 shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The following Fire Department requirements shall be complied with: a. Fire lane shall be minimum 27 feet clear width from Walnut to Pacific Coast Highway. Turf block is unacceptable as a fire lane surface. b. Building address numbers shall be installed pursuant to Fire Department standards. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7 WITH SPECIAL PERMITSo COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13478 Page Eight c. Fire flow for entertainment/condominium plan is 4,750 gallons per minute. water system shall provide minimum fire flows. d. Five fire hydrants are required for this project in locations to be approved by the Fire Department. e. Alleyway from Walnut Avenue, behind existing buildings shall be a minimum 27 feet clear width for Fire Department access. f. All structures in project shall be provided with the following: (1) Automatic fire sprinklers throughout with combination standpipe systems® (2) Fire alarm system with graphic annunciators. g. Elevators throughout project shall be a minimum size of 6 feet-8 inches by 4 feet-3 inches with minimum opening of 42 inches. h. Access for emergency purposes shall be provided to all perimeter stairways from public streets. 4. The following Public Works Department requirements shall be complied with: a. A right turn lane shall be constructed at Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street per City and CalTrans design criteria. The appropriate right of way shall be dedicated to accommodate the right turn lane. b. The traffic signal at Pacific Coast Highway and gain Street shall be relocated per City and CalTrans standards. c. Walnut Avenue, Plain Street and Second Street shall be constructed per Public Works standards . d. Driveways shall be 27 feet side minimum and radius type construction. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 110. 13478 Page Mine e. The parking structure for the condominium units requires two entries/exits unless one entry is determined adequate by a traffic engineer pursuant to Condition No. 2.d. f. The proposed 27 foot wide commercial alley is adequate until the property to the west dedicates an additional 5 feet. g. Landscaping (including public right of way) shall be per the Downtown Guidelines and maintained by the developer/ homeowner's association. h. Street lighting shall be installed per the Downtown Guidelines and the City electrician's requirements. j . Parking shall be prohibited on Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. j . All utilities located in the alleys and streets to be abandoned shall be removed per the direction of utility companies° representatives. k. A 12 inch minimum sewer main shall be constructed in fain Street and Walnut Avenue and connect to the County's coast truck sewer at the alley between Main and Third Street. 1. A 12 inch water mains shall be constructed in: (1) Main Street from the existing 12 inch main in the south side of Pacific Coast Highway to Walnut Avenue. (2) Walnut Avenue from Main to Second Street, connecting the existing mains in the north/south alleys. (3) Second Street from Walnut to Pacific Coast Highway. m. Any on-site- water facilities required to be dedicated to the City shall be located in vehicular travelways. The developer/ homeowner's association shall be held responsible for repairing the enhanced pavement, if the water facilities need to be maintained or repaired. n. All security gate configurations shall include on-site turn-grounds (no backing into the streets) and shall be approved by the Public Works Department, Fire Department and Community Development Department. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88--7 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. .13478 Page Ten 5. The project shall be responsible for providing the balance of required off-street parking spaces in a parking structure to be built at the northwest corner of Walnut and Third Streets. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an off-site parking plan shall be approved and adopted by the City as identified in these conditions or other adequate contingency plan. Such parking sufficient for this project and off-site requirements shall be available prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the theaters. 6 . Provide a centralized mail delivery facility which shall be architecturally compatible with the structures. 7. All dwellings on the subject property shall be constructed in compliance with State Acoustical standards set forth for units that are within the 60 CNEL contour of the property. 8. All guest parking Spaces for residential shall be designated as such by marking -Guest Parking" on the surface of each stall. g . Street furniture and other required improvements shall be provided in public plaza areas according to the Downtown Design Guidelines and dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. 10. A planned sign program shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval for all signing. Said program shall be approved by the Department of Community Development prior to the first sign request. a. Advertising of the theater complex, including the marquee, shall not be permitted at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. 11. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 1.2. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. This requirement may be waived provided the applicant installs a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Department. 13 . Low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 14. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-3 AND TENTi.TIVE TRACT NO. 13478 Page Eleven 15. The location of the night club shall be limited to 3,000 square feet at a location facing Main Street subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 15. Conditional Use Permit No. 88-7 and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-3 shall not become effective until the proposed revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan are approved by City Council and in effect. 17. Any modifications to plans shall be subject to additional review and approval by the Planning Commission. Any modifications which result in an increase of project intensity shall be subject to additional public hearings. Modifications to interior layouts or exterior finishes shall be subject to Design Review Hoard review and approval. C!2HD TI IONS OF APPRt2VAL a TENTATIVE TRACT 13478: 1. Prior to final recordation of Tentative Tract 13478 the following shall be completed: a. CC&R°s for the subdivision addressing the conditions herein, Article 915 and Condition 2.d of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-7 shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Department of Community Development in accordance with Article 915. b. Legal documents which will provide for restricting the use of common spaces for the designated purpose, as approved on the final development plan, for the residential project, shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development and the City Attorney. a. The tentative tract map shall be revised to show: a. Typical cross section for pacific Coast Highway and the public alley. b. Might of way radii of 25 feet at Pacific Coast Highway and Main and Pacific Coast Highway and Second Street. c. Right of way radii of 30 feet at Walnut and Second. Street. d. A 12 foot wide raised median in Walnut Avenue. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7 WITil SPECIAL PE101ITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 110. 88-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 210. 13478 Page Twelve e. The sidewalk in Second Street is 7 foot wide. f . Adjustment in lot lines, if necessary, to be consistent with division between commercial and condominium uses. 3. All Pacific Coast Highway improvements shall meet CalTrans criteria. 4. Vehicular access rights to the streets surrounding the tract shall be dedicated to the City except at approved driveway locations. 5 . Tentative Tract No. 13478 shall not become effective until the proposed revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan have been approved by City Council and are in effect. I hereby certify that Conditional Use Permit No. 88-7 with Special Permits, Coastal Development Permit No. 88-3 and Tentative Tract No. 13478 was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on April 5, 1988, upon the foregoing findings and conditions. This approval represents conceptual approval only, detailed plans must be submitted for review and the aforementioned conditions completed prior to final approval. Sincerely, Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commission by: f/ J V tr Scott ess Senior Planner MA:SHakla (0393d-1-12) r' 13 • is 7' 4113 t o EUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ARID THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ON THE SECOND .AMENDED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDE`SLOPMENT AGENCY AND CALIFORNIA RESORTS. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a joint public hearing on June 27, 1999, at 17:00 PM in the Council Chambers, City Mall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, to consider and act upon the Second Amended Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and California Resorts and sale of the land pursuant thereto. The Agreement provides for the development of a six plea movie theatre, retail commercial and office space along Main Street and public plaza with subterranean parking and residential condominium units, within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Description of the sites can be found in the Agreement. The terms of the Iease and sale of property between the Agency and California Resorts are set forth in the Agreement. The proposed projects are covered by a final Environmental Impact Report for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area for which a Notice of Preparation was filed on May 6, 1985. Copies of the Amended Disposition and Development Agreement and the Environmental Impact Report are on file for public inspection and copying for the cost of duplication at the office of the City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach, California, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday thru Friday, exclusive of holidays. Interested persons may submit written comments addressed to the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, Post Office Box 190, Huntington Beach, California 92649, prior to the hour of 5:00 PM on June 24, 1988. AT the time and place noted above, all persons interested in the above matter may appear and be heard. Dated: June 10, 1988 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, By: Alica M. Wentworth, City Clerk Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot .Tune 13, 20, 1989 0643H es o✓f dy ✓�J" 11s� on G r PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF A JOINT PUB- aration was filed on May 6,, LIC HEARING BY THE CITY 1985. COUNCIL OF HUNT- Copies of the Amended INGTON BEACH AND THE Disposition and Develop REDEVELOPMENT AGEN- ment .Agreement and the'_ CY OF THE CITY OF HUNT. Environmental impact Re- INGTON BEACH ON THE Port are On file for public, AMENDED DISPOSITION Inspection and copying fors 'r 1AND DEVELOPMENT the cost of duplication at the AGREEMENT BETWEEN office of the City Cerk,City THE REDEVELOPMENT of Huntington Beach, 2000 AGENCY. AND-W&ff- Main ,Street, Huntington r� �y �CSo✓ Beach, California, between GL � the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday thru Fri- day,exclusive of holidays. NOTICE IS HEREBY Interested persons may GIVEN that the City Council submit written comments of the City of Huntington addressed to the City Clerk Beach and the Redevelop- of the City of Huntington, ment Agency of the City of Beach,Post Office Box 190, Huntington Beach will hold a Huntington Beach, Call- joint public hearing o fornia 92648, prior to the l�b�l in hour o�P.M..on Data �vv,a 2¢t 19 8p the Council Chambers,City Hall,2000 Main Street,Hunt- At the time and place. 2+ ington Beach.California, to noted above,. all persons consider and act upon the interested in the above mal-. ` Amended Disposition and ter may appear and be -' l' Development Agreement heard. j ,��„� lot 1,16b between the Redevelopment Dated:-eeteber�1886 (( Agency of the City of Hunt- CITY OF HUNTINGTON+ Ington Beach and -f4ant- BEACH, By: Alicia tMii.' { t Wentworth,City Clerk Get•ta�.�t C�P and sate of the Dailyished o Oran6efebe�r6C-o st - fir`L 1 2v t'1 land pursuant thereto. The 3 u yAgreement provides far the 498& M331 (development of a tirell rage S1F Ac giQ1111 itY-lteft; retail - c 1 commercial and office space rltavi a BL along Main Street and public ,plaza with evedeeloiawever-. xs 6 xrvaaes,.. t'blfj`'`' ENd 4efeptrtenl,within the Main- {�SM�at 'b Pier Redevelopment Project, Area. Descriptions of the ,�.w•ti sites can be found.in the` 4' t/n• Agreement. . _ i The terms of the lea5e'and 1 sale of property between the Agency and 'A r ra 9 Y �iuwtingtoa8a-; Ga�,�vd•�` •�S afe set forth In the Agree-„ ment. . The proposed projects are covered,Dy a-�fin at -,En- vironmental knpact Report ,tor the Mahn-Pier-Flamm development Project:Area for which a Notice:of Prep%; EULIC K4J'H!CE NOTICE OF A JOINT PUBLIC BEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL. O1= HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ON THE SECOND AMENDED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDE`SL.OPMENT AGENCY AND CALIFORNIA RESORTS. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a joint public hearing on June 27, 1988, at 7:00 PAR in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, to consider and act upon the Second Amended Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and California Resorts and sale of the land pursuant thereto. The Agreement provides for the development of a six-plex movie theatre, retail commercial and office space along Main Street and public plaza with subterranean parking and residential condominium units, within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Description of the sites can be found in the Agreement. The terms of the lease and sale of property between the Agency and California Resorts are set forth in the Agreement. The proposed projects are covered by a final Environmental Impact Report for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area for which a Notice of Preparation was filed on May 6, 1985. Copies of the Amended Disposition and Development Agreement and the Environmental Impact Report are on file for public inspection and copying for the cost of duplication at the office of the City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach, California, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday thru Friday, exclusive of holidays. Interested persons may submit written comments addressed to the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, Post Office Box 190, Huntington Beach, California 92648, prior to the hour of 5:00 PM on June 24, 1988. AT the time and place noted above, all persons interested in the above matter may appear and be heard. Dated: June 10, 1988 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, By: Alica M. Wentworth, City Clerk Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot June 13, 20, 1998 0643H e RUTAN & •TuCKER OAAV'M 1G SMALL(MDCAO(R- MARK 6.Pq A2,(R O.60Vg®III . J.MCS Q.mooq(• PAR,M T.KAOOIv6 ATTORN CYS AT LAW m,LPO�M.DANL.on. w.L.INIACI MCCORMICK• TNONAS J.CRAMC A PARTTO(ASNIP INCLUO,NO PPOPCSSIONAL COMPORATIONG MILLIAN,0-OI(L- DQVCC A-CMAAD P,Cra PO A CVAMYTT- JwaCS J.u7Tl( CENTRAL OANR TOWCR, SU1Tt 1400 A W.DUTAN 6®RO-1DTS1 0601 LCOMA40 A. rAMP9L• OUR("..AArLOU1ST JA.P O TA O q.SR•vae.,1631 JOr"s.T'VMLOUT.JR_• N.KATMCR•NH JCM90N SOUTH COAST PLAYA TOWN CtNT2t9 M.RODOCO wOTTCLL/,aas•'Aesl M IC1'AcL M IN M(LL• JAMCT L,MACLACNIAN m ILPOOO M DAML.JA I SCOTT O PIN20NH 611 ANTON BOULCVARD - Twt000Rc 1.MALLAC 4.JA- HART K-RAMg OCM ROMALD R AAR."OTON. R'CNARP 8.MO"THVICCO POST 04v10E ®OR 1950 MICwAOD P 9-M6- OAV+O&COSOROVH NA06baLL N-P$AMLNAM- N.A.9-T.PLT"M COSTA MESA, CAUFORMA 92628-1950 �[LLP%QNC �T 14S♦$AI�$iQQ ROD(PT C SRAUN- CAAOLC STCV(M9 INN 628.9SSS no a A.DA-®L(• LOP•84gNCR SMITH CDTIAR.'T D.STOH'MA.JA.- jANS P e+NCRTV TCLCCOPIC R (7141 546.6035 7w'"Aa S SAL,"OCA- (RNC(OT M.KLATTC•III OAQgT It.LaVO9CNMR' (412►S CTM N.COMLCH ROS(AT W ALmHRT9 KIN D,TwOMPSON *ILL'AN V DCwM,DT• JATNH OAMORSKT TATLOM DAV'O C.IAAS(M• PUT.I.(19C" TCL(. 010 DDSdS$1 C,..FOOD(-PR,CDL•-- JcPPRCT MGRTMCI gR .gTrVq O 9'OMA"- M•7 9 VAN LIDT(N CADLC ADDOCSS MUTAM TUC CSMA .,C"A O•RV DIM- MATT.CW K.ROSS IRA O.RIY+M� M+Cw AC4 O.Tv""CR J(PPQCT m,OD(RMAM• jONN P.AAPOSa June •� +l Ay III(7 JD5C Pw C, CAiwyTN PATRICIA AND(L DISCOH 6�Une STAN MOLCOT1 AMORHa A.CALM RODCO•D.SDMCP• J.RUS9966 TYLCR.jR a.WIG J.ALCOM'O( RODCRT O.O+TC" MARCIA A.POA9►TN ®ARMY L.AOANS M'LL'AM W.NARTICOPCMA ADAM M.VOLKCRT J.M(O L•MORA'D JHPIRCT A.GOLDFARO ��� SttT�[IpRT�T tT pi /M ACPLv PLCASR RCP(R TO A"M(MCLSO"L.MPYAR SA"POAO 0 "A7 2 MESSENGER ER ,O:LL•AM j.CAPLAN PATRICA K.wANLT MICNAHL T.NORMAM T(D M.PUAC(LL jAN'CC L-CCLOTTI CARL J,TMOMAS 0r1610 O.ROw" STCV(M 7T.S►RCCMHR JO(L O.Ovm(ROCAO 41000OT TOMOMIT2 slave,A.MIC"OLS RONI D.JACKSON T.0".9 C.SROCKINOTOM MaTTN(M A SCHRCROCR CP,LLLIA,41d'LVTNDCR N(LA"I(C.(TRC eve,*.KI IV,CK,I DALLAS CN(9TCR A.PUCNALAKI RA NDALL M.DADDUSr F.KCVIN 00-1'6 HART N-ORC CIA MOST"L.MOSMAM PwIL,P r-Pq,"^.( LATNH M.MCL2HA JOMM L.Cc.LOMS III PaTg,C,1 K.RAPPCRT♦ DAV,O".wOC.M&R -A.RR-99I,0-L RPAARAa•'6'e Mr. Uri E. Gati GATT ASSOCIATES, INC. 14225 Ventura Blvd. , #200 Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 Dawn C. Honeywell, Esq. STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Mike Adams Director of Planning CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 again Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - Re: California Resorts DDA Dear Uri, Dawn, and Mike: I am enclosing a revised draft of the DDA which incorporates the changes discussed in our June 1, 1988, meeting at City Hall. If you want me to send a copy of the document to anyone else, please let me know. My understand- ing is that Mike will distribute copies of the DDA to anyone else at City Hall who needs to review it. I trust that the DDA is sufficiently close to the final version of the document to enable us to proceed with the. RUTAN & TUGKERt �. ATTORP4CYS AT LAW b n..m*.c «aoa,a Mowcewo.wt oo..o.""s Mr. Uri E. Gati June 13, 1988 Dawn C. Honeywell, Esq. page 2 Mr. Alike Adams scheduled public hearing on June 27th. According to my notes, the only items remaining to be resolved are as follows: 1. The Permitted Title Exceptions need to be listed in Section 201.1. If preliminary title reports are not already available, Uri or Mike should see that they are ordered immediately. Uri's engineer will have to review the underlying documents to determine whether easements, etc. , are consistent with the development plan. Please advise me as soon as -you have completed this task so that I can incorporate the infornation into the DDA. 2. In our last meeting, it was agreed that the Agency would notify Uri how much of the $1,000,000.00 available for relocation, oil, and hazardous waste removal has already been spent. There is a blank in Section 201.4 (11) to fill in this number. Please advise. 3. My notes indicated that Mike Adams was going to review the Schedule of Performance. To date, I have not heard any of Mike's comments. 4. Mike was also going to review the language in the Scope of Development regarding the Developer's obligations to provide on-site. parking. If anyone has any questions regarding this last draft, please let me know. Very truly yours, PUTAN & TUCKER Jeffrey M. oderman JMosJb Enclosure cc: Mr. Richard A. Harlow (w/encl.) 6/112/012304-0001/010 401 i Fjfl CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ov ENTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION KNUNGTON @EACH To City Clerk's Office From Michael Adams, td 6,%b Planning Director Subject REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA Date June 14, 1988 RESORTS DDA A public notice published in the Daily Pilot on June 13, 20, 1988 stated that copies of the Amended Disposition and Development Agreement and the Environmental Impact Report between the Redevelopment Agency and California Resorts are currently on file for public inspection in the City Clerk's office. (see attached copy of notice) 'these copies will be available for review on the third floor at Shelley Stice's desk. Any requests for copies may be directed to her. MA:ss (0780d) PUBLIC NOTICE— PUBLIC NOTICE _ PUbLIC NUT(CE 1 PU&IC 40TICE — j PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTOX BEACH AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC�i ON THE SECOND AMENDED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CALIFORNIA RESORTS. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a joint public hearing on June 27, 1988, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, to consider and act upon the Second Amended Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and California Resorts and sale of the land pursuant thereto. The Agreement provides for the development of a six-plex movie theatre, retail commercial and office space along Main Street and public plaza with subterranean parking and residential condominium units, within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. Description of the sites can be found in the Agreement. The terms of the lease and sale of property between the Agency and California Resorts are set forth in the Agreement. The proposed projects are covered by a final Environmental Impact Report for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area for which a Notice of Preparation was filed on May b, 1985. i k Copies of the Amended Disposition and Development Agreement and the Environmental ; Impact Report are on file for public inspection and copying for the cost of duplication at the office of the City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach, California, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday thru Friday, exclusive of holidays. Interested persons may submit written comments addressed to the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, Post Office Box 190, Huntington Beach, California 92648, prior to the hour of 5:00 PM on June 24, 1988. AT the time and place noted above, all persons interested in the above matter may appear and be heard. ' Dated: June 10, 1988 x c CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, By: Alica M. Wentworth, City Clerk Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot June 13, 20, 1988 CITY 1, Fire tam,—The fire Depurtown,revnrw al the plan i0cluded'a sne slat ens evolactron Of in,. Council,City of Huntington Beach 2000 Win str"t Firt lares called out In the plan Huntington Reach,CA 92642 a, 7ha clear width of the existing Fire Lone is shown as 24 1,11aet On Me plop,ont the ortual width currently provided is 17chlor((ram the VI'sting struct-are to the p1q6ter boxes and Dear City Counciff Members, 91M).The r001tall)d"*WVuld mokof4proposers structure the highest of the psqrty1, regards to distance above the lowest nevel 41`Flee tiestieteetrit,4i cray to lowest level of the I lCholln9as c 1 eift to OPPOse the aticirtaft Of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of the Plarside Pavilion Expansion Access, to rite Rre,osicartments Prefect(30I)POcific Coast Highway,Huntington Beach.CA), bx l?se proposed 4 story Structure with the rp*op decit will hIrider ttk_)ora Cloptirtinsaws Mrict I awriend Ilve in Units 424 and 426 wRfi raywife Carol 14 Pier Colony Ondom to se,200 ii LadderAccess to the V40mg 4 Story;Fnacrara,(SouffigglIll,which will make prorrot ratue In m Pactill cow d&VIT 041 will remn the p,obobidly offigrelpy 2 ftre In ' Highway.On our beloneySwe look dIrWil at the plersiltle Pavilion bWldlnX,We moved there In 1991 for upper Stories from the Matter. my JOB wale Hu6hes Allcroh Co,rented at Pier Colony for a year and haftbgught,,124atan I auction In For those of us that We In"4 story strudalre($With slue;)he,plar Cal"on the p and 0 IM We 3111)9440s�nttyr a-qjlMd 426 in Zodo and with City and pier CaDiony Board at raredors approvar fiom we connected ft two links to give us 22M Square feet Of I"Space on the most do I sipabIltflear In facing plorside OvWtllon,this is V"Sartain Issue,we are even mom, Passionate about this inability of Plar Colony. the Fire clopartment tollart to us for Motigilieft Purposes In case of a fire than we ate a hoot Our lose of view and the resulting property devaluation. I served 20 Years in the Aft'lends,retired in 1986,WOrW in the Aerospace 111440effor 14 years and Many of my colleagues who reside It nOrr,Colony have Written You letters addressing code issues and "Orged for Wait OISROY tinallInOwilIg thrl Years.fflatinild frons Disney In 206,Carol and t hael,4"d Variances with the current downtown development plan.Also,Some have addressed the orialpai intent ftVVY and h440 Paid Off both MOMIageS for Units 424 and 426.we now live a corn(Orlabie Rio with of thostowntown develdrarn ent plan of the I Pansions add no mortgage pavenorms sharing at often as possible our Pier C aha 19813s�We feeI that met Colony residents have lived children and six grandittildran. diary droaro with Our our 417 to their Moporillblilfies to the community and deserve a fair and ImParite1judgmant art a project which affects,their property value 8rutriusainilty of their lim.We belfyethat judgment,Should malmad the current Profile Of the Pier FaVillen b[Adip4 as much 45 possible and Idlers concern'thepolsould"umentildlin DMft'Mt*te4 Negative Declaration No,11-007 is Seriously fliawaid,The about safety and envirenment affildrinc the entire community addresses got Idea Of constructing a four Story,go fee high,27,772 st ft MiXed-usa,visitor saM*offloo building and 9,4610 ft infill expansion by exisistIng SMI'aftn is in the narrows between Pier Pavilion,Pier since rt, M COTO 'S"d Pacific Coast I,bihway Is ishaurd. Ouft4the 21 YcOttwe have lived In Ri8rCOI1a"WA have untamed the Missile and dissolution at marry Thomas F McCannIsyl, -businassas at the south west comer of PFatslde ton,Most of the time the retail apace on the first , floor at ihls comer hatellft vacant,The congestion and noise noithIS carrier has Increased significantly, We believe that$a&"Safety Issues Will O"u,6-5 3 result of the proposed M"flikationto Plerside p8VIiIO01-Moving Itcrefilaalts asset tot Pacific Coos',Highway and dosing off ityr wBSL between Pie; Pier*&is I li,vIllcn and I Pacific Coast Highw*rep Itfing In acute pedestilart dargatt Which don exist today,We don't befirrs the pler*0 Pavilion owner has any le panelling forthe proposed"pension,WO#IS*thlO It will take him years to completely lease the building based on his inability to eria the currant*at#. The 00i$Q analVolsoc"Isofoned by the city Is seriously flawed,Onto from other cities were used at less SUFF"PLEMENTAL than MaxIsium sound darlarelion from traffic news,The heavy period for down I teem 14 cintIngton Beach, As I'm sure You're aware,Is between klemorlal Day and tailor Oay,'Thaha was fteratto dartilitakels at all COMMUNICATION during this period.Also the Intensification of the SOUAVI due to the closing n of space between Pon Colony and Plerstile Pavilloof the canyon effect I Was spogred egn,plat%lip As a r2suh,amrloneis steps based on the data obtalred to date are highly quest able, / Ado Pavilion Is addressed in Attachment 4.12 on page 76 Meefing Da it".06FOrtnoint Access with the proposed Plant ,It the 2201 pope,Pleffide Pavilion Sent sorters which I've extracted below, Agenda Item No. Esparza, Patty From: Stephenson, Johanna Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:28 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Pierside Pavillion expansion Johanna Stephenson / Executive Assistant /johanna.sephenson@surfcity-hb.orq /O: 714.536.5575 /C: 714.536.5233 From: Mark Miller [mailto:mark@ceilingfan.com] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:26 PM To: Shaw, Joe Cc: Stephenson, Johanna Subject: Pierside Pavillion expansion Hi Joe My name is Mark Miller I am a native of Huntington Beach, an original home owner at Pier Colony Condominiums and a Huntington Beach business owner of The Trading Post Fan Company on Warner and Goldenwest. I am writing to you today to urge you to vote against the expansion of the Pierside Pavilion this coming Monday September 17th. If you happen to believe that the expansion is a good idea I would first ask you to do your due diligence and I will invite you to spend a Friday or Saturday night in my condo (directly across from The Blackbull Bar)to experience the tremendous drunk and disorderly people yelling, screaming, smoking, urinating outside,fighting etc.to determine if you feel that more liquor licenses, drinking establishments and traffic gridlock are a good ideas in this mixed use area. would love to have you experience what it is like living there now before you vote yes for more drunken insanity. Thank-you, Mark Miller 200 PCH unit#317 714 404-6443 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Ddte:_I z/�� Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:57 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 12318 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Problem Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: R& S Stookey Description: As taxpayers and voters, we wish to express our being against the behemoth expansion of Pierside Plaza in downtown Huntington Beach(PCH & Main). The residential building (200 PCH) beside this expansion will suffer many adverse effects. Please think of more than one greedy building owner and think of those(130 owners) who chose to invest and live in downtown HB and their being able to keep the value of what was purchased and enjoyed, before word of expansion. Expected Close Date: 09/17/2012 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mooft Date: � 'Ageft Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:23 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Support for the Pierside Pavillion From: RJ Mayer Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:11 PM To: 'Don.hansen@surfcity-hb.org'; Joe Shaw (joe-shaw@surfcity-hb.org); Connie Boardman (connie.boardman@surfcity- hb.org); Keith.Bohr; Devi n.Dwyer@su rfcity-h b.org; 'Joe.Carchio@serfcity-hb.org'; matthew.harper@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Joe Daichendt (Joe@TheoryR.com); Fred Wilson (fred.wilson@surfcity-hb.org); jdshafer@waterfrontresort.com; paul.devitt@hyatt.com; Bob Hall (bob.hall@surfcity-hb.org) Subject: Support for the Pierside Pavillion September 14,2012 Mayor Don Hansen City of Huntington Beach - City Council Members 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 '.dear Mayor Hansen and City Council Members: The Robert Mayer Corporation has worked closely with the City of Huntington Beach for many years developing the landmark Hyatt Regency Resort & Spa and The Waterfront Resorts, a Hilton Hotel. We are very familiar with how these developments have improved the area and produced a thriving economic environment for the City of Huntington Beach. Development is never an easy task to pass thru a City Planning Department, Coastal Commissions, etc. but Joe Daichendt and Theory R Properties have gone to great lengths to plan this new project at Pierside Pavilion to meet the needs of the community. We have been in the development business for 55 years and know that there are always growing pains when change is proposed to an area and we often hear opposition that people do not want new development "in their backyard". However, the benefits here far outweigh the drawbacks. The Pierside Pavilion Expansion Project will be a great asset to Huntington Beach and the community at large providing well needed office space, restaurants and retail along Pacific Coast Highway. The City of Huntington Beach has gone through major transformations over the last 15 years and it truly has become a favorite destination for tourists worldwide. We like to think that the City of HB and the surrounding businesses have improved tremendously with the developments that we have built and it is thriving today, even in this down-turned economy. The Daichendt family is committed to improving the Pierside Pavilion project and seeing the future success of this development that they have put so much energy into. Please except this e-mail as evidence of my strong support the expansion project at Pierside Pavilion and thank you for your consideration passing this project through the Council. SUPPLEMENTAL 'Sincerely, COMMUNICATION Robert L Mayor,Jr Chief Operating Officer A W The Robert Mayor Corporation 8951 Research Dr. Irvine Ca. 92618 949.759.8091 Ext. 234 Fax: 949.721-7984 rWmayercorp.co 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW Making a difference today for Huntington Beach tomorrow P.O. Box 865, Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 840-4015 HBTomorrow.com HBT's Mission September 17, 2012 Is Honorable Mayor, Council Members and Via Email to promote and maintain City Clerk a high quality of life City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street in Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach, California 92648 HBT advocates for: In Re: HB City Council September 17, 2012 Agenda Item 14 Citizen Participation A primary area of HBT advocacy is to work to preserve open space, Clean&Healthy Environment especially keeping our beaches in the public domain. That applies to all Efficient&Safe Traffic Flow aspects of beach open space, including our view corridors. Open&Responsive Government Our beaches and coast are valuable public assets for our community. Preserve Open Space We must be vigilant against encroachment of any kind, especially against Preserve Our Quality of Life encroachment by a favored few. There are no great overriding Recreational Opportunities for All considerations here. It does not serve the greater public interest Responsible Planned Growth to subvert the law put in place to retain the protection of public view corridors when public streets were being vacated in order to consolidate Sound Infrastructure multiple blocks into mega-projects. Sustainable Tax Base While others will cite the details in opposition to this proposal, to us this is simple; we quote the late Peter Douglas, God rest his soul, "the coast is Board of Directors never saved -- it is forever in the process of being saved." Part of that is Officers seeing that past obligations are honored. President Huntington Beach Tomorrow asks that this council follow the law, honor Karen Jackle past obligations and reject this proposed encroachment on property that Vice President was meant to remain open to the public in perpetuity. Dan Kalmick Treasurer Please. Robert Sternberg Thank you. Secretary Linda D. Couey Sincerely, Karen Jackle Directors President Monica Hamilton Shawn Roselius Cc: Joan Flynn, City Clerk Cathy Fikes UPPLEMENTAL. COMMUNICATION Meeiiir:g®ate: q � 7 Agenda Item No.� 200 MAIN STREET, SUITE 106 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 (714) 969-0795 (714) 969-8382 FAX September 17, 2012 Mayor Hansen City of Huntington Beach - City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Pierside Pavilion Expansion Project Dear Mayor Hansen and City Council Members: As you know, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory has been in the downtown Huntington Beach area for 20 years and we are very involved in the Business Improvement District. As a local business owner, we would like to offer our support of the new building project which Joe Daichendt and Theory R Properties are proposing. Joe has been working on this project for over nine years and has been working diligently with the Planning Commission, City development agencies, Coastal Commission, etc. to get this project approved. We feel that this plan would be a great addition to our downtown as it will revitalize the area by making Pierside Pavilion an anchor destination for local and visitors alike. Along those same lines, it would bring additional office personnel, restaurant patronage and retail shoppers to the area which will generate revenue to the City of Huntington Beach. This looks to be an amazing new building project including extensive renovations to the existing building for a new, fresh look to a landmark building. The only issue I have is to insure adequate parking for this new project. Thank you for your consideration of this project. Sincerely, Rocky o tain Chocol ct ory SUPPLEMENTAL �- COMMUNICATION Steve Daniel Meting Date: 2LZ'2-1QZa' Agenda hem No. / RUTANJeffrey M.Oderman g; ® Direct Dial:(714)641-3441 RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP E-mail:jodennan@rutan.com �a �sH September 11, 2012 SUPPLEMENTAL s COMMUNICATION k VIA E-MAIL,AND p ®VERNIGI3T MAIL { — �4 Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney yry y City of Huntington Beach Aeonda %m No. T . 2000 Main Street r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 .,. fitY, Re: Pierside Pavilion Expansion Project (City Council Appeal of August 14, 2012, Planning Commission Action With Respect to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 / Coastal Development Permit No. 11-021 / Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007/Variance No. 11-005) Y Dear Ms. McGrath: The law firm of Rutan& Tucker LLP has been retained to represent Theory R Properties LLC, owner of the Pierside Pavilion project, with respect to the above-referenced matter, which Kh I understand will be heard by the Huntington Beach City Council at its September 17, 2012, meeting. I am writing to set forth my client's legal position that the Planning Commission ..E decision (on a 3-1-2 vote) to disapprove the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and project entitlements for the Pierside Pavilion expansion project was not supported by substantial evidence and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of the Commission's t = authority under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). I respectfully request that h you consider the points raised in this letter, discuss them with the City Council as you deem ��� appropriate, and ask the City Council to act consistent with the indisputable facts and applicable governing law. Unless the Planning Commission decision is overturned by the City Council my client feels it has no choice but to consider exercising its available legal options, including potential litigation. The Planning Commission's denial was based entirely on (1) the supposed failure of the MND to properly analyze and address a "public view corridor" between Pierside Pavilion and the adjacent Pier Colony property and (2) the alleged inconsistency between the project proposal and provisions in the City's General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan relating to protection of this view corridor. Accordingly, I will limit my letter to that particular issue. 5 My client believes the Planning Commission actions were without adequate factual or :a3 legal basis and improper for the following reasons: Y rn- 2es 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 r b" PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714.641.5100 1 Fax 714.546.9035 112/099999-0084 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 4227321.1 a09/11/12 Sit5+hf, RUTAN RUTAN b TUCKER,LLP Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney September 11, 2012 Page 2 1. As my client has already demonstrated (with a public view analysis) and as the City staff correctly explained to the Planning Commission, there is no public view corridor between Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony in the area where Third Streetformerly existed. (See August 14, 2012, staff report to Planning Commission, pp. 9, 17, Attachment No. 1.4, Attachment Nos. 2.1 and 2.4, Attachment Nos. 5.6 and 5.28-29, and Attachment Nos. 6-11 (City staff response BIXB-4 to comment on MND) and 6-12 (City staff response EYAO-5 to comment on MND).) This basic fact is not in dispute. The City cannot protect something that does not exist. The Planning Commission's--and, now, the City Council's--decisions must be supported by "substantial evidence," which means "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." Substantial evidence means "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinions supported by facts." State CEQA Guidelines, §15384(a), 15064(f)(5), and Public Resources Code §§21080(e) and 21082.2(c). There is no substantial evidence to support a denial of the Pierside Pavilion expansiondproject based on its supposed impacts on an existing public view corridor down the former 3` Street right-of-way.1 2. As the City staff also correctly explained to the Commission (see, again, Attachment No. 6-11—staff response BIXB-4), when the Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony projects were initially entitled back in 1988 it was not the City's intent that the projects would be subject to the then-pending (and uncertain)Downtown Specific Plan that was amended sometime later to add requirements relating to preservation of view corridors along vacated street rights-of- way between Walnut and PCH. I happen to have been the attorney for the former owner(s) who were the original applicants for the Pierside Pavilion/Pier Colony project and worked on both the Second Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement and the separate City Development Agreement that were approved for the project(s) at that time, and I can assure you my former client (California Resorts) did not agree that its vested rights in the project entitlements it worked for years to obtain could be torn up and rewritten by the City after the project was approved. The City's concurrence is demonstrated by the fact that the City approved Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony to be built without a public view corridor. It would constitute the most egregious form of inverse condemnation for the City to reverse its position after nearly 25 years have gone by and demand at this late date that a public view corridor be created that would necessitate the demolition of a significant portion of my client's existing improvements. 3. Even assuming for the sake of discussion that some sort of public view corridor exists at this time; the proposed Pierside Pavilion expansion project will not further encroach 1 By the way, while Commissioner Bixby questioned whether 3Id Street was ever actually vacated, I believe City staff has in fact verified that the abandonment language in Final Map Nos. 13722 and 13478 for the Pierside Pavilion and Pierside Colony projects,together with the fact the public street right- of-way is not depicted on those maps, establishes that the vacation did in fact occur back in 1989. 112/099999-0084 4227321.1 a09/I1/12 RUTAN RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney September 11, 2012 Page 3 into or adversely impact any such "view corridor. " The project plans demonstrate that the exterior building lines will not be pushed out further into the open area between Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony but, instead, will simply extend from the existing outer edge of the southerly face of the building on the Pierside Pavilion property perpendicular to the (non-existent) "sightline"between Walnut and PCH. 4. The provision in the Downtown Specific Plan (Section 3.2.5.8) relating to preservation of public view corridors applies only to new developments in District 1 that involve the vacation of streets intersecting PCH. 3rd Street was vacated back in 1989; DTSP §3.2.5.8 does not apply to a project proposal made nearly a quarter of a century later. 5. For purposes of analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed project under CEQA, the starting point is to determine the "environmental baseline," Subject to very narrow exceptions not applicable here, the environmental baseline is the "actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis," not a hypothetical past or future condition, See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4t' 310, 320-322, and cases cited therein, and State CEQA Guidelines §15125(a),) Given that the "actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis" for the proposed Pierside Pavilion expansion project are that no public view corridor exists between Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony, a properly conducted CEQA analysis necessarily must conclude that the project will have no impact on public views. Thus, the MND cannot be found defective based upon a failure to adequately address public views, 6. Finally, even if one could thread a tiny view through the existing buildings on the Pierside Pavilion and Pier Colony properties and/or from some vantage point on private property an existing view would be impacted by the proposed Pierside Pavilion expansion project, that still would not be sufficient to trigger a "significant impact" finding that would invalidate the MND for the Pierside Pavilion expansion project. See, e.g., State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, questions I(a) and (b) (aesthetic/view impacts deemed "significant" for CEQA purposes only if project would have a "substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista" or "substantially damage scenic resources," including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway); Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4m 572 (held: 4-story mixed-use project that would block sunlight to adjacent properties and some private views of the Berkeley hills had no significant view impacts); Banker's Hill, Hillerest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.AppAth 249 (court upholds Class 32 "urban infill" categorical exemption for 14-story condominium tower that blocked certain views and cast shadows on nearby properties, citing the statement in Bowman that "obstruction of a few private views in a project's immediate vicinity is not generally regarded as a significant environmental impact"); and Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477,492-494 (upholding EIR's conclusion that aesthetic/view impacts of a 96-unit, 45-65 foot tall condominium development—the equivalent of 2-3 stories when viewed 112/099999-0084 4227321.1 a09/11/12 RUTAN RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney September 11, 2012 Page 4 from the plaintiffs' properties—were not significant for CEQA purposes, even though project would block ocean views enjoyed by the residents of the petitioner mobile home park). For the foregoing reasons, my client respectfully submits that the Planning Commission's denial of the Pierside Pavilion expansion project should be reversed and the City Council should certify the MND and approve the project. If you have any questions concerning any of the foregoing points,please let me know. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, RUTAN& TUCKER, LLP 6�F J fre�M. 0derman JMO:jmo cc: Joe Daichendt, Theory R Properties LLC Michael Adams, Michael C. Adams Associates 112/099999-0084 4227321.1 a09/11i12 9/17/2012 Pier Colony Homeowners Comments on the Pierside Pavilion Expansion Project 1988 — Conditional Use Permit 88-7 for the Pierside Project • 88-7 would not go into fLIW City of unting Hton Beach effect until the approval � ' ,_ �. . of the 1988 DTSP T a4 16. Conditional Use Permit No. 88-7 and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-3 shall not become effective until the proposed revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan are approved by City Council and in effect. SUPPI-ElklIENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 1 Agenda Item No._1 4 9/17/2012 1988 DTSP Section 4.2. 15 on Street Vacations • DTSP Code Amendment 88-3 — View Corridor (f) Any development proposing the vacation or streets Intersecting PC in -Mitrict 2 and Dls(rkU shill provide a view corrldor not less than the width of thf former street between Walnut Avenue and PCH. No structures greater than five (S) feet in height shall be allowed within such vlew corridor. A pedestrian easement ten (10) feet wide shall to provided thrmith the development generally parallel to the vacated street. View Corridor Upholding • 5/2/1988 — City Council Meeting EE was made by Mays, seconded by Kelly, to change the word "shall" to Dage 60 section a.2.IS (f) oeRatning to wtew cornCors. The motlon the following roll call straw vote: Kelly, Mays Green, Finley, Erskine, Hinchell, Bannister None • 3/15/1988 — Planning Commission Meeting (i) Maintain view corridors at vacated streets in District 2 and District 3 between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE REVISIONS (a) THROUGH (1), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Pierce, Livengood, Silva. Leipzig, Ortega, Wiggins NOES: Bourguignon STRAW VDTE WI TON PASSED 2 9/17/2012 The Disappearing View { :„ Corridor Notation Why would this be - removed? I 1�� 60'view corridor noted f- ` "ar in original plans. 6 u View corridor note 1!i removed in most recent plans? Street Definition • 9080.127 Definition of Ultimate Right-of-Way:The adopted maximum width for any street, alley or thoroughfare as established by the General Plan;by a precise plan of street,alley or private street alignment;by a recorded parcel map;or by a standard plan of the Department of Public Works.Such thoroughfares shall include any adjacent public easement used as a walkway and/or utility easement. LIM 01TV Cilia NIIIA?"awn Baum MRINTER OEPARTMFNT COMMUNICATION To Britt aaee From Assistant m. O'aaraL. Auoeieb Plarmer Assistant Planar Sugart )avirommantal Assasemeet Dan Pehruery 23, 1999 so. ac-s Although no additional CEGA review is required, the Phase I project should comply with the suggested standards set forth in the DOYntOwa &pacific plan for District P3. corridors should be me intaimed along the esisti 3ght-of-ways,""pnd view light and air corridors should be included 're that the area maintain a p:.easant pedestrian env roment. CaID t qhm 3 9/17/2012 Examples of 316 Street Widths He General Plan-Circulation Element Sidewalk to Sidewalk Record of Survey 90-1192-60' f `I \ v Q �+ s it i a Google Earth-60' FBI N•°__�- _ It \ f a it, '-ijjg= f .'-sw nx llLr ,. -\ Tract Map TR000155-1904-W The HB Coastal GT\ERAI RESOURCE PN(ITF(TION POLICIES Element Iloe following general policies shall pmvidc the framework far interpreting this('Im.gnl Element: I. When Policies within din Coastal Element emd]icL such maRicts • Goals, objectives and shall lanewl the inamvmcrive I on balance is the ntosl protective of significant coastal resource,. policies of the coastal 2 Where d¢re ara mnnicis bevsecu zone for coastal the policies ei forth in this Coastal Clement and those set forth in my alemmt of the City',,General plan. element conflicts other Crty plans,or existing ordinances,the policies of this fund Csc flan(LLP)shall take prccwlcacc. 3. In the event of any ambiguities or silence of this Coastal Element net resolved by(I)or(2)above,or by other prtrvisions of the Citv's f.C'I'. the policies ofthe California Consrc I Act shall guide interpretation of thin Coastal Element. 4 9/17/2012 In Summary • There was a mistake made on the width of the view corridor in 1988 • Stairwells encroach on the view corridor • Lets not compound our mistakes from the past There must be a better way to design this project so it is mutually beneficial to everyone! Issues with the Pierside Project • Third Street View Corridor • Front Yard Setbacks • Improperly drawn tract maps • Outdoor Eating Facility not adjacent • Residential Buffers • Public Open Space (insufficient landscaped area) • Pedestrian Corridor Narrowing • Fire Access to Pier Colony • Decreased public safety (police report) • Parking Issues 5 9/17/2012 Staff Arguments against the View Corridor • No View Corridor Requirement Existed in the 1984 DTSP • Requirement that CUP 88-7 approval be contingent upon acceptance of 1988 DTSP was procedural, not necessary • Potential View Corridor would be 40' wide, not 60' Requirement of a View Corridor • Approval of the original project was contingent upon approval of 1988 DTSP — The 1984 DTSP did not allow Residential uses south of Main Street (Sect 4.5.01 (d)) • 1988 DTSP was modified to allow Residential in D3, but also required multi block consolidations to maintain view corridors — View corridor requirement was discussed concurrently with addition of residential to D3 • Had the intent been to simply get the project approved, a variance could have been requested to allow Residential in that area 6 9/17/2012 Requirement of a View Corridor • In early planning stages, it was noted that a view corridor be maintained — Environmental Assessment, meeting minutes • Approval of CUP 88-7 was contingent upon several modifications, one of which was that the scope of the condo project be decreased. — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-7: 1.The site plan,floor plan and elevations received and dated March 25, 1988, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the modifications described herein: — a.Number of units shall be reduced from 160 to 130 in order to create a greater separation of the residential from the commercial portions of the project;provide an increase in the average unit size;provide for a better overall building profile;and to provide greater view opportunities. Requirement of a View Corridor EM CITY OF MYIIIITIMpTON MACH INM INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To ecott Hass From carnation M. O'Rark Assocista Planner Assistant Planner S.N., surairpmantal Aesessoent Des February 23, 1988 sso. 88-5 • Page 2 of Environmental Assessment Although no additional CCgA review is required, toe Phase I project should eoa,iy with the suggested standards at forth in the DosCtoan Speclf is Plan for District s3. Russell, view corridors should be maintained along the aaistfng right-of-wale, am view light and sir corridors should be included is order to ensure that the atoo maintain a Planes" pedestrian environment. 7 9/17/2012 Requirement of a View Corridor CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED PLAN DATEDY61 1 i I I • 'ij • 3: 4 .. .. 4.�. H U N T I N C T O N•PIER•C O L ON Y DMENSION PLAN 9 SEPARATION EWCORRIDORI ® �` Requirement of a View Corridor I Lam, I I CAl � N U N T 1 N G T 0 N• P I E R • C 0 L 0 N Y DIMENSION PLAN e. 8 9/17/2012 Width of the View Corridor • Staff has concluded that any potential view corridor be 40' wide, based on a narrow interpretation of the term "Street" • Ordinance 2836 defines "Street" as "A public or an approved private thoroughfare or road easement which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, not including an alley." — Potential for interpretation Width of the View Corridor • However, "Street Line" is defined as "the boundary line between a street and abutting property." This shows that the street is actually the entire space between property lines • CA Streets and Highway Code defines "Street" to "include all or part of, or any right in, a state highway or other public highway, road, street, avenue, alley, lane, driveway, place, court, trail, or other public right-of-way or easement, or purported public street or highway, and rights connected therewith, including, but not limited to, restrictions of access or abutters' rights, sloping easements, or other incidents to a street or highway • See attached Tract Maps from the era showing 3'd Street as 60' wide, or 30' to centerline 9 9/17/2012 Tract Map 14133, December 1989 - u R p4 60 �Gr• for / X5 AxU.a-snow 9/S l9•NGT 1 ^ ; G RZI f y/e arAerr a 1 Yam:=� .__. ,.�..m. _.. ,-- -• ._.. Record of Survey, 09/1990 OLIVE AVE. r T � x9YUP eels zs T 9I nw— i �r=-------n.., ryq mo,a ry°irl Iwo rba M A WALNUT AVE.____ 10 9/17/2012 Summary • It was impossible to build the Pierside Pavilion/Pier Colony project under the 1984 DTSP, and that was recognized by Staff at the time • The 1988 DTSP required a view corridor to be left along the vacated 3'd Street corridor, as do all subsequent iterations • The width of 3rd Street was measured at that time to be 60' wide • The final project did include staircases and balconies encroaching upon the required view corridor — Case law shows that preexisting incompliant development not be used as a basis for new development Issues with the Pierside Project • Third Street View Corridor • Front Yard Setbacks • Improperly drawn tract maps • Outdoor Eating Facility not adjacent • Residential Buffers • Public Open Space (insufficient landscaped area) • Pedestrian Corridor Narrowing • Fire Access to Pier Colony • Decreased public safety (police report) • Parking Issues 11 9/17/2012 16 tl A R. 12 200 � r c 9/17/2012 r �r n 13 9/17/2012 TU Issues with the Pierside Project • Third Street View Corridor • Front Yard Setbacks • Improperly drawn tract maps • Outdoor Eating Facility not adjacent • Residential Buffers • Public Open Space (insufficient landscaped area) • Pedestrian Corridor Narrowing • Fire Access to Pier Colony • Decreased public safety (police report) • Parking Issues 14 9/17/2012 Rob Bryant iE00R RESTAURANT dV1TH OCEAN VIEW `lNY&ROOFTOP PATIO .:.,p LEAS6J81714)61&5730 ®' >�.s+aw:ssoa ICI AIR,:SP® P6WY4VWq'kMWy,W[ 15 rill' RECEIVED FRO AS Pt16LIC FIF ME OF INCIL !CIL FIFICE JOAN L.FLYNk CITY CLERK J _ - Vj`,,, 7 x/,Z -4� < z=/Z Lu C)FFl I U) I Lu //IN-FILL �A I ro IF z LLJ < a ME V� P IN-W 1� I - - ?4 ---- --- ---- R9) 4W A < ,�n, v 14 T LEGEND J-1 J IN-RLL OFFICE AREA 3,OW SF) NEW RETAIL AREA 7,200SF) RETAIL ; GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN IN! o WE. U) < j � PIERS:DE \ A M PAVILON 3w PCH "LMNGTON BEACH CAUFORNLA , 63 (�L4) A2 _ e—�- -i,ref snO- NEW I I � STAIR TA (E) OFFICE < `'a ,r II �� (E) TERRACE 74 REMAIN mw eTA1R< �i�/,l i `mil DN I 1G% NEW OPEN A- TERRACE KITCHEN ✓ RESTAURANT WAITING if r- LEGEND I � y C NEW TERRACE (1.500 3F) TAU RE 2.ANT SECOND LEVEL I - jqi b7 NEW RESTAURANT AREA (A,Epp SF) FLOOR PLAN _ NEW OUIDOOR DINING (2,IDD SF) y � a x Xr "sna.. -F-LOW tm,� -la E;OUTDOOR DINING -; �" , _Mns AUTC)QORDiN �k' x PIERSIDE PAVILION WPCH r > HUNTNUFON BFA H i f A3 li L II it r EXISTING Offli MEZZANINE i < it u I di Z, -A i \ ���%'\jam �j�',i:/\\\\�jk, i NEW M RO SIARC MelI/ -'V N Ew jfl LOBBY�,v ji, � 11 L mi;mmou 4-7, p it iII j = f ��t Ali �! PEM6VE EX[FT,^,f, LEGEND ADr.,.�4c-TO IN-FILL 0FRCF AR (1,900SF) NEW OFFICE j NEWOFFICEAREA (6,OO)SF) THIRD LEVEL p FLOOR PLAN PIERSIDE PAVILION --- ---- BA�E`CiONY OUTDOOR DOING BELOW I 3D)pCH ill jHUNi BEACH CALIFORNA A41 J �i j jl j NEW OFFICE N L r/l :DN" H N- 110 BB, L-J L ,/j ji/ E - -- ---- — - - -i - �i w1m.-M aura , LEGEND -cl IN-FILL OFFICEAREA(166SF) NEW L! FOURTH LEVEL 0 F F I C E NEW OFFICE Ag." 7,2M SF) FLOOR PLAN IA, (B) \j BALI-'ONY PIER 31DE PAVILION 11ALCQt4r BELOW UNflW-;fONBFAC j CAUFORNLA OUTDOOR NNING BELOW fl 4� A SmR II I I! ;i 1 IVIECF�AL 1 AREA "I' I� OF AR rp, EQUIPMENT IEA -4 1 REFLYS t IF Y-, X)" �5 fi r --��/ LEGEND xxt -7 -- - - (4,2MSF)ROOF TERPACE ROOF TERRAC ROOF LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 41 Pbi PIIDE PAVILION ""WTON BEACH CALI A6_1 C P/ (E T L E DESIGN LINE OF ORIGINAL A F-CC": DEC,< �E M'L q, M IN a x S E 'I,IM Ali I l, ifl a 17[ 1 Z TlE fiCI lip RAI '-L P3 Tqg lgm'�,Jmg -hlhie; i ii,� I i ill i i k-1,---T-----III------ M - i� 1III fig 41, M, LILA! o) !F 4 M up W �,ulj ig 11KPIAIll Spec\' I'll E PO v, t All, U rI ------ - --- ,10 Im 'IR IM F4:R -L4S-E-R PIMSIDE PAVIL PCHION 30 EAST ELEVATION I'M H!,N NGMN 3EAC4 CAUFORNIA A7i �7,T ,NWI 01 6 3 Iff 71, qqv�,IF l 'kill FA 3111 --111,111,110, v "�iii�W0111 i,"Mkli T11,1111 51 N H FE ;IJR ST A NN f lll q�,jjff "ll"I111, g, 14!�I�W!1111���l XT Iff,I MjW Iff i M-11 M -1��Ut '14,11 E111 S I G N 0 Is ow/ IN S I G N —RE 1-Mir RN� 1p WE is I PIERSIDE PAVILION GT SOUTH ELEVATION HUNMN ON BFACH� CALIFORNIA A8 RECEIVED FROM-2 �G AS R11TO I x.OUP. 'IL N9EETINC OUTLINE OF MAIN PRESENTATION POINTS ,F � f Pierside Pavillion Addition and Renovation CITY LERKCITY F �IPd L FLYNN,FLYRIPI �' CLERK Huntington Beach, CA 17 September 2012 1. Overall Design Character and Approach a. The project utilizes a continuation of the modernization theme started with the renovated facilities for Gruppo Gallegos, a high-end office tenant. b. In keeping with the Gruppo space as high-end office use to attract high-profile users the expansion incorporates desirable ocean views. c. In terms of the existing building, this approach involved maintaining the existing character and building fabric, but "freshening" the aesthetics. d. In terms of the new addition, the approach incorporates "Mediterranean DNA' from the existing building in the form of materials, continuation of horizontal datums, colors, and proportions; but gives it a fresh interpretation that does not depend on an exact reiteration of the existing architecture. e. The area between the new and old incorporates a new, colored elevator tower and entry stair that links old and new, and provides a clearly identifiable main entry to the upper office and restaurant levels. 2. Project Specifics: a. The Existing Building will be "cleaned up" and modernized as follows: i. Removal of superfluous and often-deteriorating detail and ii. Painting a fresh coat of white that matches the existing paint on other portions of the project. iii. The storefronts will be moved streetward to be flush with the exterior face. All existing window mullions will be painted warm silver to match previous renovation work iv. The entry to Fred's restaurant will be improved. v. Removal of ADA barriers to access storefronts along PCH vi. Renovation of PCH walkway to incorporate refreshed look vii. Renovation of the walkway between the project and the condominiums to be in symmetry with the Main Street and PCH walkways b. The New Addition is harmonious with the existing building but adds interest through strategic differentiation (which a simple "extrusion" of the existing building would not do). The addition's character also reflects current tenant preferences that did not exist when the original building was constructed (i.e. larger window areas, high-end restaurant space with covered outdoor deck requirements, etc. c. Aesthetically the new addition complements the existing building but will have a fresher look. It will be able to stand on its own but relates to the existing building in terms of color, materials, and horizontal lines of windows and floors. The front fagade features a new stair to the second level, from which customers access the upper-floor restaurants. d. Beyond the stair is a new elevator core serving the entire building. We have linked new and existing circulation corridors on the upper floors, so the new elevators will serve the entire building, thereby providing all upper floor tenants with a clear public entry and a PCH address. e. Landscape: The existing palm trees will be moved out to curbside to allow public circulation adjacent to the storefronts, and a raised planter will provide seating and protection from the traffic on PCH. The sidewalk along PCH and the passageway to the east will be improved and upgraded. 3. Desig n n Guidelines Issues a. Compliance with "Specifics" of Design Guidelines i. See slides . b. Compliance with the "Spirit" of the Design Guidelines i. See slides HUNTINGTON E H DOWNTOWN PE I FIC PLAN . .......... TWO RELEVANT DOCU ENTSa Bork 1: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan No. 5 Book 2: Downtown Specific Plan Guidelines and Strategies 1.3 .2 Standards vs. Guidelines, STANDARDS. lopm standards areregulations that must be met by 'all I to. which an ar s apply. VS8 GUIDELINES: uesign dui elines are not manclatory e ire ents. The guidelines encourage the while e same tprovidingt o flexibility highest level design quality, necessary toencourage creativity on the part of the project designers. The . a s designer is encouragea to use his or her own creativity and experience to improve upon thehleans for re l i i.n g this highest level of qualitydesign .. CONFORMANCE TO SPECIFIC GUIDELINES • Book ® rat SpecificGuidelinesStrategies ILL I - Y L S , Ee, : —LI € _ 1 e £ E x r gg so^a u 8 .. I 3 �+y rt { u. p + i 3 4 "f� r e t , _h �i .. : 12 s 3 , ".w ` a t , i AR,rta+ < _e,y : a ...,,...........___,....... ,.,_.....,._,_.____w—_-----..,..,,_.,, ._.,,.,_....,,,.,__�__.._._„_,..._wM �...... ._...... ..,,w.__.� ...-, _.._.._....__._.".._._�.........._..... _w_�_. k...__......_......_ ...:......, �_.._.._�_.._,__...._..........w._..._.__. ... ------- -- _ WA1'AVEN1 — ----=-- / AMIM .AvnK.mw�Kax .�...�..=_,_._ a� >s : x 17 1 _ . ArdOIKU kr- 4.2.1.1. Site Lit 3 .• u. x 4'e ;^ag,7,'A-;J:;y.,,t',+� r!r^;ti?� �': 4 1AN09C7M€ 7.89d.82d2itlG € 6� .Use recesses i bufinams t c ate small -ao€At5v,4cE 'vnKrae�EeRmc.ao�. -i Ys ,, l F.;;::;>::. : ,:..a {rttx pedestrian nla=zasrte re a ~ ° A ADJACENT � IM naxtx�srra �r < BUILDINGS --— ———" nmc+nxpu.wcstu� OM WAM AM cg 1 amnars ii _ 3 - �. ADJACENT I - €gymxtaxeca t t BUILDING. g . .• 1 � � _� I e�_,raaaam�r�csas�, a�- aa�c[arrosr�.a z�x'sr:�ns,�sn�os.��. a,xs.� �.'1- I I �Ktcsvus €, aca;a .�s.s .. � � � � � I w r m A, '3 - , si$A i? #.9 •OC3(;1wF Y.iM:d'n,^,.d'u 1 3 - ii ,.,-.i- ...„M„„„ �1•E, 4AtC,&F' wm4tE.. .....mm - 3 axc •M' f f • * 3,�REFi€aRT kK4' K A25&Y'NRdaE ".".".,."m -lq'Ai1Nfl�.rC 32A9�.• _ 9[# `SMS$8T>2 CT£4lYYs - • r E � ' MKN ItF.W tOIRICCNflON _ " 10, ymjaw .� _ _ €�' Y s€pi�ixSmE VAR795R'filnKB $C3U m f-w! - i6' - --- x �" - - - - . aisowurioraralsan+®17 -'..� zoo SA "a j� -+ laurmuKsoamuw,- 'iN-F� 1WAEMU- 9,wx S.c; •. �. raTaveEA RASA xzssae mtwcnw fi' ; R BtNI,OdNB. Sk,21GS:R � •� :•� 14AMMM., � tLu � , tiT'dt3F#NWiRA�TCUt BEACH, - •, .� SI -�".,. = :. [ - Aa� -unga> L _ - �.tII;j ��l' Rlmf�e.AD�Dana, . - - ..i W,%%m -—#e P, FOR M. NGYOcTION PACIFIC COMTHIGHWAY t_ nax o 6 MAalY bl lMeB AN SV$ SDK.. ., � two .Kb.��,» lflY.Aa[KKS6fl.YeF ' GG aK,. .>�!« _ �--aunalleflv+.a,nxs.rw, �wxnawasKc«v.�n ,��:aea 4.2.1.2'. Views , 1� Bulldings should be designed, Make advantage of ocean views b rovidin windows, , - Y p g balconies, stairway landings, and other design features. NRDEI r�6 sa eaMv br. - lw Pea,an Own J f.310AM ONR l ' 11 :ate ! 3 4 m� a � � ...... _ �•`E - ,,; ...,«a, �T.i.'Yy?SA;' :Wy'••y" e.7."Sl�e _.... ,j.�...._. - r t , .;1 t 1AL- CC LU ®. IL EL FOR zoo UCTION AD 11120.00 > .._tee-�.--,•••.,,�,.,,,,, >-_ "- � __ .-..�_ } �r 1^ ✓y w, `b 1 a tam,„,„,.•„,,..^.,',-c >;.., '•::.; ;��� ., __-�-•�•w•.,; f/!��` e Q. i ..,...,..,._ .. .. - ., t , • 4 A., ro w.. , t:. ...... „ A-15 VIEW FROM PIER " _ 4.2.1.5. Paving Treatments _ zap.. - and courtyards or seatihgjareasemucz ."'�^ p,--wuc6r�pappullanar>� a f 1 S ---TAW I1 _ p It 3 " I' 'E _ - {PtratzC�crgss3' I MOM _;- OPEN ADJACENT SUILDINGS 8R¢xi�X9BYK6 - - f £ - 1 1 - w F10.5'fYiRCCfI[N1.p MMSPAM - i 1 a kDJACENT • , . � � - I, ; _ �Tt _ 111 +�+x 1 E I- � : { � � 3;RtaMUK P4p1'Fi S[:£ 254fiftt'€d'�£AM3tS�fl� 1dO S$}k£ET s43%'Mi£d €�39,3 �� �dj �. -�ara� rax<e�a,>Pexzccavrzz�£ a�zazxr�;�AFp �a:�zx � Neweasnso f _ -� � r.1Fk9 sr�xR' 'se9 aC »,�.n »3az Q.- ` T ----MM F ...._:..b. °�R"aSraa�' a£wsa�e'oat<>�ntana" € - "mn R wm aTawe semgx - _ nas. - - ;_ tsewarcieu+ior. _ - J aAci £4�"§Ttr�R 4"erffi+RLIi � G"MAIf 5 S4.atN. 3&b.A `3 -. S - dAFT£SZISel SYAWt3;?,�SbAtk id' Y31 11 - ', M CAd&71NCAREA - SSAISYF.. _ s. �4REA 9,Wf 3,F-` q <.� EN>3Rl SL%.0 7Gfo07PA1NT Sb2t05•F. .. . 3 L M WKK a spa. - a E 33 I _ PtIDRE dS0A311 � a tea. BLOCK I" crirai£waaOK TEMG7UN 816ACN, V . 3 aRV`COIrf11PF[M1�B181KMY �.F SA1V tltFkfSk� Pm 'SAFAWOFCBAiNCA. ib IN I 4 wascarmar+ac> ,_ L. - - - .., .., .... CIIt1i0'.AdIVa CL to rxapaaswsrr`-��_J ... �' '-� Z.,' � -i 4- ..✓' - '�, ., -umrao ..X� n� STA1tiSY. - ' Hd ip6M SNGk9i fINY1!-•_- �.- �- - � - 2�- �. � - _ - - S + € - ,#, `---�— �.,,... �_- Q➢0[tl£RMIN>tM6 Miill'k11� M __ �.nQ - ey'.� _.__._ ___ ; - �t.....ewarwr�ewbmae�zrer4. x^waRwnxstxwzs j• {L+""�� PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAYC. ' YNtl11IG YRtM .. CCNaCa£ 1 PEGY(�KtRFMMMF � _L !lFSRY1ltOR '; Y. _..MFIGGI'M 1Y4M ^'�^NL'M 1i1AKA�iIt&i7Ghr4Clr Q ...........,_...1M7�1N,aAT11SMi9' g 4,2.1.6. Public O en� S aces p p _ - - p p S` ecialize'd, defined ublic open spaces should be incorporated into the overall building and project design to create a pleasant pedestrian -environment. E < 1) Open areas, such as plazas, interior arcades, galleries, rooftop gardens, and scenic p p view, laces, should be incorporated, Pedestrian, oriented -squares courtyards., arcades, atriums, 310'MOIJ;M verandas, balconies, and roof terraces should be placed , designed to encourage attention an EE,\ the presence of people day and/or, night. tit i € :c r.. �i , a, € x - : t 71 lk < s mom- yy �^----.tee.._ ` •- , L< t..... ,• ....,, ., � t E � >._.....,.._._. i i.i•i �'� { i 3 , '.1 tt �..... ._ j c�5@-,_.,_-..._._ ' : `�� 1 < i # s „ € € i.' E' x, .<raeak - ,. •,. -..say--w«..m.,., .. _. .,,..... , 1 iE ,.... ...,.__ .,. .. .. .r• T.. .+,pti-_. :_ti'- > '�� �-.»»-mama - .,.._,. .,,, .. fi.,.. t e r� ,,,,, , ,_ ,.,�-_'..«,=,�'�, '�w��..'_„°�. ..,�;;" '��`�"�";",•,<,sk .�° <,>> ""µ_� "`�'r�a f WO >. <.,.,.,,.«xE .,. ,, .€ .?>. °a"*«t g;;�>�•. �... .- -ems"' ��;,, „�' t' - - _- ._ .v ., .;I 1'' , 1 1 1 i w.w < 14 • ,t , , I S t ( ........ ..... US LU LU z _. TIO CONS �(, ' XlB+a2 tff�.W. __--_ vow of anN frrrRr A-13 1) TaII buildings: should be made less imposing by stepping back from the street level on NflOEl elevations. 'ons above the ground TF 910.8A0182 floor. , CE:EE,S „ Desirable massin includes E in the wall lane ' - variation f. _ E. e r ro ectin and�recess�ing g � �€ �< E ;g3EEE�EEi%k � "h elements „ , , - , E ;; rt , „ < „ i i x , , �x „ , , „ x � , T pia, E , 3 � f3 7) , MinimizeblankwaJlsby• P v .' . ..'.._ €T t < -Fu,c_ -:� rE' ,: ,: �� �'�: � `^w.w..,_ ." .. .-.. -,--,...moo.,....,,..,. _'`✓�� Ad din i nd ow Eo eni�ns _ g �. _ p - „ and/or entrauUj nces and other 71 �.z „W relief. t C+ � 3 b Providing recessed glazing J, ), , z' nts. ref .r_ and�sto �I : 33 33 yfy� e Y ilasters c) =Adding vertical p. E _ IS Ek 7 : internal _ _ � which ma reflect _.." a. ..- S "eY p,. y N„ 4- 1 �in� ��.0 st re.. b „ _ _ - x , _ CONSTRU A-13 , VIEW OF MAIN ENTRY 1. ----- Ar MWMN I16�M14,M Ys1A)W NNN STIfYM Ti 4AWw ItH W.aM,.M>M NM IG+M M AM MC Mt N AM'MA6 KM Pi lM'R�K M vMEIA MYY n AI gFw+WX PN,MmR ff/JIA IIIdIRAY.6.i,!RA iY!(111,&. ` arwnflRx� euvrcanxur[ moan JY. --'--- "-_ .� _-.__•- - --'�- f° .^°'.__P/Qaiwe m7mt � xasxs�s - �✓j..vpoemw� �11,49 AeUgE= r _ _ __ r. � Mrt4ca,�•_•.,r y ��kS1dAd90f,Ni%Ntl6f416411ECYl�r-'.-l _ .-.IdA1tlYEGRFd NMGGME&KNt.,—,f E / f M76x W"W-+W - —^aAMtIM94MlN. SMFaa6I3AW_ //°° �Y.A36�AiPNMY1M@[t! a �• .--` S 3 � + � f ..�w-_'a �Xc;, � 8>�3 �rS Tlrtr�MWats uawe�ks t._, - _ _ Aacfft�lavc, I t ,waow Lf i :x aaffinan —ow -'� �ur5pwlV+w.w1TeM *� 2 I 'f.9Y0:9ttl.61Rt ' - ' � ��m aonn� 'x�wnrseuermmm GLASS SCAM WAMIR LL r r . roof« —�mx+aeoacmoocu�o -.--• i 1J • ._`� , - ,�•-....Ck7f54RtYpysRtBlt4o J - L„ L. ovambuwom - 11CMYI. j T M--MNtl MOU?ilTFtlCiXtt_' l,YWPk'AtiMRCCW�M r�J r _ •�+� "'�3 ' - pgFiINW18 NlOC% r- ne9awsh.;,aar'tatt - 'E k06YliNi iftl15Wx6E Ixk mxm *203.3. � ro ortion - _ 3 r Pr ins that-are historical I related to the selected. architectural style should be 11 a ch i eve d. 2 T e charac �eristic ro onions of traditional Tacades�st�ould � be re��le e, ad in new in�rll �eve�op��mer �.� �:... . ' � - -lYAp¢eBIFtfAIfNFOlA3i9 �. � TdLLMYMM+tsM0.m4Mf - -- ., L - E -" i � _ �iHtld3YRlS4TO11ri�1 6VflFr{M9NR�.Nb�Sny6R - - � , - . —'--- Y Z > 17 ET 40 tu > .e ...... a.......�».�._................_ � � .��..�_ a_..,_t___..................�._..........._.,. ��_ � Ga .. - 4ROW:1R1 S41kKfm3MM11F4E E4 gtl EAST ELEVATION Li i ra rriiu�.earre,,pu� xarwmw.wrx awwr,iwr+rwwrxrawn wawa rx r'�sm+amwa rua.waew ru,�awmsrwwer rrc.we4Mu mw�weumuwnrrn aw,+n+wwu .. ., . - - 893TII6.OIW�EIRT4ESO0F ORICMNLLMWMtY •' - �`� mmwl - -z,.�.;�:7.°. - c+gnnMruMf imwceeaesenewowm wo�srwoor>�n .-+etwca�r m »asar� rewmlammis . � rowxd;.' f naainmr�vasiucls pwpwwxiut I ,. . }T NIIMAYM WhWQW- SFItlPf.IM4U/,ICIRI'W75dfAR+6t - E ■61gY1GIpIM,iI�.OW SMNIi i)j` �fkf1XM•II�NIM �ASTN11Ci.1.K11I,tltFIX4918SOV/G ^tvIRM'aIP,-m��' � �IGVI .tl1W� gWp1Ai.11Tl,11,KigAOK&Itp-M NRDEL • � Z.:._—_ € 1 � .,,, ,,f 1� —'S.1 � .1 :'l:/. y/ � 6 Pntl4BkN�DOgf�Cw�E&AS IIIC. � - jM 1 EKfYA.M CBMEM,IJiRR 1_ ,� Fl,r i ! :f 1 ,:�1 ::'1 ` l _ M t I �� r.•, _ p urdl[tmi�ISlrmnlc {:"1 - i 1 I - T.MW8."= pWYJIFb 'Mm1lpllFtl3NtWVRR -_ F. low c� TE xvmm WALL GLASS SCREEN I n t` „x - .• i '�C.�� � J �1 (-' 1 of I � � � - .- YCfaQ _ .r w�^ AlOR1100FMtYYNIG - F I.-, °5 'wccauu.. .rxl siwtnxreu we rnat; � �� h.a �', 1I ... '.•- � _ � € { � I+sr:°�wwai aeainnru+i �aaas�€!.+omwa g r - 'J€ I__..:(gl1CiYC{NIfMIMYRMSO, � � t , f/1MMRW.MPIN1('f1.NlTIXtL�� ��'`•_._6WSXWDUR.NR11.' V �.`' u�awm.uiras. J h armius+snr _ F14m anonu. eiaEmlownl • waTaw ei�a' wwe.uawxwinonnra nawr�Iaxiwo.Nt/ 6 t; ewna■ a - 4:120%, i - h, z rn _ - • 3 Tat..o h r zo_rrta l -rh �:h h nte. va{s eneraFl d-o riot exceed T2-5 feet to 3a feed aF- .a`_ _ Y _ _ _ ._ continuation of this farnilia , kuman-scaled rhythms ou a incorporate in new construction. r _ T �« • pUplp►P �flfRt �.... °I0 : ` 16• q' .n 1 ^III' O $ ,•IA �, _ 1 �_ � _ ..�M1� � 3 S i a i 3 .... '1'NpYUYIDGRT4PN4 - —. ;-MMIItYFVTiItlWpbm ...--_ _ fbiODpt saert'WwSaW1 J • - 1 a�u,Imex�xw wlr,�:ronmwa, ___--^-� �•W s �, . .. oroa wdx+comxx*cra. CoTgU , N Tif7N . � �. QILLktM3bIGVLiflCX o - . • ., - �.,„,„„„.„,.....„..,.�,...... ..�«..m..!�'� �.....................................ym.,...,�.......�.��....�..,,.,,,. � f.ClalORflKii�Alffi � � � '.M16 O6^Ot-k� • ' - - - TM!lIIpYBd1OlkgHtl{95�f '�,".?kb`t +4'z!•CS' >�S>;7 z IbIytlLC� dc 6 f . score A—Q. EAST ELEVATION.' pp aorian rrr ww+weixr adwawsaw�wu+wrr.w.aw�o�nrearr�3awtis�w.owu+wsur:rsr�urwsea.ennc-awx iwnwaeepri rc._�u.r.'.°°uu..._.._....._ .........._...... ......... ........... ..... _........ .. ............................_.......... ...... .............. ................... ..........-__..... ..... .................... .. .... - _........ s .. 1 ..................... ...... ..........___ ....:............. ............._.......... ... ....._............................. . ...... ..._..................... ......_...... _.......... - - : NRDEI 3.3 1.16. Storefront 0- Storefronts should convey an open, inviting appearance rather than a closed, fortress look. Well-designed Storefronts should include a minimum of 60 percent glass. ° £ rL n n F: -ro_E , F ,.::"- .....,.. . : ,;� _�. ,.,E r ' zt : g zT� t, t_ : . « N•, w E J' b'""' : i E71 ,. :. ,_,...... > - { �x� : �x _., jj { iF5 W f j�. 7 v— ,w I. 2 e ££ E ! I t ! I € „ r � f ! : `i Ui _. �. E"""" !E, t y=- : i' : _ ! — - - _ ., aA_ ( -- .F. s , - CL � 3 MQ :Fp3oN c� > �o STRU " wig maeex 41 A-12 YEW'FWMr PCH AND MAIN ` 4.2.3.6.: Articulation Building designers should incorporate 360-degree architecture. . NRDI Sum T.'31Q.628.24CYt _" � � � xw3Y.z�0181L.L9m Tj aw uj IL to me 1 ` 8 <.i E ." 13. N r a 1 J a 4 e .. is 3) jj E 1 i { f 1 } 3 i _ u s- .e �a s s, e , ;{} z=: s e._._.,..- F <_ <.._y7,aw..c�s ce._.�._.—_. a..r✓i+mxp A-- _ �,. � .. -� TI a ' Lj i t # , t Y x I j t .......emu. ..x .,i 3.. „.<t r»......,..._.. ... ,. € E x� qq € £ r 4 } Q 4- E < z €E r. rt !E xw m r ..� ,..ram—..a_..,...._._.... �c ca NaT-FORto�. co 5: �C CONSTR r ... A-12 XEW FROM PCH AND MAIN 4.2.36. Articulation Towers s p ires or domes become landmarks and serve as fo cal and orientation points for the community. 9 Balconies are encouraged and can create opportunities for community interaction . _ _. ..__................. __ ___ :_ ...................__................. _........................... ..........._ ..........___ i IOWA / L ._ _ t o .,aalCVci+aRi9iA�9GVtic3GAfi ,1 � _� �" tr �'VIOMAMMNROEL . ................................ ._.�aitabuaav�raHeaw/ X da __.�° a _............._........... '........ .... ......... .............. ...._.......... .. . dp e I 1 ammo °mm aumrxa v. rbw+a�ce�uuw,mtea - '€ d�< iJ` S, w �tlBr ( j f.MOM0132 - ' T1 " .; sc YYAL1 4 c t - TUN" e .uwwa -•-� .asrsenaxaeeaerm _ � _ 93 - . nafmtas. �F . »i ..�.� -;' S'�1WHt!�4NANW�. ■d,S 34(814t3KF744CFiE{1 a�sn� n.�ycnaaw "iQM"' wasa�rux. wWasa ara ., �aavara rus?+€wa!�va.• � w.�w ... �- a� +fit ' r`> �_ . ... ....................... - tR A88'RAk irtQ LE:TAA. a SOUTH EL.EVATIflM '� C'N; ' M MWLRbiIpOWAl6MYF RFx. Inascielear �aLwL xrrxuuuaobRreu F°�`"' L�LLtLnnL aLwce�LSLxbeRowaoSeRrolLxn+b1e - � . —LLLwLL�++LalwFus RwaLt wboo*am. F. sir ��"�'a�m�w'�wra.ax : Lraaulwwrutal fff { ewmsuwwaswuaa g ' � [ - RE\gYEGKLCI�aaLL +r Jj` - mrswiwaard+e L�- � - _ {R fl flSnLR 9M.RMSn1M1Nooll Atdoub IPiC4 L. Gt 90GZ5 y StOM.M � _ri�rRnusFaxLnrore a�• r � � _xFserLix , GLASS 8CRM WALL �._F•r ¢ _ "� r ,nm. _ ,j —MA, low ` -.xeLaLu �,,,..--3`*fra.oLbpm9maten {1 S I uRaiLFLw rbrsssF�ieLaL � „ ' w� .,.. , . .- •,••-x � '1 R�-�..rLra�sc+N� fib. ���x- -eu¢iLialR6eF�YiMaw . ' "" -LVrLURE4x!lYUL9bMUl WILiR � LFLxFY'I#f4/9i ttRd0lOR � �, - ? —,ff 1lA,YLIiLL1LWAILUGNd L91331LL •:� \. -�..41M_FMtfNYIN+tY/YlClxi'3U� A - � � ^^64iSLM�Mi.LxM11.V- l' -ammvew.�LbiiemxarL R<ax riiaatoauR ;LdLLRMLQL.tlIM1f6W CtY41MAFkAP� ' LL,�LL,RL,�.:..LL, ,�,.�� F�1•Wb�:`°L �r� � .�_ . � - - � .. .11lW6t1YiW111_hASE98C.FYL;. - LeaamRx�bl ' , xAffikAiL6i�.t� - ' — .,. —� T. _ — ` Preserve and rncor orate structures which are dist,In�ctI" due t,o th_eir .. . � _._ p m.» T_ » . _ T - GLASS RA @[ ;; - - cd tu:ra si �frca c .. or.:uni ue� cud ur, st- fe rn t=he ra ` ct� � „w Y i 55.4 MAP : ©_w . . s B i�eltMim,w>r1'� . �+ ' S i "� M'♦iRiGL(i P./6§§91 �' yip€ �y�L i III 4='-'----'- - -- r j :. I I.. — - -- -- -- — - -M -z - � •. - . F� L1RLb�:.LLLE .�LLR-�� +� � .. € ' jj - - «rdrw.aiouxuma r0.rsmcwbcmyxs�usLww._; { - ,i:.�„ 0-us o- . , 1iON L� ` �ONS �� , � � �........................p............. ,..�.................,..�,.�,,,.'�... .........�.R�.�.$Ql�. .�....,,,............,.,.,�m. .....,................,.,...,.. ..�,,..,...,,,�..,. .�[EOSLILOM./t61WOtlY6 w .-. 9D�/i-E$ ( - f16bYdV�xaYR[R6A.q@xH�i10L 'S?Nv;.�t•8'o.1x 2Y' E .. 'TdlEP11Rl9..g0�MdWS311Q( . wC,EIL10bb illC6RLM iU.BtfmRa.lt4tE RA'HPob8lMtlxp'W.NPNPeLY1X. �yLE0.1. E A_8 € j MT ELEVA'Tif # - � ... Mx RMRW1LL ilIRRM N1111NL 11YHIIWLILILIX.NRM 111E(IIIIFN.I{11LYIRN 1.111lM',IIOMC4ML IYR 11116.9MWYp 411b,MIIYCIYILLL0.VN#(L113111L W.IIIYb>'lR YWMINL'.LLIb�,MIL64R111R1L LIR LR IL1NR 111Llq,... -- ..._........ ..... ...... ....... ...... ... < - } 'j ^"",..•- Aaw« AAgIEAIl I1GitY ����� j E f M1.97A7�PIR784kN@t 3 - C:: - �.......- - afr�sTMt MAIMr g ftw" La m 7.38(LW31QP "'+«.•—MgJOM,¢AriN # _ ''[' (� � ' ._^ � ✓^"�. � MVY/KIIC.�119 � I.MOML EUKtCI' � ,f IKYACCM6 �, lATYIlW6YfAlA4GA19VYW a<y..,<.... S{WIYJ t�WY A � § 3 i ELEVATWN AT ATM 2A .cs aaxuwP sxs. .. £Y.... ;�, ;& §•�•'" ;�tac u�u.A,�near f - � 4G-2 3.8. Roof Forms IE vaied to and, break up building massing define the. architectural eh �rcter Roof forms should be r of - - Roof materials and colors should be eonsis;tenttth the desired a rchttect � :£ r the building. 3 Multi-form roofs,, gable roofs, and shed roof : com_ inations s ould be u e ,- o create an interesting - � r an,d var �n roof form .that,.w�lL.wlessen:»th�»,mass of_the bu4ld�,r g and ,add visual ap e;al - µ a � { { O^ w 0. ow " .. M•(fKMlMRf�E l _ ?-8 EpN�AiA4 !�!m•tlKfFltlY liltO#Wf�lY1 ��� j 4�ae#vamwe i '�, �aalmRawmr� '"� ` . �A%aIASA1RfAWMNfMRIrf MNM If Am rCA�AAaUf�F3tlQM4xfaillc��^�.S ' '�, - �.......vANt�*�`e � /��/► Uj p.C111T c/yJ,p�AtF.k AN P161fARfi�Q+sn+��A16r5'INifl4K / 3 • `�'�, ---•�1fNESWkN1sAW4�EACCd`A£�R1,Y7WA1 +INK CwA0.V4PFE -kY1M05FSAAYts$4WD�l MIfAI -� � . YOI.{t,LAi1l'isT;+k�M1 MAECNi.- ,...< AUN LW°tOARWKA #MRN. '""^IG p13FIW4A4LMIJW18IbWM1 1Mf/IWVVNid RM3dAkDY4'f ' � t1�llSlfiMRiV A!g1YTA➢YN.•RFA ILe1C NaMAti£A9SYIH M�WdASWt�'7 TO4Y1VAt[ - Ra4KA YA•kK6 AALim AdK@F �3 AY1GIlfiP1�6C§ i' �MIbMSp.'I»IRWW iENFMfA1AOV,YHTAFf%Tt. NOT FORR' . V .-„ �tU a 4.2 :3.1,0 Main E nt ryways - Recessed doors, archways, or cased openings. , Changes in the -roof line, a tower, or a break in the surface to the subject wall. NHOEI arc�lmas rflc T.atMM ". P.810.8,tb.tl1Bd All Tz , , E c : , r l ,r - �; I .. i" € j ¢ µ p + E l E 7 ........ ...... .. mow, L tE 12 IT �71 l, Zk, 6� r r° _ , 0 $ 1 7=- r { I Wit ..... ..... W.. x� x • r 1 ^ € �y f i :r , f ,» z i ] F hA c 1 i df< a H E : rg AR�..,..... ifs i 3 d I /y.i x _ 1 - ' LU -37 140T FOR CTIoN tp > CON'TR lxnr[ �1urs A" 3 VIEW OF MAIN ENTRYF,77 1 412.3.12 Windows Recessed windows provide , depth and should be used NilDl AMSbKta, IM where appropriate to the ; IOD architectural style_ m yncq --- , ii 4 3 • Simple shape window forms are , W _ , �. - w E �_ , preferred. - , E E , , 4 i Windows .that I etin more a�g'ht �� 4-4 such as transoms, - - e� ID _ cleresto r sk li hty ,wi-n,d*bwsj, s or a F w < - ,,..,,� _ r_ :.w a e - reenhouse _wi d _ ^ x La g - _. .. _ , _ £ Y, r� and _wells,.-are- strongly . - _ _ _., _ en co. raged�ed L < _ �_�� '�� -_ � , ' .x ar > , — s t windows should b eh located to _ wn LU l �. _- �r ,x maximize daylighting i C ..... L ' S.vecc , . and- w m _ LU EL _ . _ 40 T FOR No RUCTION CONS A2B��tn3i49➢ . a5NEG nR. . A—fV VIEW OF MAIN ENTRY H 1 'rts R c - ,�4i, �� �� 9'i � •p k t 3'� ' 7E , x, a ✓.y 3 / . - .�:'„ "'y�.• � ,. Spedal projects =i ♦99Q BF.BurKly Or. » wM Fbuf ' _ Las. GA 8Wb33 i h ARDIL .' ,•,;c '_ =' '� /yi. / ?E�3 � ,E„s F.S Q878.0/62 a� 777 HAM— a �` 1, .>> ",s 1<J3u •,�,;;,�, 4'_,.„„_, 63R%.._ ,^� z AtCid ?i;?tl4xp� _ T r „ 4+ ,. •, .-'G..a.. •.as � ... T:'Au <„h 'L., .'�� �€,,.,».^=:.t•: E .. ...s.(..__, ,;.. ,EE€�: ,,, "_ .. _q•=...,,». ___.:':�. �_. x, ..., mas�g ?r"3'Y :'U '<.> y' »:n i' 4.2314 Materials Accent materials: s'houad be used to hi hli ht buildin - �� r ;features and rovide visual mto..a t: Accent materials may include- wood, brick, tile, on , c crete, painted metal and stone. w W? _W » ze ,SEE x evy /y v r a y v � h a g zoo uj d, d3 x_ F rw.�a •„�.., ,f :3, :�;;;;;,E,E f ,,,c. ;•E>„ a� �/� �---{ �' Ca uj cr� F 0 us J So t .tones ranging rom w it to very _ ig t paste s are pre erneE ELF MO Neut a be'i a and_sand are also acce table. A-,s raI colors such as o wit= �, g p Y,yMMA MO IIWIMfMIb M✓MTi MMl1 Ip MOWnM/I®NWBVOMC=IEYMrtpWRMMYIf Mt:IFYMfMA uf/OGUYbAM�AWPM11.11w<g�WRYY,I6YMQ�COIf.i.:.�WS sICIRCA S:i,I�RM YIPM4 - - .. .. . fy>y" -r` « 1. CONFORMANCE TO THEINTENT OF THE GUIDELINES { -^^--_ ...., i 3 t e. t .i{ � ,.tmer'Lll,r i r_:_. � �! 3 i t� r , ` w� ,-tea'• __ _ m.. _ w w cc 4 .. �y .......,..- _ ..4 5 w,Y .t a P y 1, vt� .v i ``, � ��a. //Y� �4 v pie _✓ NRDE1 Ardideds r"/ •=-.E '� ,�/ � i� ''/�'''l, / 3per�al PK9jBd9 " Lft ArqAM C0.QIX}28 F.310.826.M82 r. zi;�:�•,.;.�.:. / ���v?;�•;�" �a ,� � /,.�,�'; �-- --I IEI / "t»Ww.ratlr*scom a a,'yk � ro•s 7 " c 8 x. '. � •` '°"� ,.' � ,� Mks � i �.(,€�' .. .::.... ...:: ;;;-,,s� N�,,y'• -vim:... ,ii. �� r �i 3f 'eiW'" Y SOUTH ELEVATION District 1. Downtown Core Mixed: Use The intent of the-Specific Plan is to establish a mixed-use urban village with an it built off of the ocean, With buildin architecture that reinforces ident' � - y g the ocean theme. , 1.5:23 -�Obiective 2 , p - g g hat encourage, lemen develo merit start ar sari esi n ui a Ines " " :develo ment of unde:rused arce�ls with ;a m-ix of uses and uni ue architecture. p p , 1.5.2.4Obiective 2- Policies , € 3 Revise current design guide Ines to allow market forces to dictate architecture and form with no specified architectural style. 1.4,'. Desi n-Character" -- _ --- — -- - p vide o ortunities for A desire exists to ro h a broader nter` retation of the - pp p Mediterranean a 'rchitectural styleL The revised ;design gurdel.ines found in this Specific Plan encourage this architectural variation in downtown. : WALNUT AVENUE — — — — — — — I 1 EX ISTING PALM TREE,TO REMAIN EXISTING CURB I—— TOREMAIN — — -- EXISTING OUTDOOR DINING EXISTING CONCRETE $ EXISTING PALM TREE,TO REMAIN PAVING,TO REMAIN v I I BUNTING k L 1 6 J B%IBTIFlO I ( 7 *I � pAPdTINO ENTANOE I ui,I y qq--pp E SE. WE � ?INDSCAP,--i I fEI FEMOR XPVE A O.B f P� I TYP. LE04" 0 i t LBRNL NODE[ BONN } � � s AM BELa�r '`..,X ,�x 'H= 1 �,a. ;:,.' a °� Architects Inc. Spec lel ProJecte 1980 So.Bundy Dr. I ( Loe Angel3e CA 9FDO25 LANDSCAPE T,310.826,2100 TYP. ; afi ♦ wow.ndel�coom "`�.tix ACEKU (PUBLIC 1 PUBLICACCQBB) I N!!; rx� '4 6 I T #rzf I I M-D OPEN SPACE (Pu9uc Access) ❑ y�` '1 '�" y" $ 0i,a*"5fi i��u..'.�;�"s �,r�Pi,,,�'�" "`1� �`�1 •� � NFwpuNrwG,TYP. I g ADJACENT B �•«� 7 7 ��� � :� f L - MI- - - - EXCDLETXgIW1Y BUILDINGS ' 2 � I ��� "e as elaaepanRlNa spacEs LEGEND RE oEP ACEWT4 NEW FTE ®OPEN SPACE B,BSO S.F.9.99% A REPIACEWRH NEW w f RETF PAVING.NPICAL,�'?( y!"f F4� ��kA'✓"?�N ''�"'- •• ®LANDSCAPE 1,555 B.F.1.759A cc OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE DIAGN Z m Z x�w � Z ap 4 Brs^ ❑ I �,> "Fr't `a FYs'1 ki"" EST DE Trd - .rr ay 1'�rEM ®� FXLsnNG CUR ., c ; F r ro., - c5s?� tL � ,§ t v' y, .�i :'I Z '�S.E �'` 0 gg IN 31 3. ADJACENT V 1 �i "` 'r' w ;¢ ° �rs. t od'*" �s'(a ., +.�,• r'zTa'}" "'` ' S 11 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DISTRICT 1 BUILDING ��`'�J COMMERCIAL OR MIXED-USED SECTION `J ®... W R 'rc'- Me ,� a.nz '� �wr 1. ,.41 s #�.. � y� ��� eta r���, �•.; a.G��aTr��'-� fi �✓ 4-�,:��,P� ririn� l�"� ���"r��'. REQUIRED PROPOSED �t/1 �°"� �^ �"�T � d1 F ,; d � � S '' �'4 :� - `�+°".S31*' MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE 25'STREET FRONTAGE& 140'STREET FRONTAGE& 3.3.1.5 SEE L s,K <� e�4 w`F,' ; '�'''4�# iu�"r�x���iG �'^n u�$' }��`'�� ���•1�a� ;. L GA 2500 5F,NET AREA 766505F.NET AREA w4Cl ,p ,Y INISFS^'+en1';."* NEWCOLOREDCONCRETE Y. O NEW CP.INGI ITS,TYE P 4y� u4 , PAVING NITS,ttP. � -' ' � � � �� � 3 '�'`;' L "� , � r� �i �� PAVNG uwts,rn. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE NONE REQUIRED 3.3.1.6 O�W S�( F%ISTINGCOLORFO CRETF fN d Y, 3 MAXIMUM DENSITY 50 DU/AC N A 3.3.1.7 W L [] PAVING TO REMAIN,MATCH d`,- Y +' ? f7 :. ,. \ " �n Q W P_ ^� T �. ( MINIMUM BUILDINGHEIGHT 25' A 3.3.1.8 ,yam ER TO A f kz�e"x F - 4' § 's„ y; rIK : " BFM DIFIED + E YTj..l f MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Y L�,9 ® � , '�'' y,g e� �^'�`GS.� x �C N ,'�t��:�, � •yb�:,, � y �� ti�Y��K� 's �eA,n, N, BADO SF.NET SITE AREA: 68'&4 STORIES PLUS 3.3.1.8 W I is NOR �� 45'&4 STORIES ROOFUNE VARIATION& I.L.t URI PALM }'.�' `F; ^TW "q"' .A { y TRFF,TTTllllll111111 REMAIN. 'a^ e P '} F y Y' `�y� sr k'1�, �N �` f MECHANICALTOWER Ll £ NEWRErULVriOGX�iDCATIft _E _J;„Y$ #F ,N ,y 4 , .` A �„ - I SEE I r UPPER STORY SETBACK 30'AVERAGE 10 AVERAGE 3.3,1.9 aJ .. ,'m'„`i 9 ,' $t= �k'3" `1 C I , h 3RO.&4TH STORIES r > - x§g f x a ,�, ^#,,,, } �; ,.,� a F �Y4 ��- " ❑ FRONTYARD SETBACK 0'-MA%,5' S'MIN. 3.3.1.30 {�^n � INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK F%IsnxG LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK E UAL TO FRONT SETBACK=5'28' 3.3.1.11 x CORNERSETBACK �. " #,I EKISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN 2$' 4B' 3.3.1.12 O t,1d Cdy La, z ', s e,?,p x �a.4 I` ^� !�' ' 1-� t REAR YARD SETBACK 3' 7.5' 3.3.1.13 EXITNNG PALM _ a� m Y TREE. REMAIN. I I I {,�vt?s •,ram° ,`�k ,� � �_ I � � � "�">�i �„ k�� �� I � � Q OEDI JION UNE % } z,1 G s'� ` ,xe.''� '' '' x y`I I BUILDING AREA SUMMARY EXISTING AREA 89,415 S.F. � f IN-FILL AREA 9,401S.F. ',r NEW BUILDING AREA 27,772 S.F. W ISTING FOUNTAIN TO REMAIN TOTALAREA 126,588 S F. - F%KTNG PALM EF TO \ � ;F � � F� .ir � n,� _ I EMAIN '+' "' t - I-- 1 '1 f f BUILDING FOOTPRINT 54,210 B.F. W n � A . EM91NG NICK PAYING TO 8 REMAIN,WHEREMATCN !STING t" ,,„p yy NEW CONCREfF PAVING OWNER: W WHERE REgUIR TORE a - M mFIEO _ � _ _ _ .'� .' "v ___ ,' "Ty ,I," I f P J3E DAIZHENDT EXISTING CONCRETE AVING EitM I IHAMMOND PATTMNEDTOREM NAND — } `' I LADERA RANCH,CA 92694 BE PROTECTED ,yl:-, I PHONE(949)310.0111 HSSTEMPORARf0DOA �eB A — LEGAL DESCRIPTION; \ WEXISTING PALMRE au - _ N ER S 22,BLOCK 103, Z 0. TEO RELCRETEP PALM TgEE,NP AFL TEO PALM MEE,TYP. I IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, NEW CONCRETE ETEII WYTH S% BUS L MAXSLDPE TR INro EXttnrdO L _______ _ J - - - COUNTY OF ORANGE, ExISTING euS Pao CRETE PAVING STATE OF CALIFORNIA a Q NEW COLORED CONCRETE EXISTING MODIFIED PAVING UNITS,ttP. LOCATED PALM TREE,ttP. FIRELANE ROLLED CURB, Lu b 1'4"HIGH CONCRETE BENCH EWEOFBUIWINEABOVE EL REMAIN FAR ��.NORTX H Z 19 BUS STOP LEVEL WITH EXISTING RELOCATE PALM TREE,ttP, I CURB DEDfCAT10N LINE NEW 1'4"HISH COLORED CONCRETE BENCH,VP. cc XBRII PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY EXISTINGCURB,TOREMAIN 3'-0'WIDE PLANTING STRIP N�TRU�ICN E 5%MAX RETSLOPEE PAVING WOH NEWCONCRETEPAVING I+ON DATE : W-04-12 S%MAX SLOPE 5 I RELOCnDPALMTREE,TYP, NEW RETAIL RIOSK LOCATION SCALE:118'a 409 NO: 11120.00 WIiNPOWERATBENCHTYP. � SHEET NO. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN ' A-0 1 78".1'-0' N1 OLRIIIIB MBI PEXIIBI IIDEHL UPtlIBB IBIOI 001BIIlIIIK M BRgPL NB lR/RBIPYBP BBRF G M PIWIPWT MBI M fM IM NPI■GBIIB11m.IBB)R RNR1P BEIINB M BIKIIR NIB1111 p M EIIBXIbI.ttIRVJIq W46 AgBPIMtq 16 ALL RIME RBMB ew M NOUR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ne ❑ ❑ nEa. MA Sped8li Plo)eOtects I tB 11 Bx 13 BL B3 B6 1) p L L 1980 So.Bundy Or, Fourth Floor EDLE-D Los AAlpelee,CA 90026 T.a16.826,2100 F.310328.0182 Ok O r—� www.nedelarc.com A, REV1810119 O a6 Q D B--it 8-P92 K ❑ O O K Q 0 92 0 O 93 J J )3 o 0 )x o 0 33 ElO 111 PAARING PM ING � ElIW D ax H H 71�gI A, O 110 - F Elmil iI Oux vl A 6B Z LEGEND OiN 313 5 (NIS NEWCOLUMN O 3 F II STAIRI3 M 116 IIS ❑ 6 ❑ ❑ (N(R)IF NEW GR REINFORCED COLUMN ( -j SiOR 1 0 o S6 ST O 59 O O 63 O o ,y 111 ) IU10 UNDER PINNED COLUMN r^ 3 F m EKISTING COLUMN L F a I:o xi9 A 1 1N -- Qs WW W S a O » O T a3 T u❑ 2s T xR T n T xR J :m Elxa to O E E FEGUIRED PARKING.NEW CUP REOLIEBTEL ❑ OFF ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ NI IN FETAL 288 STALLS 60 STALLS W ❑ tsx Ls0 vs 1A6 34A 3n u0 w 13$ 13R 13: w ❑ u8 RAM 182 8TAL1..8 0 136 ° TOTAL PAWJNG REOUIRED 880 STALLS db 19 O�E�l IAT lu 1A3 M3 139 13) 135 133 1 OT ❑ 13 PARKINGCOUNT Ul D AS —� x31U. D PARKING IF/EL STANDARD ACCE951BLE TOtAI !T AA 1) T 16 T SS T 11 I3 ' Ir PE PARKING 139STRU.S ISTALIS 1A32TAI.lS 1 —L _L J O 3 116 ❑ 15 P2PARRING 15DST.. 3 TAUS 1535TAU5 A3 Y PAAgNG B `y_ PUBLIC GNWGE 3005T 3005i N (N(RI C TOTALS fi STALLS t; F- 16 IF COUNT NOTES: 1.THERE ARE 10 EXISTING TANDEM PARKING SPACES ON IMxiu6 v) PARKING LEVEL Pi. O 2.WITH APPROVED VALET PARKING LAYOUT 28 ADDITIONAL ssoA. AS O 39 3e 3) 36 3s O 33 n m xl r T T 1 u CARS CAN BE PARKED ON THE FIRST(Pl)LEVEL AND 36 CARS L v L u —L10 J L J CAN BE PARKED ON THE SECOND{P2}LEVEL FOR A TOTAL OF B B 64 VALET PARKING SPACES. 3. x) 3.THERE ARE 300 SPACES IN THE PUBLIC GARAGE PER THE OPA, 8a� x6 El FOR A TOTAL OF 596 PARKING SPACES, IN N (NI Oa— a d Z IL e FOR NOATX Ate' (a a1 NET 0'v E \�• CL ON 8 9 CSTRUC'(1 DALE s DATE BB-a-Tz SCALE:A aB�O' JOB NO; 11 i20,Ne SHEET N0, P2 PARKING PLAN :D. I A-1 ILL AMM MO RNllp Yensa MNMIKA 3RRBR PPAnniIE M PllAwr.No ARRRRLBAO RAAK p M ABINBOT.No M KM ALx FBI R PI/IIMIm.u®a IBRPoo RmBM M RRT[R PpeoAl PI M IAPIRIIOT.ahlpm IAan NKMOAI/An ILL RaIR RODAO. - - - - - - WALNUT AVENUECm 01mF] 1 I MINING PARION S PARKING L J L__J PAaFWB — — ENTANCE ' vecu � NflDEI __ Architects Inc. sawIS Projects 1990 So.El ;Dr. Fourth I Los Angels" ,CA 90025 0028 T.310.828,2100 F.310,628.0182 EXISTING TRELLIS WVIV/.fNldO�m'W m Yb3/1" TO BE REMOVED RUMORS EoI R08TA ES ::9:.:i: 16:1 W'e I DRS-2- 12 EXISTING COLUMNS LOSO EXISTINGSTOREFRONT f......'.. T T 141LEY TX TORE REMOVED y�J LI EDFNEWSTDREFRONi ""'`iy•"'• ADJACENT BUILDINGS ` I Oki ADING S ACE f.,uj ..::::••::::,•:::::!.:: w W L _ 1 XOUR CORRIDOR ' I z a E Y f l DING .......-I < Z < Z s ACE tC I {, 4 a 0 `OM _ o oU Q i> i ;;;i:S` f— iI EXRSTINOOFFR:ES EXISTING E%I"NOOFFICEE I EXISTING u,• (n RFFUSFD MULTIPLETENANTS MENS MULTIPLE TENANTS {tr COLUMNS 'f T COMMISSARY RECYCLE :i!l{:::i::ii:i.ii!i:•'i:!I Z fi0RA0E AREA ....i•:iiiiiii:i•:"'I SO tS KffLXEN r-�I ?C ....::;. ....+m l U )£)£ OWNERM VERIFY .'.....'�.... ADJACENT U \/ SNOURCORRIDOR t UNF OF BLW. COMPACTOR SIZE I % LINE OF EXISTING t{{ J /\ STOREFRONT TO BE ABOVE I BUILDING BERVIOE ACCESB / \ REMOVED .•........................... LOBBY ..:::.................•.•�•.: NNE Of NEW; I E �.M" STORE FRON r t �ii!7r�iiiiiiiii:•ri:iii.�i•l ;<h`. sA 39'3 A' u ....1X: ........... ............ .................................................. .... r— — XI CHAIN MNK EXISTING B'STFP IN SIAB F SnNG 0 W ........) STORAGE ARFA, .................................. ........... ........ NEWF FSN AIR GRILLON SIDE OF STAIR TO RFAUIM ......... ................... ...........................•....•...... ::::::::E:::':::::::^: ❑ a �::•:.d R ,.S1�Y1x.NxESWKNrR:::::i:t•;;:��i':::::...:::...:::.:::::::.I 11.E PROPOSED ATM MACHINE :,t ::.##OfiATMF•1`b:S�•iE•i•EPiii:iiii4'•.`:ii::ii•:i:i:::iiii::::'::! !iifii,ii�ii:::i,ii:'!:iiii:i'::::.;;: •:::::• �.L 1 I r- •::•:::.�::.�:::��I1 .:..:. .............:.v..:..................... "i•`IEUItLCMtiY41T4tY1NNE3Y5l•TpYWP:11C3::::`::#F'ir•1::: :i..:...:.(i:::: :::..::nY:::::�::: : : ..'.... ..... LINE Di NEW .�:.::::: ....::::.�::::...'. ':StORFFROM . ::::::.:::' :...:�...... s, I EXISTING 90REFROM .... Y::.:. •::. , 1 ".. s'^a':c, wti,� LEGEND 1 1 To DE REMOVED cro- ' , ., 1H -P L_J i I R yWEN ra I 1 I ❑ I NEW BUILDING AREA 8,045 S.F.GROSS) a NEW OPEN LOBBY(4156.F.) z EXEMINGCOLUMNLOCATON AN.TO BE RECIAD WRN M A f 6 U LR U� p 6jtfjF fi"$ IN-FILL AREA(9,067 S.F.) O CEMENTPLASTER ENCLOSURE,TYP. I HE = - -,3 a k1�; ,r,. ,N MAII:poXkEtS; .Lj_,5,Yw1"ISaEVM7pgcOx 76E4 EXISTING OUTDOOR DINING(3025.F.) BEREJ 149SF ARANflLL D MULTIPI TENANTB C IIRF�Cx1Id Y� �S � Iy ��1� S> ❑ I N J �\ 941/1. R9Vt' C.T�,ix.- .,�,".�•u+\'1 oXlS[v: usl �� ` 'H N;.aSrF.'.R7`iA'd•SC,x.Lni P% yl`y�v {.4 M`�I I 1 I NSSTEMPDRARY \ D LINE OF NEW ...'...::.I :.. •-,;OPENSr 1RPfiiNI�`((9FRCE el: q•'fr `Ym' i ❑ 1.;;.;r:;: STOREFRONT E:.:�i::ii.:i 3405f 5 =„-k .9w a� OUTDOOR SALES .......I '.�;�'°�- � �e+T li'i'`i%•'sr.:F-.7 E%IsrINGSTOREFRo I9 �•.,� ,fi�tF n l'y ••II .............. TO REMOVED I':Ei>:�•�:;c;�r': GI ii'".' : [.^ .r ................ .............. m..m.n.,.m .nn n.,.n.n.n,,.,r..n.n., „nn,.,n„n ••t :.:::: :::.:v:...::.............�'..... :::::: v::::::.i_:.;:::.:::.:::::":;:;.'v�.iii:rii i:iiiii�:::i,:h :.::::...... ,. ................... ----- -- ---- E r-1 Bl98MP r—� _—_— _— _— BIC r —— — --- r—1 r_� I I I BUB FRRE y0 RNORTH 0 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONSNOTTRUCTION E $0Na : ' DA,E : 08-0,-12 SCALE:1 16'.1'-O' ND' tT120.00 y BEREBREEREEREEREERI , $NEU NO. FIRST FLOOR PLAN , ,EE-D NL RRree ee eRmeF MTmRN n9rFAre IIBIOI ammM[Ile BKRrM No uNuuee Raa a M NRReM No 1K RIIe KRr lol BF RIeRnRlot,Lw a RIRLAa®RRllFln iM RRRIRFI eXKM a M EAnRIDT.a0Pn9Rlm BEED ARRRReo R6 nA bm RmBm rFF NflDEI Architects Inc. Special Protects 1980$o.Bu4 Dr. a a I .m., Fourth�bor Loa Angeles,CA 90025 T.310.828.2100 F.310.B2:.0182 www.nsdelaro.com 0000000 RE1nsgPs DR, 0a-29-11 DRa-2 Y05-04-12 aaaaaa _ _ aaala as sass n LEGEND LE.� ME a a m ® OPENSPACE 6,067S.F. 9n' OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM Exrc NEW STAIR ggg a a m c) o� PUBLIC TERM6E ■ NEW PUBLC gMCE 111TTT - � 1,412 SF a a ®O UTH— EXISTING OFFICE UNEOFEM NGTERMCE sTOMOE U LL r M L N LL e a L 0H CE 4 W F LL __ Llr Om EXISTING FXR TERMCE/ JL -N i - - I. ADJACENT Z o EXISTING OUTDOOROINING 1' PU6LIO TERRACE { 1 1 /� 1,1S9 sFeSTAURANT §g BUILDING "./1 A W sTAta " G � k w>eRrN� LEGEND b� uAtn�� I'I NEW BUILDING AREA(4,967 S.F.GROSS) t� 6X-1 I �,u��`�xx�. , I 1�� W4'N+' OUMMNWR OROOF 1, �7., �+ V," ® NEW OUTDOOR DINING(2,222 S.F.) LL �.±vi L Mkb 2`i+5',AYifira4 k Y EXISTING OUTDOOR DINING(3,403S.F.) 0 4 3 LL AatADDED TERRACE AREA(669+1412-2,081 S.F.) EX SMO RESTAVMM AESTAURAM �j. > WTVV L L €� I'h '��' ro LLL EXISTING TERRACE AREA(3,986 S.R) � EXISTING EXIT TEAMCE/ LLL = S F{1de EXISTING OUTDOOMNING 4S7SF LL ` u REFAOM WI LU Il DREN IF' L eeww NTG - - - - c 4 Fu NEIG s d LLLL LLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLLL L lI u wINDOw. LU g LLLLLLLLLLLLi,'Ju"90L0�R0L"I�/LI�"i�rLE�`�LL L jl gi II z 00 95'-UI1/2' NORTN V O O T RUCTION E y bj U. SCALE : co S OATE 05-M-12 SCALE:1 i6'mi-0 J08 NO: 11120.00 SHEET NO. SECOND FLOOR PLAN ALL eY10 Mp RRAId W101Y1 II9Nle0 laa OOIYIM[M 011aR Mp 1Renlso 9AIN p M NraElmr rR0 M wt ARr ROT S BIIRAIRIm,uRa CII IIBaOfm RnIDNI M!mq gBlesxl ar M AARYImI.eBlnmin IYi¢RRREImIB NC Na ARMIB Rmem NODR Architects Inc. Special Projects 1990 SO.Bun Dr. Fourth kror _ LDS;Angeles,CA 90025 T,310.826.2100 _ F.310.826.0182 g www.nedelerc.wm BI 8 REVISIONS DE-29-11 DRE-2 Q _ _ 12 OPEN — TO BELOW ZZ B �m U � O m , ®D ' TFRMCE EXISTING MI=RNINE Of i I MEN p 9395E 2E55f EXISTING OFFIC RR NINE h lAN © 6/O S I � f8l _L CORRIDOR L J J L wl ADJACENT ®_ LI EXIS WSLOPEO E —LL MEN + ROOF BELOW + TO BUILDING _L JI OPEN L TO BE4 RODE EI� 6Y -d" NEW CONNECTOR BRIDGE 1 L erww < W L 19'-B' 7V-ID 11. IL 0 L m r _, a EXISTINGTERMCE —L ' i. �" �" LEGEND lz 9395E t 1y ' a$ NEW BUILDING AREA(6,9685.F.GROSS) `L IN-FILLAREA(267S.F.) E%—PS CORRDOR NEW TERRACE AREA(9885.F.) s L L EXISTING OFFICES �, © EXISTING TERRACE AREA(2, .F.) � W. � �7� ��•+# 5815 �• y I ��L REMOVE IEI BTAIR AN OFFICE . tt3Ya5 ,[ h 4��B+F�F#nIS L L L [ISTI `FT MCg LLL LLLL LLu LLLD,l1Q$F LRLLLLLLLL LL LL L +N`.� F1 ,(y qq5�' "yL T7 1-17 's ts,r a A ,"t .1y � G8. w � � Rai uJ A; RECESSED UPLIGNTS IN TERMCE .I SS RAIL SYSTEM O J 95•-1D 1/2' Y. 9:1a = • NOT //5j PR loN �f NORTH M CONSTO E SCAE S DATE 03-04-12 SCALE:1 iB':1'-D" 408 NO. 11120M � SNEEr N0. 6CALE:THIRD FLOOR PLAN A-5, ,e•-,'-o• � Nl rIrY1EY Ma RRRIOI YIIeYL MMMEO MgOI GN.IMr M MiM NO IR/491R—ROIrf p M FI61RI19r A.M pR YRr IIOI.OIIFL[RIP0.l9.M RIrNP®RRI.II M RRRI.l.91OM p M NIRAIP1r.CNRR.IB Ile6 ARN41.19 rR M4 R..Rm11Y - NBDEI Architects Inc. Special Projects 1890 Sl.r.hdy Dr. - Los Angell,CA 90025 T,310.826.2100 F,310.626.0182 — - w—mdelaro,com RE40ONS me ORB-2 Q _ _ 12 EXISTING ROOF Z ®D r I TERRACC TERRACE ST O U U SLOPED R00 Q �J CORRIDOR BELOW "'" n"r ADJACENT >-; W SIAPED ROOF IN BUILDING a MEN BELOW T l0 O W EXISTING ROOF • ,G, W IL JAN $ ^o WOMEN �j ~� �CL LEGEND NEW BUILDING AREA(6,6705.F.GROSS) ® 3, �3��t�"b,„ s IN-FILLAREA(167S.F.) EXSTING CORRIDOR EXISTING TERRACE AREA(1,196S,F.) RC TERRAC 131SF, 99aa f� TA V EXISTING OFFICES ILL(E)NTAIR 6TTNF FL00 TERRACE', -TERSCF — t 1335F i385F W d LINE OF TERWE BFIAW 78'-10' ��'O I/2 s Ili oC p NOT FOR ION �Gf NORTN O O CONSTRUCT E E U. SCALE S DATE os-a-,2 SCALE: R SNEET N0. FOURTH FLOOR PLAN scALE: Aug ML WOIRAB AYB RRRWr IFIIUAY IAPSAIK MAW WMIIIIII[M OIfAW AYB WNBVBBB BOIL 01 M NW010I IIR M 1YIl M MA■BVIWIW IB0 aA NIA®FEII1RIIr M RIIrIAI OWFM G M NIPMAf.WMWA INAL AgAmIB MS MA RWA NBA`A0. NODE[ Archltect6 Inc. Special P1 0 1 ect6 1990 SA,Bundy Dr. Fourth Floor Los Angeles,CA 90026 T,310,826.2100 F.310.826.0182 WWW.nadelarc.aom J RERIISIONS B Da- -11 Q 0R-2 • 0 ®0 6 J ) W ADJACENT IIX I BUILDING O W w a = a° TOP OF SHAM BELOW SCREEN WALL v LEGEND ROOF/MECHANICAL CEMENT PLASTER (d EQUIPMENTAREA SCREEN WALL NEW BUILDING AREA(1,122 S.F.) �y s LOBE,SF OUTDOORDINING(3,924S.F.) 43 Q_3 43 K[D([T '47r-QjD �47147E . ewr000a DINWd. V ,,, 89 wauaeww ¢¢4Q�i605F WINDSCREEN SEE O�, CEMENT PI.A SMEEN WALLTER Mill LA-LIGN W/MULUONS BELOW,WPICAL ALINE OF TERRACE BELOW Ole E9'd1%2" J CL 95'-IBI/i' U. O CD p�R�t10N E oC S SCALE ; DATE 05-04-12 SCALE:I 18^-1-O ,pa NO. 11120M SHEET NO. A_7 ROOF PLAN Au nLwr Nn RMIa wRRrA AFrvaw cool BmnnnE Ra aRe«A r Mnra.m Rm n sa Aawnar Nn Ra efts wr or BE nRlana,uro,a Bsm®wnnur ea wrra mloM a na FSNImc arnwr,wan.Awmmm�na Pre Rnm RmrAm. RI ALUMINUM&GLASS SCREEN WALL WINDOW ASSEMBLY ROOF DECK PEDESTAL PAVER ASSEMBLY METALCOPINR EXISTING CONCRETE TILE ROOF TO REMAIN NEW WALL VIOLINiE0 _ LIGHT FIXTURE NEW CONCRETE TIME ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING REMOVE LOAM CAPITALS REMDVE WOOD TRELLIS SEISMIC l01NT ALUMINUM&GLASS STOREFRONT PATCH AND REPAIR TO MATCH PATCH AND REPAIR PLASTER SCREEN TO MATCH WINDOW BELOW SURFACE BELOW POWDER-COAT ALL ALUMINUMWINDOW SAND FINISH CEMENT PLASTER WALL REMOVE CAPIik TOL AND DOME UGHT SYSTEM,PAINTED SYSTEM TO MATCH EXISTING BUILDING PATCH AND REPAIR TO MATCH WgAM SILVER SURFACE BELOW DOWSER-COATALLA.NANUM WINDOW NODE I, 1 2 4 $.1 6.4 7 6 6.2 B SYSTEM,PAINTED WARM SILVER 1"INSULATED GREY LOW-f GG55 Architects Inc. Special Protects EXTf0.100.CEMENT FASTER I ( ' Co SO.S.,, DT, WALL ASSEMBLY A.B FDA; oor )� eVININGe Lea A &,CA 90025 REMOVE ISTryG PLARTE I T. 10.820.2100 DRIP SCREED PATCH AlD RE AIR PLASTER F.310.626.0182 E%IS�ING IGHI�TO BE ROOF DEDK ALUMINUMSTOREFRONT REIA RB EO,JT'P. E60001310 INWIN•nedlR-com ASSEMBLY i REVIBIONB OB-P9-I1 i ORB-2 05-04-12 GLASS SCREEN WALL ' n6D j aµ•-r-D• 4 _, RI T - 6BBD STAINLESS STEEL CAPza 1 �B � n%IRIRoi D RRM%'R�LrI:, � YBO i TILE DECK {"TEMPERED GLASS RAILNG DECK DRAIN 4"HT.STAINLESS STEEL BASE PAINTEXISTING STEEL CANOPY 77L0 SUPPORTS,WARM SILVER COLOR NEW GLASS AND ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLA55 RAILING,SEE 3/A-8,SIM. SYSTEM,WARM SILVER COLOR EXIST ING.."SYSTEMITO GIA55 ANDAWMINUM REMAIN NEW WALL MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE STOREFRONT,WARM SILVER C0100. EXISTING GLASS BLOCK ACCENT COLOR IN SLOT EXISTING MARBLE&lSF TO REMAIN STORE FRONT 0000. ALL SONAGE SHOWN IS FOR ILLUSTRATION WRPOSESOCATIONI ALLBIJ TVPIGL 16 REMOVE TILE AND FOAM CAPITOL NOTE:FR NT ALL EXISTING SIGNAGE LOCATIONS.ULABUILDING R REPAIR WITH PIASTER BO%TYP. STOREFRONT WASILVER SIGNXGE A PLAHEI UNDER EXISTING TILE TO REMAIN TO MATCH NEW TNEPROVIS ION OF TO Z { PROGRAM SUBJECT TO SEPARATE m S REVIEWS/APPROVAL BY THE CITY. Q q EXISMW WILDING X W UILDING , ®j EXTERIOR CEMENT FASTER WALLASSEMBLYJj ®� DRIP—REED scALE: SOUTH ELEVATION SeG.'A_L,E'D. 2 U U GLASS RAILING DETAIL , ._D. 3 �W EXISTING ROOF IN DISTANCE o�a ALUMINUM&GLASS STOREFRONT SCREEN TO MATCH WINDOW BELOW T Q SAND FINISH CEMENTPV3TER NEWCONCIR TILERODFELEVATOR lS•^, W MECHANICAL SCREEN WALL ENCLOSURE.BEYOND SAND FINISH CEMENT PASTER POWDER{OAT ALL ALUMINUM WINDOW WALL SYSTEM TO MATCH SYSTEM,PAINTED WARM SILVER EXISTING BUILDING SRVEFOGLORRD pW MINUM 6 B C OO WINWSYSTEM,WARM 7 7 T T T T r'INsuuTED GREY LOW-f GLASS M OVEFOAMGDITALF I O S AND TILE PATCH A I TO MSITING SLOPED ttTCH SURFACECE BELOW, DIG L DEG[aw TILE ROOF RSDD •0"•flN.EDGE DV3TER •0" X -!B" •D" SB w" -SB w I I -mow a M FLOOR IS GLASS RAILING .WI /ZIIP� L"INSVIATEp GREY LOW NEW SLOPED TILE ROOF TO EXIT DOOR,PAINT WARM SILVER e FUSS MNEL MATCH EXISTING COLUMN BEHIND F STOREFRONT NEW G V3S CORRIDOR NEW TILE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING, G LASS AND ALUMINUM EAK LUAU MOU 4 STOREFRONT,WARM SILVER RECESSED CEMENT PLASTER PANEL NEW WALL MOUNTED WHTfI%ttIRE NOTE: EXIT STAIR BEHIND DEPENDING ON TENANTS,ADDITIONAL NEWSTOREFRONTSYSTfM, W STOREFRONT ODORS,SLIDING DOORS,M.MAY BE WARM SILVER COLOR ADDED INTO STOREFRONT T GLA85pNOpLUMINUM EXIT • PAFOR INTALLEXISTING STOREFRONTWARM COGIL WARM SILVER SILVER TO MATCH NEW C N�RUCtION Lu ALL SIGNAGE SHOWN IS 1CA ILLUSTRATION SCALE PURPOSES ONLY,TO INOIGTETYPXAI NE BMLOING NFW IXFlLLTFMAOAND T AEfAON AKTOIX DNG BUILDING f105RND BURDMG SIGNAGELOCATIONS.ALLBUILDING DATE 05-04-12 SIGNAGE WILL BE REGULATED UNDER SCALE:1 18•v 1'-0" THE PROVISION OF A PLANNED SIGN GOB NO. 11120A0 PROGRAM SUBJECT TO SEPARATE REVIEWS/APPROVALBYTHECITY. B SHEET ND. EAST ELEVATION Sr�LE' A-8 1 1 e•-r-D• Au NYBIIIRB Ns Ronal NDDNL APRMM mDml mxBnnm RIK aRRNA ao 1RFLORIO Rao a al[ARPxrta Ns To rr KAI Iql■RunIBR1m,m a RsoKw KnxoM nB RIM1p Fort ar To fRBFIrDI.DaPoom Non ARNRooB RL AA-- F I: MC NFWBUIWNG BEYOND i EXISTING CONCRETETILE ROOF PATCH A FMMGPITOL TO REMAIN SURFACE AND REPAIR TO MATCH SURFACE BELOW REMOVE GDITOL AND DOME UGXT El PAT[XAND REPAIRTOMATCHSURFACE BELOW.3 6 NOD s PROPOSED LIGXT 02 T FOR ATM A'O'RoE,�' I NGTING AWNING SpecialProjeOR TYI ATNAD REPAIRPIASTER SO.aVFlf)y EMOVEOOD TRELLLS FOUTDI ATH AD REPAIR PIASTER Los Angeles,CA 80028 EFEN'TYP. LwHTT.MOZ310 828.2782PROPOSED ATM �� N IYP. WWW."deMo com I REMOVE CAPITOL PATCHANDREDA RTOMATCH SURFACE BELOW —22-11 DRe—E— EXISTING CANOPY SYSTEM ELEVATION AT ATM 2A '� METAL WARM IANRP SILVER COLOR RT r, t ETAIW MS SCALE: Q M i RELOCATED PALMTREE I J �) 7717) 6@ 77 NEW BENCH BEYOND Naa EXISTING CURB BEYOND rl y{ 1 y RBSBP'E y INFILL PANEL FOR ATM TO NEW GLASS AND ALUMINUM STORFRONT SYSTEM, MATCH STOREFRONT SYSTEM WARM SILVE0.COlOPj� BIISSTDD UNEOFADJACENT.11-DING PROPOSED ATM,SEE GAF NEWWALLMOUNTUGHTFIXTURE NEW BUS BENCH ON MAIN STREET NEW ELEVATOR ACCESS EXISTING CANOPY SYSTEM TO REMAIN $LOPED WALKWAY NEW/REBVILTSTAIP OWNED TO VERIFY EXISTING BOLLARDS TO REFRAIN REMOVETILE AND FOAM CAPITOL U l REPAIRWITHPLASTERBO%TYP. NO :PAINT ALLE%ISTING Z A EXISTING GAS LINES TO REMAIN ST RFFICH"WARM SILVER p CO OR TO MATCH NEW ALL 5IGNAGE SHOWN IS FOR ILLUSTRATION m S PURPOSES ONLY,TO INDICATE TYPICAL + z p ppp EXISII BUILDING RENY INFILISTORENPONT WORK TO EXISTING BMIDRNG HEN SIGN AGELOCATIONS.ALLBUILDING Q p SIGNAGE WILL BE REGULATED UNDER uSl THE PROVISION OF A PIANNEO SIGN U PROGRAM SUBJECT TO SEPARATE REVIEWS APPROVAL BY THE CITY. � tltltl O I +0 ' WEST ELEVATION ;:E`D. 2 U U J �IJ to F NEWBURMNGBEYOND O O.I 4 ° NEW CEMENT PIASTER FB/ MECXANIGU SCREEN WALL (EI CONCERETILE ROOF TO REMAIN B. POWONUM AT WIND Li NEWS WALL TO I I AWMiNUM WINDOW PlASTEA WALL MTEM,TO SYSTEM,PAINTED MAICN EXISTING I i WARM SILVER i REMOVE FOAM CAPITALS PATCH AND POWDER{ATEDALL REPAIR TO MATCH SURFACE BELOW ALUMINUM WINDOW (f)MFOHANIGLL --- (E)CONCRETE TILE ROOF lO REMAIN 1.INSULATED GREY LOW-E ; SCREEN TO REMAIN (E)LIGHT FIXTURE TO BE REFURBISHED,TYD. yn py Z �swumW"•FIN.FACE OF PLSTfE TM ui 89 w Rom ez I 60® w ., Id WINDOW sYstt+ t w. r LTY k I I , Sa t 9 � tr � 10 REMAIN tYPifgt � 4 f! i R J g wB y NEWPA GLASS SA DVE0.UMINUMSTOREFpONT SYSTEM yII Z� i�LFI IEISTOPEFRONTSYSTEMTOREMAIN,TYP LINE OF PARTY WALL •�I / O ATAOMCENTSUILOING NEW WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE JDOORATLOADINGAREA NEW STAIR BEYOND I ALL SIGNAGE SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATION NEW TRASH GATE PURPOSES ONLY,TO INDICATE TYPICAL (E)PEDESTRIAN WAY ACCESS TO REMAIN SGNAGE LOCATIONS.ALL SUIWING F (E)AUTO ENTRY TO REMAIN.REMOVE METAL LEI BOLLARDS ATGAS ONES TO REMAIN SIGNAGE WILL PE REGULATED UNDER TREWS WORK,PATCH AND REPAIR PUNTER THE PROVISION OF A PUNNED SIGN W :PAINT—EXISTING PROGRAM SUBJECT TO SEPARATE (El SITE RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN (El AUTOMOBILE EXIT STOREFRONTWARMSILWACOWR REVIEWS/APPROVALBYTHECITY. z NEW INFILL510REFROM EXGTLu NGBUIIDING c NOTR��TION SCALE DATE cs— —12 SCALE:t 16"-l'—O" JOB NO, 11120.00 SHEET ND. NORTH ELEVATION 'D. A-9 ILL RL'BIR1 MD PBIIW INlOVA AFPMI0I1 MADI ORNIIIYI[RR OIIIIIIY.ND 11IlBIMm RBRI BI M MBMfOT MA M BNRt 1M'NW■RIRIMIm,I.BtD A Rtl0®RTWI M BIBIIM 0o1P011 p 1M[MWRWI.MIAYRI MYML YAGIIMIt FIE.RLL ROBB RYBRQB CONCRETE TILE TO MATCH EXISTING 6k XIFGHT OF EXISTING TOWER TOP OF SAND FINISH CEMENT PIA-TER N A D E L MECHANICAL SCREEN WALL BEYOND ALUMINUM S GUSS STOREFRONT F.5 D.3 B6 SCRE.T.MATCH WIND.W.E.w SpArchedaftect ecte G2 1990 SG.Bundyy Dr. Faurtn 0025 i Los Angeles,CA 90025 PowoEP-COAT Pu T.310.625.2100 ALUMINUM WINDOW F.310.628.010 n n I I SVSIEM,PAINT WARM Y Y SILVER WYF.310.82 01 n REMIONS REMOVECAPROL i E6N _ +I wm- "AT"'ANO REPAIR TO MATCH 08-29-11 9S I —F I I SURFACE LOw DRB-2 mm 4M j ----- -- nor - - RELOCATED PAM TREE 77 GLASSRAIL I6B8 NEW BENCH _ NEW PLANTER 'i _ r � I EXISTING CVRR PAINTEDACCENTWALL Iwo aw LINE OF ADJACENT BUILDING EIFVATOR DOOR- CiI. ON MAIN STREET NOTE:PAINT ALL EXSTING z STOREFRONT WARM SF VER TO MATCH NEW ®N WEST SECTION/ELEVATION SCE' 2 0 " " U J W �eF oa � °' NEW CEMENT PLASTER MECHANICAL SCREEN WALL CONCRETERILEROOFTOMACTX E%I-11NG NEW SAND FINISH CEMENT I HIEGXT OFIE%1511NG TOWFR I IE�CONCRETF TIE ROOF TO REMAIN L i RS PLASTER WALL SYSTEM,PAINT i r 4L TO MATCH EXISTING NEW-pNDIFINISH CEMENT PLASTER WEAL SYSTEM REMOVE FOAM CAPITALS PATCH AND POWDER-COAT ALL II-- REPAIR TO MATCH SURFACE BELOW _ ALUMINUM WINDOW MTFM, I /z4i� PAINTWARMSILVEPNEW SAN FINISHCEMENT PIASTER (EI MECHANKPl AEICONCRETETILEROOFTO REMAIN WALLSY$ M SCREEN TO REMAIr; 1°INSULATED GREY POALLSY TALL ALUMINUM LOSV-E GLASS WINDOWS EM,PAINTED WARM OZ NEWmNoesTETreTGMpCfltixTgTRNCptNBwDDRawaR „�... I u,Nam 8 ' MpWSfAOpFCgONT4YNM`40RP1@Ok Y & I Lu �QQ gLVEAI.Iy KeMENTPLAPT9g6YSFEN, t u W IBBB' _ OeENTO MNBYekWONB I v I ear wm uj LINE OF E.-NO STOREFRONT �' O NEW GLASS AND ALUMINUM STOREFRONT, WARM-JIVER IBBBBI NOTE:PAINT ALL EXISTING CC a JEi SITE RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN STOREFRONTWARM SILVER TO MATCH NEW Z W C NOTRLjCTION W WALE DATE 06-0*-12 SCALE c to"=1'0' VOS NO 1112110w R. �. SHEEF No. NORTH SECTION/ELEVATION 5CA`� A_10 M1 BIURBIRR LAMB RRRTp MDBY.NY4MR XDYI NNIRUI[M BRIiM Ae11Me{pm PRe e/M AltlbIIIQT Ile M VI[11LY IIBT C GR41811m.�M BONWDI B111DIR M MRq WeR11 p M NIGRRr.M'1110TIR Wl0 RNRIF818110.ML RRNp IeeD1Ym a Y r p TO:J SITE PHOTO K SITE PHOTO:L SITE PHOTO:E PHOTO i NRDEI iT.310.0261 ITE PHOTO:L aE, I II � i .. ' Sa PHOWDv� i ..II L� ; . ®lit + ,t ` �� Z .a, l � WM PHOTO sr �I �i■� _.���� ��1,1,��ails'',. • , -71 � --------- Fab .- Lrrll� �PHOTO. z �I •ILs;6. hid iIG _ • iii • �i1P11�rR'��I _ CA 1L�11 ._III cc uj EL LI R 1' • • Lu NOTFOg ICTION -, STRU PHOTOSITE LOCATIONS �0 NRDR Architects Inc. Special Pro)ects teen so.B-mt or. Fourth Floor Los An9elae,CA 90025 T.310.828.2100 F.310.826.0182 w mcfelamoom PEVISIONS DFB -11 Q DP U Z •j — $ .I .z •oa � Q N W 0 w w a = O O a z � 3 W NOT FOR ION C9 5 GON5TRUCT SCALE : DATE 0544.12 Joe NO: 11120.00 SNEEr NO VIEW FROM PCH AND MAIN A-12 .i w.wr rn w�mrx�w o.r..e xmN mxmmm,�.a�w.ro u.�w.wo.o.M e<,w WTm.e M w+.w wn.ouFb,N.WY A nebaY4.nnrt,».pTx aaYM,n,w mn�nom woF xc�n,..n ui Imn....,.> NRDEI Architects Inc. Special Projects 1880 So.aun%Dr, Foor Los Angeles,.CA CA 80028 T.310.826.2100 F.310.826.0182 ----. w .nadelamcw -" — REASMS — ORB RB 9-11 05-04-12 i Z ®U) ®0 U , TEIIP-- �I mil IIIJ Lito z1o0 a $ � w a5 C7 Z CO) � 3 GW e C NOTRF0 TIoN > �E DATE 054413 JOB NO: 11120.00 SHEET NO. SCALE: A-13 VIEW OF MAIN ENTRY N s x�oxxnxl/Mo x�mix WllleY xlwlxlxl xrVY ICNnMI M MfM4.VM 1A1RM WN xLN1 aF M MWnC1 Yn M tYM xw NO'M RVICVRI.YVD M NA0V11 Y111nrt M wpI1M m—f M M YpI11Cr CeIAxM�XYII MCMienl xn.•i R1T1n�. NflDEL Architects Inc. Special Protects 18908E BuR Los MBaes,CA 80028 T.310.826.2100 F.310.826.0182 ,amlamo m REVISIONS ORS D11 0 z . - �z - oa 0a _ o — V a 89 �c d g ---- y CA OT F tON a SCALE DATE 05-0413 JOB NO: 11120.00 SHEET NO. SCALE: VIEW FROM PCH A-14 I,tS � NOR[ Special Pr�ects 1Bg0 Bo.Bundy Dr, Fourth Floor Los Angeles,CA 90026 T.31OA20.2100 F.310.826.0182 wwwmRdelerOcan REVIS&S ORB _t R ®a � a Q J N W O w W L W �gg e 3 W GNpTF 7R 710N co > SCALE JC DATE 0544-12 JOB NO: 11120.00 SHEET NO. VIEW FROM PIER 5 A-15 .i awa wo rmm wmx rrMrr xrrR mrimm.r uow,we urwxrw waxi a nr.>,vmmr wn ns w Yr xor r aunlnnn ure d esnoeu.mrt nn wmrx aMONr r+w xrem.Rsnrr,rnn wmrn•e.t saxn rrm. , i Olu SOUTH ELEVATION it LLI IL Lu CAI LLI r 4 .... ..�����■■�����+ :::: .j..:a:: �■ ■�-...I:e,-• • :fie: �.:.:I::•E ee °''j w .. • Nluirhrr i W du _. EAST ELEVATION o� i f I I , , f 6 2 , f y4 J , 8 9 e �i R I F :{� I � 1 I i , r , � 8 i � - I i 1 FFM FF F p ZO m m # < m 3 3 D z Z D a 4 p COLORED "° DC>L> 5 . .. . NORTH/ WEST PIERSIDE PAVILION THEORY) CONSTRUCTION INC i ELEVATION 300 PACIFlC COAST HCi1WAY PROPERTIES LLC x; s KNTNGTON BEACH,CALFORNA