Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File 4 of 5 - Pierside Pavillion Reconstruction - 300 Pacifi
Exhibit U STATE OF CALIFORNIA--THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, (iouemor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FREMONT STREET,SUITE 2000 FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 W3 MEMO May 3,2004 TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons FROM: Peter Douglas,Executive Director RE: Protecting Views from the Ocean Under the Coastal Act INTRODUCTION: The Commission has asked for a summary review and discussion of actions protective of scenic coastal resources and specifically the protection of views from the ocean to the land. The protection of scenic values along the California coast, together with public access, is a principal driver underlying continuing strong public support for effective coastal management.' The premiere objective of the California Coastal Plan called for in the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Proposition 20—a citizen's initiative) was: The maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of the overall quality of the coastal zone environment, including, but not limited to, its amenities and aesthetic values."2 The "coastal zone"was defined in the initiative as extended from three miles at sea inland to a specifically delineated boundary. The California Coastal Act of 1976 made permanent the Coastal Commission and established the conservation and use policies guiding planning and regulation of land and water areas in the new coastal zone established by that law. Specifically, relative to the protection of scenic values, the Act provides 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. [emphasis added] to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually ' See Public Policy Institute of California Statewide Survey: Special Survey of Californians and the Environment,November 2003 (this survey focused on public attitudes toward and support for coastal protection) 2 Section 27302(a)Public Resources Code(repealed January 1, 1977 and replaced by the Coastal Act). Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page 2 compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas....3 Section 30009 PRC requires that "[The Coastal Act]shall be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives. " The Coastal Commission has implemented scenic resource protection policies primarily by focusing on land-based scenic views from public parks, trails, roads and vista points. Over the years however, and in recognition of changing recreational use patterns and input from the boating community, the Commission began calling for protection of landscape views from state ocean waters (3 miles) in rural areas of the coast that are essentially devoid of development as well as other areas having unique landforms even in built environments. This position takes into account the fact that boating is and will continue to be an increasingly important form of coastal recreation that is also called out for protection in the Coastal Act. (See section 30224 PRC.) The conceptual basis for this position is quite simple: Like scenic vistas from upland public places, the enjoyment of uncluttered views from the ocean to and along California's magnificent coastline is a public resource and aesthetic value of importance to substantial numbers of current and future coastal users. It is an important public interest—a coastal resource worthy of protection. Protecting views from the ocean: While the primary focus of the Commission's application of the scenic resource protection policies of the Coastal Act has been from the edge of the sea along the coast and inland, as well as other vistas in the coastal zone, views from the ocean to the land have also been taken into account. Viewsheds include views from a particular place on land to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas as well as from the ocean toward the land and along scenic coastal areas. Generally, viewsheds from the ocean toward land that have been considered important enough to warrant protection through siting, design, landscaping and other measures have most often included geographic reaches of coast that are rural in character and relatively unaltered by human activity. However, in some unique situations scenic values as enjoyed from coastal waters have also been taken into consideration and protected in urban areas such as Marina Del Rey and Point Loma in San Diego. The protection of scenic values in unique geographic places on the planet is receiving increased attention from government as population grows and tourism becomes a greater part of national and local economies. Because increasing numbers of people enjoy scenic vistas from places on or in the water(i.e., coastal ocean waters, seas, lakes, rivers, great ponds,estuaries, etc.), protecting such public values and resources has become a recognized and legitimate land and water use planning and regulation objective. A recent court decision upholding rules designed to protect views from the waters of lake Tahoe 3 Section 30251 PRC. Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page 3 illustrates the recognition of the importance of such vistas as scenic resources worthy of protection. Another example is the state of Maine,which last year amended its coastal management program to include specific scenic resource protection policies including protection of views from bodies of water toward land.S Recreational boating and other recreational water uses (i.e.,paddle sports, surfing, diving) along the California coast are becoming more popular as population increases and interest in and opportunities for such outdoor recreation correspondingly increase. Sailing, motor boating, sea kayaking and sport fishing all involve uses of the coastline where the quality of the recreational experience is affected by aesthetics involving the nature and character of views from the water toward the land. (This summary report is not intended to explore the intangible elements of scenic values and the human psyche important to the perception of aesthetic quality of coastal recreational experiences.) Given the way the Coastal Act has been implemented over time,planning and regulatory decisions relative to the protection of coastal scenic resources are made on a case-by-case basis. This approach allows the Commission and local governments carrying out local coastal programs to be adaptive as public needs, information and circumstances change. This flexibility is a hallmark of California's coastal management program. Additionally, if the Commission adopts a categorical or mandatory policy of general application on the subject it would need to go through the rule-making process and review by the Office of Administrative Law resulting in the adoption of inflexible regulations. Examples of prior actions: Los Angeles County LCP for Santa Catalina Island (1983): This LCP, approved twenty years ago, contains several policies specifically calling for the protection of views from the water toward the land. (L,UP certified in 1983. LCP ordinances certified with modifications in 1989.) CDP 6-94-159: City of San Diego,Metropolitan Wastewater Department. This project was for the construction of a new 7,030 square foot pump station. Potential adverse scenic impacts for boaters using offshore waters were addressed through landscaping and design conditions. CDP 6-95-103: City of San Diego,Metropolitan Wastewater Department. The project included a new control building, digester tanks, holding tank,retaining walls, and landscape berming. Because the project would impact offshore views, special conditions relating to landscaping and color treatment were imposed by the Commission. 4 The Committee for Reasonable Regulation of Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,U.S. District Court for Nevada (March 29,2004). 5 See Attachment A Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page 4 Marina del Rey Land Use Plan (County of Los Angeles, February 8, 1996): In approving this land use plan portion of the County's LCP,the following policy was adopted: Main Channel View Corridor. To preserve views of the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains from the main channel, [emphasis added] no structure over 40 feet in height shall be constructed on the eastern-most 300 feet of parcel 125, or on parcels 129, 130, 131, and the panhandle portion ofparcel 132, or along Admiralty Park(parcels RR and SS).) CDP 6-96-45: City of San Diego,Metropolitan Wastewater Department. This project involved construction of shoreline protection (rock revetment), bluff-face stabilization work, and new parking facilities. Offshore visual impacts were addressed through project design features and special conditions. CDP Appeal: A-2-Mar-02-024 (Hansen and Brubaker). Although the project was withdrawn after the Commission's staff report was published and the Commission never had the opportunity to act on this appeal, a major issue in the staff report dealt with the adverse visual impacts the project would have on views both from nearby public parklands as well as from the waters of Tomales Bay. Public opposition also focused on these impacts, as did that of the National Park Service and State Parks. The proposed project was for a one story, 23-foot high, 3,113-square-foot single family residence, 336-square-foot detached guest house, 937-square-foot detached garage and a garden storage building and 26.5-foot high, 1,920-square-foot detached barn/equipment storage building on a 207 acre parcel. The Commission received two appeals of the County's approval of the proposed development contending, among other issues, that the approved development is inconsistent with local coastal plan visual resource protection policies because it is sited in a visually prominent location on the parcel, is not compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment, and obstructs significant views as seen from public viewing places, including the waters of Tomales Bay. The staff recommended denial because of the project's adverse impacts on scenic resources and recommended that the project be redesigned and the structures resited in a less visually prominent location of the property. After the staff report was published,the applicant dropped the project. CDP Appeal: A-3-SLO-99-014 and A-3-SLO-99-032 (Morro Bay Limited,a.k.a. Sea-West Ranch). This project involved lot reconfiguration and the development of 8 large residential structures on 746 acres of agricultural land on the rural relatively undeveloped Harmony coast in San Lois Obispo County. (See description relative to the Schneider appeal below.) The Commission approved the project, requiring resiting and Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page 5 redesign to protect scenic resources, including views from state waters (from shoreline to 3 miles offshore). The adopted summary findings supporting the Commission's action included the following: All future development will need to comply with siting and design criteria to protect views from public viewing areas, including state waters. Specifically, development must be designed to blend in with and be subordinate to the natural landscape, including limiting height and vertical features above ridgelines; using earthtones and non-reflective materials; and limiting exterior lighting(see Condition 3i for more detail). CDP Appeal: A-3-SLO-00-040 (Schneider). The proposed project application on 40.6 acres of the seaward facing coastal terrace of the rural Harmony coast was for a 10,000 square foot single-family residence, a 2,500 square foot barn and improvement of a 1.25 mile access road. The adopted report describes the area and issue relative to scenic resource protection as follows: ...The Harmony coastline is characterized by wind swept hills and wide coastal terraces dropping off dramatically to the rocky shores of the Pacific Ocean below. Because the surrounding Harmony coast area is substantially undeveloped rural open space, any development in this area poses the potential for adverse impacts in terms of protecting the areas valuable scenic qualities. There is no question that the current development proposal would significantly impact the scenic quality of the rural Harmony coast. ...[TJhe proposed development would be located on the flat undeveloped marine terrace typical of this stretch of coastline. The potential for similar proposals immediately to the north and south of the project site raises concerns about the cumulative impacts of development and its associated landscaping and landform alteration on the coastal terrace. The limited developments that can be seen in this general area (Abalone Farm and Williams residence)provide evidence of the visual impacts that can result from inappropriately designed development in this sensitive area. Moreover, given the scenic nature of this stretch of coast, it is that much more important to limit any additional development that would break up the expansive views of the grassy marine terraces and coastal hills and incrementally degrade the rural agrarian character of the Harmony coast. Thus, the greatest possible effort must be made to safeguard this area from the intrusion of unsightly new development. The project poses adverse impacts to visual and scenic resources through development of a 1.25-mile access road, a 2,500 square foot barn, and 10,000 square foot residence on the undeveloped coastal terrace and hillsides of the Harmony coast. These developments are visible, depending on the viewpoint, from public viewing areas. The access road is visible from Highway One, Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page 6 offshore areas, [emphasis added]and from other inland vantage points. The large residence and barn are visible from coastal waters[emphasis added]and inland vantage points upcoast from the project site,particularly the 746-acre Sea West Ranch recently purchased by the American Land Conservancy for resource conservation and public open space. Policy 2 for Visual and Scenic Resources addresses site selection for new development. The policy serves to protect the unique qualities of scenic areas and prohibits the siting of development, where possible, in areas visible from public view corridors. In addition to the scenic views from Highway One and other inland areas, Policy 2 protects views from near-shore waters. In other words, the views of fishers, boaters, kayakers, surfers, et cetera who may be present at different times in the water should also be considered. [emphasis added]Because of the sheer cliff edge and the relatively flat marine terrace, the proposed development(i.e. residence, lounge, barn, access road improvements, water tanks, etc) would be highly visible,particularly from near-shore waters. [emphasis added] The windswept ridges and flat marine terrace area is covered with dry grasslands and some maritime chaparral at higher elevations, limiting the amount of natural screening available to shield the development from public view .... As described, the project also includes improvements to a dirt jeep trail that traverses three other parcels extending from Highway One over the coastal range to the marine terrace site. The road generally follows the route of the existing dirt jeep trail, however a portion of it deviates from the route in high hazard and sensitive resource areas. The County approval includes a variance because the access road will require grading on slopes greater than 30 percent. The existing dirt,jeep trail in this area would be widened and paved, as CDF requires roads to be paved that have a slope greater than 12%. Travelers in both directions on Highway One will see the paved road as it ascends the inland side of the coastal range to the top of the ridgeline. As evidenced in visual simulations, the large cutslopes necessary to support a road on the steep hillside will also be highly visible from the ocean. [emphasis added]. ... Following concerns raised by the Commission with respect to site selection, a series of visual resource studies were conducted to evaluate the project impacts of the residence and barn on public view corridors.6 A number of alternative building sites were evaluated on both the ridgetop and the marine terrace. A variety of different public viewpoints were evaluated. At all ridgetop locations evaluated, the residence and barn silhouetted against the skyline in clear view from major public viewing areas,particularly along Highway One. Based on the visual simulations, it was concluded that the marine terrace portion of the 6 Visual Analysis(Cannon Associates,October 2000 and May 2003)and(Sheppard Mulllin,August 2002). Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page 7 property was the least visible portion of the property. Thus, in terms of site selection, the Commission can concur that the location of the homesite on the general marine terrace area is preferred. However, as required by Policy 4 for Visual and Scenic Resources, "new development shall be sited to minimize its visibility from public view corridors" and the structures in that area "shall be designed to be subordinate to, and blend with, the rural character of the area. " In addition, Policy 1 for Visual and Scenic Resources requires that the scenic rural landscape of the Harmony coast be preserved and protected. Policy 4 also allows for the use of native vegetative screening to shield development so long as it does not obstruct major public views, but only after all efforts have been exhausted to site the development outside of public view corridors (includingviews iews from o shore). ... [emphasis added] There is no question that Visual and Scenic Resource Policy 4 of the LCP sets a high standard for protection of the extreme sensitivity of the Harmony Coast. The controlling objective of Policy 4 is to design new structures as to be subordinate to and blend with the rural character of the landscape. There are at least two general themes to test for consistency in this case: 1) compatibility with the surrounding built environment, namely the immediately surrounding large agricultural parcels with farm buildings and individual residences; and 2) compatibility with the overall open space environs of the larger Harmony coast area. Consistency with the character of the built environment can be evaluated primarily on architectural style and overall mass/scale. In terms of architectural style, although it might be argued that the modern residential style of the Schneider project is quite architecturally interesting, it could not be said to be similar to the existing character of development in the area. The Schneider project has angular corners, large paned glass windows, an indoor swimming pool, spiral stairs leading to rooftop viewing areas, and pyramid like skylights that would be unlike any other farm buildings or residences in the immediate area. Moreover, the proposed Schneider house would be substantially larger; at least twice or three times the square footage of the largest neighboring home. As such, its large overall square footage raises an issue in terms of compatibility with the surrounding built environment. In fact, the proposed structure would be one of the largest, if not the largest, residence on the entire San Luis Obispo County coastline. In terms of compatibility with the larger rural agricultural Harmony coast, such large residential development is distinctly counter to the character of this greater area. While a limited number of residences have been developed on the terrace well to the north of this area, this particular stretch of the Harmony coast Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page 8 surrounding China Harbor and Point Estero is largely undeveloped. From offshore, the downcoast commercial abalone farm is clearly visible. As shown in the applicant's visual resource analysis, a mix of machinery, discharge pipes, growing pens, outbuildings, equipment and roads visually mar the marine terrace area to the detriment of the rural coastal aesthetic (See Exhibit 4). The presence of this unsightly development provides a reference point for understanding how the construction of buildings along the Harmony blufftop can change the rural open space character of this stretch of coastline. In order to find the project consistent with the LCP's visual and scenic resource protection policies, the project must be modified. Every reasonable effort must be made to assure that new development in this area is truly subordinate to, and blends with the rural landscape. In light of the extreme visual sensitivity of the Harmony coast, the Commission finds that the residence must be relocated and reduced in size and scale to meet the high standards of the LCP (see Special Condition 2). Special Condition 2 will help address multiple issues at once. First, it will reduce the length of the improved access road/driveway by around 1,100 feet, thereby minimizing the amount of cut and fill on the visible hillside.... Second, it will reduce the amount of ground disturbance by at least 20,000 square feet. Third, it will reduce the scale and mass of the residential structure to that more nearly approximating an agricultural residence. Fourth, eliminating the barn (which serves no agricultural function)from the project will help reduce the visual impacts of multiple structures loosely arranged along the marine terrace. Finally, Special Condition 2 limits the height of the residence to a maximum of 12 feet as measured from average natural grade to reduce the visible profile of the residence. Building materials must be non-reflective and use only earth-toned colors. No exterior lighting is allowed other than the minimum mount necessary for pedestrian and vehicular safety. The LCP requires that landform alteration be minimized; however; it does allow such alteration if done in a way to blend with adjacent natural terrain (Visual Policy 5). Siting and design options that rely on natural looking berms, rather than vegetative screening alone best meet the intent of the LCP Visual Resource policies for this particular portion of the Harmony coast. Thus, Special Condition 2()9 requires the Applicant to install a low berm (ranging from two to three feet in height) directly adjacent to the residence. The berm shall be vegetated with low stature native grasses and fortis to mimic the surrounding landscape. This requirement, combined with the reduction in structural height, will reduce the visibility of the residence within the viewshed to roughly 10 feet above the top of the berm. Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page 9 As proposed, the project does not meet the visual and scenic resource protection standards of the LCP because additional measures can be taken to make the development subordinate to, and blend with, the rural character of the area. The conditions of approval bring the proposed project into compliance with these LCP policies and recognize the need to protect the rural open space landscape of the Harmony coast.... Periodic Review of Monterey County's LCP (Big Sur) (March 2004): The Coastal Act requires periodic review by the Commission of previously certified LCPs to ensure they are being carried out in a manner consistent with contemporary public needs taking into account changed circumstances and new information. Notwithstanding requirements of law, due to lack of resources and the absence of meaningful measures in the Coastal Act to ensure implementation of recommended changes to an LCP that derives from such review,the Commission has only undertaken five periodic reviews (dozens are past due for review). Although the staff completed a preliminary review of Monterey County's LCP,this review has not been acted on by the Commission. The staff report,presented to the Commission at its March meeting in Monterey, generated considerable public testimony—much of it focused on the recommended policy modifications calling for the protection of scenic resources viewed from the ocean. The following is a summary of the staffs report and recommendation relative to the Monterey County local coastal program. Ocean views are discussed under the section entitled "Other Visual Resource Issues"7: Commission experience with County permitting also indicated that while the County does consider views from some beaches(those in North County and throughout Big Sur Coast), it generally has not considered views from vantage points located along the shoreline or offshore. Recommendations have thus been made for requiring consideration of these views where warranted. Recommendation about views from offshore areas are excerpted from Appendix A, part 2 (see Appendix A for specific Land Use Plan and Implementation Program recommended changes): ISSUE SR-4: Views from Offshore -Ensure that important views from the beach and ocean are protected. 7 For more information on protecting the Big Sur Critical Viewshed,see pages 29-30;also see Chapter 7 in Draft Findings staff report of 11.26.03 for background info. All documents regarding Periodic Review can be found on the Commission's website at:http://www.coastal.ca.gov/recap/rctop.htmi Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page 10 Summary Comment: The current Local Coastal Program has many viewshed protection policies. However, they do not specifically identify the ocean waters as vantage points in applying these policies. Only North County and Big Sur and to some extent Carmel identify beaches as vantage points. Thus, there could be some development approved that would be intrusive to beach goers or ocean users. Recommendation Summary:Adopt policy to protect views from the beach and ocean. Federal Consistency Reviews: The Commission has unique authority to review federal activities that could affect coastal resources. These reviews involve evaluating federal activities to ensure that they are consistent with California's federally approved Coastal Management Program (CCMP).8 In these reviews, coastal views from the ocean have been considered scenic resources warranting protection pursuant to the CCMP. Summarized below are five cases(this is not an exhaustive listing) in which the Commission considered potential adverse impacts on views from ocean waters. 9 CD-31-03, Army Corps,East Cliff Drive, Santa Cruz: The proposed project by the ACOE involves installation of a large shoreline protective structure, removal of the abandoned restroom, covering the existing bluff(and the cribwalls) with sculpted concrete, and removal of the rubble and rip-rap strewn across the beach. Although this will help improve the viewshed in part(e.g., removal of rip-rap and rubble), and although the project would be made to mimic natural bluffs, it would still introduce a concrete and artificial structure into the significant public recreational viewshed, replacing the natural landform with an artificial one. Public views from the beach, from offshore, and from East Cliff Drive would be ne a�tiv-ely of ected.... ...This bi-level path modification would accomplish several coastal resource objectives. First, the railing's prominence in the beach and offshore viewshed would be reduced because it would be seen against the backdrop of the grade separation and vegetation that would be located between the two components of the recreational trails. Second, the view of the ocean from the paved recreational trail as well as from East CZiDrive itself would be enhanced because the railing would be lowered out of it, thus reducing view blockage and clutter. Third, the overall extent of seawall would be reduced by 3 feet along the top of the seawall— eliminating 3,300 square feet artificial concrete "bluff 'from the overall viewshed $The enforceable policies of the California Coastal Act constitute the applicable CCMP policies. 9 CD-31-03,Army Corps,East Cliff Drive,Santa Cruz;CD-25-01,Navy tower,Point Loma;CD-74-00, Army Corps Breakwater,Palos Verdes;CC-42-94,Air Force/Western Commercial Space Center, Vandenberg Air Force Base;CD-19-93,Air Force,Hardware Storage Facility,Vandenberg Air Force Base Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page l 1 beach and offshore viewshed, and reducing its impact. Fourth, the grade separated pathway would provide better user separation to help avoid conflicts between faster moving wheeled users (in the paved portion above) and slower moving pedestrians (in the lower portion below). Fifth, the grade separation would provide a more interesting character and aesthetic (than would a relatively flat Parkway area) that would be more in keeping with the Pleasure Point's community character. And finally, there appears to be adequate blufftop space available to accomplish such a design change in the project area. CD-25-01 Navy tower,Point Loma: Naval Base Point Loma,near Cabrillo National Monument, southern end of Point Loma peninsula, San Diego - Construction of 100 ft. high steel communications tower to support combat system testing and training: The project site is a federally-owned,previously-disturbed site which has been used for various military purposes since World War II. However, being located near a heavily used visitor center and historic lighthouse ("Old Lighthouse') at the Cabrillo National Monument, and on a high promontory overlooking the Pacific Ocean and San Diego Bay, it is a highly scenic site. The National Park Service describes the views from the nearby Cabrillo National Monument as "commanding,"stating in its General Management Plan: From its 420 foot elevation, the monument offers a commanding view of San Diego and its bay and adjacent cities to the north, east, and south; Mexico to the far south; and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The National Park Service has expended considerable efforts to redesign its facilities to improve the aesthetics in the project area and increase the scenic qualities of the public views available at the Monument(see ND-46-00). The project site is located 1672 ft. (0.3 mi.) south of the historic,publicly accessible Old Lighthouse, at a ground level elevation just over 100 ft. lower than the lighthouse. Nevertheless, due to the 100 ft, height of the tower, and the topography of the area, the project would be visible from the lighthouse, as well as a number of other publicly accessible locations, including the road down the western slopes to the tidepools, the nearby Whale Overlook(located south of Old Lighthouse), the southernmost portions of the hiking trail leading from Old Lighthouse down the eastern slopes of the end of the Point Loma peninsula (Humphrey Rd./Svlvester Rd.), and from the Pacific Ocean and San Diego Bay on three sides of the Point Loma promontory (i.e.,from coastal waters to the west, south, and Last . [emphasis added] In essence, the same Navy needs for unobstructed lines of communications between the tower and ships at sea are the reasons for its visibility from a large number of surrounding locations. Thus,particular care needs to be taken to site and minimize the tower's impact on scenic public coastal views. Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page 12 CD-74-00 Army Corps Breakwater, Palos Verdes: Offshore of Portuguese Bend cove, Palos Verdes Peninsula, City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The shoreline around the Palos Verdes Peninsula is a highly scenic area. It consists of rolling hills with dramatic cliffs and bluffs at the shoreline. The visual character of the area is appreciated from both public areas on land and boats viewing the area from offshore. [emphasis added] The proposed project would add a major human development in the offshore area. The proposed dike would be approximately a half mile lon�and 24 feet above mean lower low water L- and very visible from upland and offshore areas. [emphasis added]Since the bluffs and beaches in this area are relatively undeveloped, this massive dike would not be subordinate to the natural coastal character of the area. In its EIS, the Corps concludes that the project's visual impacts are not significant because of the offshore turbidity and scarred nature of the bluffs caused by the landslide. The Commission disagrees with this conclusion. CC-42-94,Air Force/Western Commercial Space Center,Vandenberg Air Force Base: The project consisted of construction and operation of a commercial spaceport within and adjacent to the existing launch facility, SLC-6: The project will be visible from offshore areas, [emphasis added] but since the project will be located adjacent to an existing much larger launch facility, the project is consistent with character of the surrounding area. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed launch facility is consistent with the visual resource policies of the CCMP. CD-19-93,Air Force, Hardware Storage Facility, Vandenberg Air Force Base: The project may be visible from offshore areas. [emphasis added]However, the site is already visually degraded because it has been previously disturbed and it is used to store equipment and material. Additionally, this area of the base is developed with several launch and launch support facilities. The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the vicinity. Therefore, the Commission finds that the project is consistent with the visual resource policy of the CCMP. Conclusion: The examples summarized above do not include all actions by the Commission and staff pursuant to the Coastal Act that are protective of scenic coastal resources relative to the protection of views from coastal waters. Nor do they include Protecting Views Memo to CCC Page 13 actions taken by local government pursuant to their LCP protective of views from the ocean. The point is that the Commission has a history of expressing concern for and being proactive in protecting scenic resources that involve views from coastal waters. Coastal recreation comes in many forms, as do uses of coastal waters. The Commission is well aware that ocean recreational uses are increasing as population grows and the technology relating to water sports equipment advances (e.g., paddlecraft,wet suits,wind surfing, kite surfing, surfing) as more people turn to the ocean for water oriented recreational activities. The Commission has long been pro-active in promoting sailing and boating opportunities for people who cannot afford their own boats through community sailing and boating programs for all ages.10 This policy is consistent with Coastal Act provisions calling for the protection and expansion of lower cost recreational opportunities. Like hikers and other landside visitors to the coast, people who come down to the seashore to be on the water are a community of users whose enjoyment of the coast for recreation, to find solace and inspiration, or to be with wild nature is also deserving of careful stewardship. While the quality of a sojourn at land's edge, whether on land or sea, is subjective and immeasurable, it marks the spirit and is integral to how people value their experience. Protecting special seascapes by minimizing the intrusion of human works, particularly along rugged reaches of rural coast, is a powerful objective of worth and value to current and future generations. Attachment A: State of Maine Scenic Protection Policies 10 Earlier this year at the national convention of the United States Sailing Association,the Commission received a special award for"preserving California's coastline,providing public access to the waterways, developing marine environmental education,and supporting community sailing." Exhibit V TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess,A1CP,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, I Hammond Road,Ladera Ranch,CA 92694 LOCATION: 300 Pacific Coast Highway, 92648(northeast comer of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. 4 Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012/Conclitional 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 pen-nit 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. 0 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. #B-2 gKCEU H3 — - ' ♦ F��n ri S7.NFR •♦ _ .c�rrao t r t Imam f Subject Site POKE � v_ - µme_-• .�� .r .� v .G•.—is :f VICINITY MAP MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.11-007/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-012/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ VARIANCE NO. 11-005(PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION-300 PCII) 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. 11-012, 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. 11-0 12 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 3 12sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11 021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) 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 ACTION(S): 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 pen-nit 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 ParkinaConsiderations of the DTSP. PC Staff Report—8/14/12 4 12sr33 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 Heijaht, 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: - -x�1_� _el'C�1��=L•�• lid'.•3�0'�'����:��.w--�..=- --- � � �t:.T.. •r-�"-- ._-�-• � Lam--,:•:.:_�..x�.�-,�..:- 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. 07-01 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-8/14I12 5 12sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) 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 H 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. Background: 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 PC Staff Report—8/14/12 6 1203 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. 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 sq.ft. 29,000 sq.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 n-iix of uses shovni 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 7 12sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) ISSUES: Suhiect Property And Surrounding Land Use,ZoningyAnd General Plan Designations: Subject Property M->30-d-sp-pd(Mixed-Use—30 DTSP(Downtown Retail/Office/Restaurants du/ac—design overlay—specific Specific Plan- /Parking plan overlay—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 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—LU4: 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—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. GoaILU& 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 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. PC Staff Report—8/14/12 8 12sr33 CDP 11-012,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 2.1.1: 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 PC Staff Report—8/14/12 9 12sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) 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 3.2.3: 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. 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 Conformance: 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. PC Staff Report—8/14/12 10 12sr33 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 2na 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 wall is greater than 42", the area is then considered a story (5lb) 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 11 12sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) 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 HBZSO 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. Redevelopment Status: 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 PC Staff Report—8/14/12 12 12sr33 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, and 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 2"d floor restaurant only and enhanced surveillance and security for the building. Public Notification 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 DAMS): March 28, 2012 September 28, 2012 (Within 6 months of complete application) Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012/Conditional Use Permit No. 11-021/Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007/Variance No. 11-005 were filed 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 13 12sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) 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. l.i) — 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 2°d 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. (DR>B) (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. 1 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. PC Staff Report—8/14/12 14 12sr33 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 5ffi 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 1st 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 15 12sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) 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 PC Staff Report—8/14/12 16 12sr33 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 PCH, 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 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 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-8/14/12 17 12sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Nerside Expansion) 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 2,dfloor. 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 staff s 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 5th 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 PC Staff Report—8/14/12 18 12sr33 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 19 12sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) 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 staff s 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. ATTACHMENTS: 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 2. Site Plans, Floor Plans,and Elevations dated May 4, 2012 3. Project Narrative dated May 4,2012 4. Code Requirements Letter(revised) dated August 6, 2012 (for informational purposes) PC Staff Report—8/14/12 20 12sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc. (Pierside Expansion) 5. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 6. Response to Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007 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 21 12sr33 CDP 11-012,CUP 11-021,Etc.(Pierside Expansion) ATTACHMENT NO. I 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 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. PC Staff Report—8/14/12 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,- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. H-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, infiil 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. Lana 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 Attachment No. 1.2 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—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 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. PC Staff Report—8/14/12 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—9/14/12 Attachment No. 1.4 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 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. 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. PC Staff Report—8/14112 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 properly, 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—8/14112 Attachment No. 1.6 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. infi11 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. PC Staff Report—8/14/12 Attachment No. 1.7 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11- 012/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-021/ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11- 007/VARIANCE NO. I1-005: 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(DRIB) 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 69' 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"a floor. e. Rooftop deck walls (including parapet, mechanical screening, glass screening, etc.) shall not be less than or exceed 42 inches in height. £ 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 15t 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 Attachment No. 1.8 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 PC Staff Report—8/14/12 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 alcohol 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 Attachment No. 1.10 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 planiproject 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:/i"-w.usgbe.org/DisplgyPave.aspx?CategolylD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.buildit rg een.org/index.cfni?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. PC Staff Report—8/14/12 Attachment No. 1.11 N� WALNUT AVENUE —4-—-—-—-—-—- lcm - �r�F�'q`:�: +` : ADJACENT I I �_ ----------- � r '•~ rmrsmmcu U6FND sNSF.999N i �' � ®000+6..� .. ADJACENT NMM4 YDF DFY_t AX91MpsD riftlLTl BUILDINGkL x..ERtutaR6xnD.usFR iErnox '`�� 1 1 1 •:.�,.:try:SFi; ..i ., ^' ' :uwwr<u„re W _ „•�'�t'h'`.`�=Slfy�'��Yl lg�'+ '�.C`���, .+R,,, .zuv:cnr. O W Wed '�`^:�..v�f✓ '�,x;±�zA n: ua, ✓{.��:fv • �r,S'� .x, s S;C rnwiq�:uy nM e - 1 _•1 nn °•, k '•..,P�1,, I rnuaonrssnrF<IWS Ptawx.x6rvn Nu As15gmL9w, ,,. m:µ.um �'�'I`f7:�' +��.'s'"�� '�`� • �;fil-"�' rawrs,wn,rrw _ p WIWN6xR6Fwntm:xY 4• y�� ne�:ee `�• 'Fil "J tP � � wumuAmuv E661W6�1RP R9A65.P. � Q N - - 'y ,sYS�?y3vytt�l- i;Hii�r;'.y - 1-rj�'iK I �Ni�k__y,SYy,'r:a�.k°t�F'f�ITr" eJflnlNcfO0T1RIM sg9106J, d wmn= _.;jt - i r .'..,��'�:�;' 5'.'.��eai•YaAv? ti�P E ;N4��+"�f� 5a'Wt x.F'+1.�.1• ,;�yW�,^x'�,,��,;v��•�,�F",.?�.u��'i �� g I j g ___ -•'aya��•.{�;kC.. A`s, ��''"�aJ:'\I I r�• IdC67RH6N0T SHSX,PPDXD .2 I"do. I w4 UeSMP.Xfk.G9ui1 J, fHpnE1999139Nasix m:aeriur xrP— _ _ uuns.m. '"', rl ZNi`+''-\�ni' k i` W �DEE4rFNDX: s ML 1X�xX h}6LDM W5, Z iIr'ri xicmoHJ9mxcroX RtltH. �V NpT OR u, PACECCDASTHIGHWAY yx'We11 """""� CpN�Hu - L -- —�---- _.-__------- --- -—-—- - SITE/LANDBCAPE PLAN .. .. 'I I, •O ------------- . ....... . ..........-- -------------- 00- ---Q NDDEI RE] FIR, El �o El B El "--- " 51 I IF] E El El , Fil sj u lal no 0;w T tij T T T i T J. E-L Rl El iGi R El — 22 H El E Et IHI U3 1- 4 I I r ui V T F T I i E-1 L 1J- i EL riol Fo'Of4 4 @1 @ CopJSTR'JCTI P2 PARKING PL 21- LL 5 0 ooa P PPP PP PP it E-- of: H 2 i H J-1 I c L Iij EI I'VEEj El � L L 1kl fn 12-6 ION co NIftIvocT PlPARKINOPLAN N� I 1 rear WALMJ TAAENUE _ -- ` ADJACENT UILD NGS _ ADJACENT ...f J BUILDINGld 0 IL II¢� „ � , I• x.:: Mn'/OPratoe9YPis5Ff �,_ _ vxmwnn nroaw y �INALt axFA BAsisFJ � <��agag��$$ _5,� �`'4'�T u I �mnxm oumevnewwapnsr,f _ ram_' x .•, 81 �N-� �\ - r_ .�e,ow,n ;i��'C,e S�Pe:.• t.�e%Cj'�I 5g,� _ �� l.iv,' -! � •;�Fv9'rr�:y�':.5': �j,7t:,-lai�++'i''y,�{j. >ff. p�i i I I a h NoT P IpN C.LL PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LpNSTa' ��i �mawl IL------ -—_---- -—-—- -—-—-- -- - --- 3 �n N� WALNUT AVENUE ® - eYan � 1 Ardubtl°be Swodw ero�m _ _ I — a EX.-SERVIC In WI I PAaFIC COAST HIGHWAY Y F-0 W 0 O R��ION w uu.. CON" 3.1 evlrrlun fnaal'GI nnR f.l•d _ 7 N° a ArthilaAA1M. Rik I °oa°oa°bn°n LEGEND vw seACF F I 7= WR[3PA➢E➢IA➢PAM II{({ 7 I xarn pl L .j L :` :(;:�ze --,;,y I> ; ADJACENT S �x LL §a : i? a..a:-m `,:rY= BUILDING - G'�FvdEmmMCR4: �ck:l�:•\�'';; "';,v_ .. LEGEND ^LL- i�.l`~li {�." °5,°:' '"'y O1'`:nE'" Qx[waxYctllGANc+1�Kslr-eP.m L L ry" ? aw. xFwan000P owlxP Ivy=s.r.r �. LL � ��t•-{. '1, � �msra;c our000P m.wc aaou,F.t f� .fc LL .�,' 1- - E om�ePPP[exnFA I66f.l.v-x,ee,s.Pl LLcc om �:.��- 1 ®FMPNInIehMePAfsA UAfit.F.l Ila L LLt...L,LLLLL�LLLL_LII_„L LLLL-,L I LLLLLLLLLI_La9d'LY"_' f '"MLL - V a � z a LDNQ Rrj",,ION _4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN ....-.... 11� , NflnEl ' � Mdu40ga IPo. ��r•aia�wes�m "'- x 8� �mwiona � 3 Ill -f L a ADJACENT ' L3 I eta,,.} BUILDING I O � L R LL < a wrc IfGEN6 .� •"" LL �,`er}�t;,' i� .„`',3�, .fd'° e' "�-� d eavemm�xauialsn u.anosl L - wru<.wF.n.rar� L `-""na- aY"���.s;7�R - �` �ximx<hxuxEaxuP,susaJ O i LLLLLLLLLLLY°LW_LL.LLLLLLLL..L. CL s Al te I O p Y J NotF I a CUN��u n - Qy.� TNIRO FLOOR PLAN ..._E , t-- •;ram U NflflEL p 7 a. / 3 d 0 x r BUIJLDINGTi a ® C) a a a LEGENb �n8n �f 5 c��1 xrwwun�xanr.0 WMs caeacs� 2 J �Y•c^�`irT"`.2j"�,�'3SyEr-'';:`?�cxi,�,�',kF; CSC X �rn,n.w.�xx x a ,o,n n roc �o C NOY�U iON r x�LL u [ FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 1 i woman ul 5E terw+.,uamn --� •.awwvm — a.a<asanow I � y — io f �7A All I ADJACENT OI BUILDING W!o s we — LEGEND � ,'°w"�xw'�""m .ox.w�. �xewauw�xx•auu,msa.L exx �axmw.oiwxs La,nss,r� g �� z a 0 CDN.SV U N F CTIDN a S I A_,ROOF PLAN .,. _ 1 o . 4 Q .� .m Sptlil Pmlacd i ' e i nxe. I BOE&,eu�ti / + lwM.it0AmP31�no muuxur � F.� I I P.iIOJle omx ninrt.e rvryl en n i - -- �m rn..,slx.mmn mbrc 1 bl� mu ' uunnuu rtaan ,� /h.(j�. pLA88 80REEN WALL . .rt�.xxxxn. ' n J� .�wm.ertxmxxw ,o.ao-m. ,w,. °wwm..xwx+mxm,.,x !�Z.'Ij a� SOUTH ELEVATION ,nea 2 - U GLASS RAILINS DETAIL y,'ti,.y. .3 C�W oil a Mc _ a;v.; %l ;...;ir' - ;G.s.Uh� _-- - ;.e -rs�.,�i;ry^uG?45:1. 12 i • Ynrtcn g ,,�...r- y¢�i;u�3'�ys; ,�F, Tt fit:: LLI NOT FOR ��N w LONSTRU -- �-8 t FART FI.F.VATViN ._ 1' N CJ ��a I WE 4 — 9DecklFwP.m�Mf — Pal1 I lntwo/+a��.,ctY00Fd i F f1l,IDote1 ELEVATION AT ATM 2{� I .• '.�4 - f ;'!.: _''i,'•Il. - - .i:.fr'� __ _ a w�.w..m..uw, n � �,,�. ..''__ ...`. ..;:;x�'-:�.i:;?5'.•.'�°,'�:;'�.vim::Y:'�" ,I r,.,.: sfi.. � - 1 1 3n�9�'..135(..I xr S'�s n.$ak vn i,yF-! aT'ri�s?��;tS? .y�f[_a!� r.� :aK `�t •Y w.:..w..,.m _;.��',-'%ir`:Frn�'•�'r<;.?�„',f'. .f e,5,h�..,9 lv�' ',fr'�''r`e i� ,d�;Q�.".;tf�' a..w,`. ;.xaen-_. Fi3 a ` 3 wan.vmwms - - — �eA FI WEST ELEVATION 2 U Y r. p a`a KK��'H;1".a#^-yr � � _,r �• 'f' `s'M�,� '•-"siv'. i ( ill 81B a'x-t�..;�.C�,F'�'?�,`;,.i-•'rsr�,-rt° ;! r�`.a:.,.��r�'ttr�:/'y;FC.i1_,s, [}?.:Fd=-:� ; QJ �S 's;;5�:r.^.n`�' i at:_: ;I?; •:'€f'w;j,�'4C,;�'lA'"�';�x;;:��/_q.,. �i.,7�''�w'y�'"y,'•f,,;`"+,-y { , !A K :"ti� :,y;,'A,"' r-F_ti ;<. d 1 .i•��t°,5%!+,."�y "��' 'i-�1+,'I-Y�r: 6 `.3�''r'v�s�T`i 7•`„-;`.:.•i (w:-.a - .'P`�'1�'" '�� Gr�,-�''� ..t:..' �'S3 ��� � W t... ca W X T ON Og LONSTpu I NORTH MrVATION { '-' ___ ui ) | NO~^SG~~~~------' i1 X �A c' i xkw a Dirk .-II.. IO {/(� N, �� ... MORE HIM T*��t ��5 �`"- �,,,,,. to �d�t I n.-Mill�,. M' •' � t��� i� ♦°•y '. � � ��i�l, � �� ryi �. Y z3+ ���•N'r pia F:r rl► ■II PI IG r1�111 aloa,� Qt �Itt�rtnwt t i i 1a�4,+t All �� � _ > ! r,.=-, �„-.»., l � �t'�, r '� sa��' � "' •+.^�c ski rR."_! d Q r"*�n,p < fir"° 'h- [t�a x� � �1r�n•r i rllr o e '�'A "s�;.. ;,•• Ji f,t��r'4 sx k S4Mf to a '1 -. �ECr ail• 6 !a• rllt} f3 rr xc � 77,77 � ^rl! �"�•A•ii�ii,, k `yx �_`�"�'r 'C�..It�z��Y�"���� ;..�' � � � ��F : q ...'! F,' 6=.•�'I�! m ��� �, '- dye .mi•�Il�...:..-.ate � I n• .\ N BCI�is P •• >_ i 4 VCH Sy0 i as a 'Off" � ��� t� •.,may- ', ,�/@F�{�"^ ' '���� �a,''` �. '^*�..,,�� 1 _ . K� 9��6E1 v.a,oyao,a. r i RAII IL to 4 W N0TFoR[ON a CoNSTR�Cr VIEW FROM PCN AND MAIN 72 N� U.- 2`w.p jp�,p�n}R*F iO HUR N HO l00. PN ' aw utl�me F,'Ip,ppa100 I I1101tl O:w NOI ��f1ON t�> GO �1-14 VIEW FROM PCH a ns s RONik w�Ae�GN i.)IPNo0111 av�/pam I-. s4 E °�r� � - IL a �w NOT��fON ai a cONSTN "hh Y{EW FttOM PIER „", .dh..krf' N �ku. .1n Y u<i,tafR U i .n4Y rvS d tt, ,rS�rY„;h,a�:, ,,�,t, triic•?`: J u ,t ?' 'g:t(iai: �- t: -y.ir:';h`�r::.a Lx,,'•{V:`'�' f i ``� a , z. P v,nfl^< yr, 11rd WYrMm.ni"r'. 9 J y1v - -Nc. Laaffia rr•' r4 4- <. s at i 3✓t"lr�a eh,r'• t-t,n _ is i`:,.' �:5;•:' ,t<a. " 1 n• _ . 'ka} pOP9i 3E"p 5. J, o` �' ,., ,-.. ..;,_ z.:r,.. . .:.... .............�, ..><: .r,u e,.. r,.., t,_., ✓'r...:.:.:>�`�'-,e� ;".i:;=f„' -a0.';= i c� 08 rrE" Y.G�i. .,,tiro �y �yr� F RYz. 1la :s5"3• Mu is _ -T - - SOUTH ELEVATION Q{ _KS h E '1 ..,4, ..i ::+v9: _ ::fi, - :rY•J i:o-.,,-';•,;`S.i;'i'r:«!;a::,°e;-y'�- ,.✓-. - t ..-NIOP[c- i J ..:....: :.....:......<..r:...5. ...,,, .... Y.. .w x.,;. .,-, r;,.. .,..:. ,� ,7 J•JJ._ i,:}:J '{4,_ -Y 1:� i %h, JUN ...a.s°s t oa, ,tom,,r:- ,�`J•_ ..,t. - ,� r Sl -}ad. ..�F✓ .;Ny, T-4 T, i-'T'e-t�-"a',e-n,,:. ,c an v e �_ Z f u rr . a - � v,':. ,:[...,.has-.5,,.-;:, ,a,� .,,y'�u.' „r•..1 :.5 .m��., ,,.-r.. ,'.. .r,Ft- - szy5 - - - at .r� - c 3' a 51`v'n cL rlh:: ui '.4 'aA s fr A I Y S - co 4.m A , 'c', fiat,rrS coN I, f ana.: ,l. ter^.��,{-+• ?23, ;1=',!�$ H� �d "";S.a�, - _ ,:h,,:-':,`�.; ..1_ - _ .�n ti. •r��'.3�• .aka .n : W O ui Q 5 wLu Oy W EAST ELEVATION =-16 ..... ... Ol N N U 4£%f�• ..oeaasm _ 4 wum c 'k„.. k'dz'.i';-?r..i:.;:>. �:-,5l,�� rYLI WEST ELEVATIONT,Y, 37 ' U Olw - - +i=Y-'SC'y �T�.+'(.hr•��.?r`�:;i�ie'.x _iMIX }i�"f�12>•f b{.»'r i���� `a r - -� - �'r�;< ��=����<<�k-��'� 'Yix �t x�`�l`s� ,rt�.t' r al- rno=t.Tr,�' �' •t�' � < ul er ML ry- � r I i." St° i z.-;S;� ,� ����f 'i��'�✓i'�i�$jla�x��--, ;�: �� ��a'�k 9 � Y✓ a, u L�4 0=4 fl CC {t! Uz NORTH ELEVATION 1 7 N N� REVISIONS WALNUT AVENUE cm M. �- .. ` "� � ` � �y7 WaehingtcnEa rohuab Maiva f,.a palm rem. �- j Phoenix,sn¢a:ensh Csnaa�ls:an.1 tAlm iShrubs s '� � _ - i Men Eazawhos fl.vidm Kmgumo A Aga-ma— Poxglove ap- un sburst CDppea plawheel . _ , , '•�""`""•'•""•"� a —.—wte.w" Acotdum xw¢'tk"PP Iaage Pxtpk Aeonium i \ I Cclkeremon tiatlejo{w` L"vtle]okn Haedchxush ,'"' Cwtlyline aus,s¢Ps Coadylkrc TREE GRA7FS-IRON EDP-SIGN i Cosae¢pulchella Awtnlian Fuschla saaten•GRL s.cxvo E I 'Pis.kFlamingu' �_...1 { tittle Red V Mpsine afaFrrua Afaiays 8oawaod s � I I RosmAsenw oLBdoaks AoseGary �i Sdpa tusxui— Medan Paahec g-- a� ADJACENT i cnuoa co,- ��p BUILDINGS - I Dy..di¢-.%-Mc pyGanya 8 Fesmn Ovi-Glauu Wtja Blue Putase V -i- -' Senedo mantkaliscac Alue Cludk Sticks M.12 O F A RHM M OB 10 ReBF� sS•IpQHIFark3l32Df6 ADJACEN BUILDING 2 P aAtN•D 32J662'""•32260n"23205T"SQP36 SQFK24 24" Ir 29^" S 32 26 2" F1't Raoa OB-- IIDCAPEP ADJACENT ILNG if � dC],J�J �: - �t , rvumnsr ro.avux {p�if77i ��4 opa z I - ---- - F-- �--- - - - ���-� � .____ 8124111 I 'IRA$HRECEPTACll3 .n dJH I wvuvcaauaanrata n. Pob•s b nnwu,wanoa a m MM—. WiD EARtASUMMM 1 REQUIRED P C[10N PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Exl lLR' AEt6aG I ^„�uL�N N•BASEDN DINS C3APEP iG 31a SF. shLe ePOAIAREA 33L14f' %OFTOTAl0.QW0-PyBUC O1SN]SP t -1 r! ',I r 4 t r .P,'_ 'ems tro t t i-.:, � -:'�\. ;i r t tb ♦ � sM i �� __it«� _: ��., r;t'r nx.�yyr9s�t� 1�'.11�� r//F '� ;....k� j ��� � ...:•,�' ak-s^.,"�:: � },c�'� �♦� •} •L LFi. � �� ri y 4A�r,y� . P +t xa r�L 7 .4 `�r a"�vc1�' :�:". a ♦ i♦ ♦ • r arm ~�� ��+, c; j�.� �S`T� .a. � 7 ;,� ,y§s;t t�' �a r 6 �4,g3y a n L `-t ..e 6a,,sy' � 3 -a r3 � >� ♦ :� � �`. �+ c ��r 1 6 z3'F aZ��. a S r' '` ]! S � � :i b tq '"�Wadl � r ''. a• ••a p• ,a • f, -r.r r r ��".-J a �.,, y19 1 YF�1 +iA�'' a�i,r� s:3 -a 1 � �.'•n t P} y��+'< ., /; ,� �� 4Y`k'. '"�,.�>rA,='t, \i ` �$vp:}, �. : Yril'� ��,,� „Fe<��l4� ,�r�+n>"'��. � ;� r � �; 1 f��"} �f4 � � ';;I +i • ,P`t f-♦. ,",,.{'^l _3 .,'°.•,Yy'#, --" 's.T'"`, �'t ` '�l? ;; t't �;~: iStj�}ul �.: ,, 7',,+ {t � t� 1, 5 6 ,.r� t 1 '"`� � `{i {� � ^.� Il ri rF r�'�r��t s$�"�r,. �'� sr•,r r�,ix,,� },�'Yr�'' is �ra: x,'r t ^i`�.',.;�Wr'p t�., � .•,�}�. 9 3 (N ;7"r,t t{tS �FL„ (to a I/ i -.\i 4� ,r: P%��S' '� � NY i .1:+ '"Y -,;,, ..,rk:ry�'ti: .r:, ,.1�:.'�',-j / } r�: '�i �ry�t� �• ;�i3fi���s,���', `5�r ?2'y pr<�%f: w,t ,T #s � � , rr`"ty-' r, 1h t ,,"._ s r1 ai 'i r • >� r {._�,r.r-,�a`� •�.E,-7 �a'' : •v t �' y,J � � -r '�" � e � _ �� � lr4Faa"� � ■ S N ----��.�,�� -----�,:�----�--Y---- `gin - TVIA = � �! ---' a e. Pd'RZEF"' iL m b 1H wee I: PRE1JtdTNlam GRAIG nor a eean� w aaUINUN .- e�ee®a eirwoH J ea aua�weroH eeaca REVISED Pierside Paviliio>n NARRATIVE New Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit and j , (05/0412012) other Entitlements FF-UEIVED Location}: 300 Pacific Coast Highway MAY Q 4 2012 Business: Pierside Pavilion Expansion Celt.of='annsrg (New retail, restaurant&office uses) Request: To expand the allowed uses in the Plerside 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 A Office 75,000 sf 51,000 sf. +25,000 sf_ Total 142,000 sf. 99,000 sf. . +43,000 A `with alcnhol and outdoor dining The following items are being requested: s 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 a Variance o Building height deviation from four stories 45'plus 10' mechanical Dousing and roofline variation,to four stories 68' plus 10' roo'ttine variation and a mechanical housing element up to 90'to match the existing Phase I (wilding ® Entitlement Plan Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No, 10- 1E 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 O 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 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 adj'acerrt 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 followi ng: [N-FILL NEW FXISITNG TOTAL Retail 4,50 f sf. 8,045 sf. 15,406 sf. 27,952 sf Restaurant" 1 577 sf. 11.113 Sr. 23,230 sf. 35.920 sf. O€fice 3 323sf 15,514 sf. 55,617 sf. 74,454 sf. ' 9,401 sf. 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. i 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 coinclde",(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 Wthin 350 feet of the project site. The project has also been approved for valet parldng(Conditional Use Permit fro_90-37). 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.C.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 coninuation 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 l 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 the new construction b 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. 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 projectwas approved in 1988 with Conditional Use Permit No. 88-7 and Goastal Development Permit 88-3. The project was amended in 1990 with Conditional Use Permit No.00-37 and Coastal Development Permit No.90-21. In 2009 itwas further Amended with Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 07-01. Outdoor dining and vending carts were approved with Conditional Use Permit No 10-17. ATTACH"EANIT ,.. 3 Zoning and General Plan: The property Is zoned Downtown Specific Plan No.5(Planning Area 3)and the General Plan designation is 11 V-F12-sp-pd. The proposed project has been analyzed by the standards in the Amended Downtown Specific Plan(1119/2010). 3 Surrounding Uses: North-Parking StructurelRestaurants/Retail East-RetailtResidential South-Residential Condominiums W est-Retal l/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 compatible 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 I. t i l Pierside Pavilion Uses USES 7CDP =88-3CDP 90-37 ENTITLEMENT FLAN NEW CUP PROPOSED EXISTING 90-21 AMENDMENT REQUEST NEW PROJECT NO,07-001 27 Retail 15,406 sq. ft. 23,675 s -ft. 12,624 s .ft. 19,000 s ,ft. 30,000 s . ft, 35,9 sq.ft. Restaurant* 19, 787 sq.ft. 16,500 sq.ft, 26,731 sq.ft. 29,000 sq,ft, 36,000 sq.ft, sq. sq.ft. Of Ice 54,182 s . ft. 15,925S . ft. 15 925 s . ft. 51,000 s .ft. 75,000 sq.ft. 74,4 54 sq.ft. 0 s ft 0 So.fit. sq,ft. Theater** 30,000 sq. ft. 30,Oa0 s .ft. > , 142,000 s .ft. 138,326 s .ft. Subtotal 89,375 s .ft. 86,000 s .ft. 85.280 sq. ft. 99,aQa . ft. Total Gross Area 90 000 sq.ft. 90,000 sq.ft.*** 90,000 s .ft,*** Insite 296 sp. 297 sp. 296 sp. 296 sp. 296 sp. 296 sp. Incite 300 Sp 624 sp. 624 sp. 150 sp. 300 sp. 300 sp. OffsIte 56s 56sp, Valet 44fi sp 652 s . 652s , Total 596 sp. 921 sp. 920 s 0514/2012 **1,750 seats ***Approved gross sq,ft. is greater than the sum of the Individual uses. a W 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. 1/260 57 s 1/333 90 s 1/333 Restaurant 110 s 1/150 178 s 1/150 290 s 1/100 288 sp. 11125 Office 16 s 1/1000 16 s 1/1000 102 s 11500 152 s 1/500 Theater 583 s 1/3 seats 583 s 1/3 seats - Total Parking Required 803 sp. 828 sp. 449 sp. 530 sp. 0 5104/20 1 2 `� 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 required 3.3.1.6 Maximum Density 50 dulac NIA 3,3.1.7 Minimum Building Height 25' N/A 3.3.1.8 Maximum Building Height -_>8,000 sf net site area: 68'&4 stories plus 3.3A.8 45'.&4 stories,plus 10' roofline variation& mechanical housing & mechanical tower rooflins variation Lipper Story Setback�3`-4 story) 10'average 10' avg. {3- &4 3.3.1.9 stories Front Yard Setback 0'-Max.5'115'PCH 5'Min. 3.3A A D Interior Side yard Setback 0' 10, 3,3.1.11 Exterior Side and Setbadt 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°l0 3,3.1.14 08/2512011 -CEIVED 4 02 `.» "Y. Proposed Infrll Existing S.F S.F. New Building Area Total S.F. First FIo r" € Retail Suite 101 6,900 Suite 106A 955 Suite 1068 650 Suite 107A 1,215 4501 5,528 ± Suite 107E 1,006 Suite 108 3,225 MISC. 367 Commissary 11088 15,406 4,501 5.526 25,433 Restaurant Suite 112 $•344 1,577 Suite 113 3,978 9,322 1,577 0 10,899 Office ' Suite 109 790 ;v '"Suite 110 960 Suite 111 706 Some 114 680 2,989 _2J Suite 113 1,405 Suite 120 350 = Misc 739 Commonflobby 5,630 2,959 2;5: 9. 11,138 Sub Total 30,358 9.067 $i 5:: 47,470 RECEIVED Second Floor Restaurant u h 1 04 L01z Suite 201 5,488 4,128 Suite 202 5,017 10,505 0 4,128 14,633 P-W-Wing Office Suite 203 6,442 Suite 204 18,385 Common 839 24,827 0 339 25,666 Sub Total 35,332 0 4,967 40,299 i Third Favor Office Suite 303 4,013 Suite 304 957 5,173 Suite 305 9.039 167 Suite 310 2,570 Mise 231 Common 1,795 16,815 187 6,968 03,950Sub Tots! 16,615 167 8 968 Fourth Floor Office Suite 405 3,092 Suite 408 2,673 167 5,173 Misc 1,145 Common 1,497 8,810 167 6,670 13,747 Sub Total 6,910 157 6,670 13,747 P :.,H III T }F " iM Roof beck Common 1,122 1,122 0 0 1,122 1,122 Sub Total 0 0 1,122 1,122 3 Sub Total Retail 15,406 4,501 66,526 25,433 Sub Total Office 54,182 3,323 18,118 7+4,501 Sub Total Restaurant 119,827 1,5TT 4,128 25,654 Total 89,415 9,401 27,772 126,588 Terraces First Floor 0 0 0 0 Second Floor 3986 1.412 669 6067 Third Floor 2581 0 986 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 392�i Total Outdoor Dining 3706 0 8146 9851 i f � NT NI � Citv of Hunts. t®u Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 R� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www huntin_gtonbeachca.gov Planning Division Building Divisions 714.536.5271 714.536.5241 August 6, 2012 Michael Adams PO Box 382 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11-0121CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-0211VARIANCE NO. 11-005 /ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11-0071ENVIRONMENTAL 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). Sincere! , 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 G:1EdwardsTlanning CommissioliTierside Pavilion Expansion\Comments\Code Letter Final 2,doex F t .i;�A«'y�A.,17, +t F CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREIUIENTS 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 TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-536-5561 1 ETHAN EDWARDS@SU RFCITY-H B.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-374-1692/ SBOGART(cD-SURFC[TY-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. 90-371Coastal 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 as staffed 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 Spec cations 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. GAEnrineering Div is 2012',PCH Soo(Pierside Pavilion Improtements)!August 3 20121 PCH 3o0(Piet-side Pavilion)Dev ]2cq S 3 1 't z � i 0 — 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 3rd 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 17.051ZSO 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) Page 3 of 7 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) 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 nonconforming 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 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) 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 110 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 Page 5 of 7 City, including operational doors and being fully enclosed by impermeable wails. 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 gradinglerosion 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- CUTSMOG" 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 12.38.0101MC 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/MC 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) J sV h 5' k E o`e'�_� Page 6of7 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) i 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, 42.94/1000 sf, mode shift (15%), and internal capture (20%/20%/19%); general office, 11.0111000 sf, mode shift (15%), and internal capture (15%115%113%). The fee rate per net new added daily trip is subject to an annual adjustment on December 1 st. (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.surfcity-hb.or-q/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: fl LLy �E e�'�'1�;L fO Pg`i.a Lw.i "pt� `�j ! 6 I�i"L�Fa9Rvl'E �T E`4*../. .J 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. 0.i t ko k n , y 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 TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-536-5561 / ETHAN EDWARDS(a-)SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/SBOGART(a 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; 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.). G:1En¢ineering DivisioniDEVEL OP�fNI\�,i",Cnnditions2Ul2TCH 300(Pierside Pavilion Improvements)1�{ (11�!i-I I i L_i I sid� lion} C1�� Condition 8-3 12 ° `` �"[ E O HUNTINGTON EACH 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 TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-55611 Ethan.Edwards@surfcity-hb.org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: JOE MORELLI; FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 536-5531/Joe.MoreIIi(d_)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; 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 05/04/12. 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. zH 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) i 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 1/2" 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: Page 3 of 5 - Fire Control Room per CFO 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 C 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 '/z' 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). 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 - KNOXV Fire Department Access in the building plan notes. (FD) 3. Fire Sprinkler System Controls access shall be provided, utilizing a KNOXO 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 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. � sr Rage 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 NAD83 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, 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. t :_J ! HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION r urJr►Hp�ox.s ncf►, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: MARCH 28, 2012 PROJECT NAME: P[ERSiDE PAVILION EXPANSION PLANNING - APPLICATION NO. PANNING 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 TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714)536-5561, ETHAN.EDWARDS a@SURFCITY-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.90-371Goastal Development Permit No_ 90-21 and amended by Entitiement 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, T ACM Ns rE NT N0 �t� . i 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 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. (HBZSO Section 230.76) 3 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 3.2.26.5) 4. Prior to issuance of demolition permits,the following shall be completed: 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 PCBs. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. (AQMD Rule 1403) b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. (AQMD Rule 1403) i. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (AQIl11D 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) i e. Existing mature trees that are to be removed roust 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 3'-9' of brown trunk). (CEQA 1 Categorical Exemption Section 15304) 5- Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. A Landscape and [rrigation 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 feature 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' andlor other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (HBZSO Section 232.04.13) d. Standard landscape code requirements apply- (HBZSO Chapter 232) e. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Page 3 of 4 Landscape Standards and Specifications. (HBZSO Section 232.043) 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 r 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 is the Downtown Specific Plan(SP-S) area) (Resolution No.5328) c. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee for Legative declarations) [Mitigated negative declarations) EL�R'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 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, andfor 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) 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 TOO AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBIVIC 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. (HBI IC 17.05) b. All trees shall be maintained or p€anted in accordance to the requirements of Chapter 232. (HBZSfl Ghapter 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.D) d. The provisions of the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements shall be implemented. (HBMG 14,52) f5 i i Page 4 of 4 9. Outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials, or equipment, including display of ; merchandise, materials, and equipment for customer pick-up, shall'be subject to approval of Conditional Use Permit. (HBZSQ Section 230.74) l 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 SarvEces Departments have reviewed j and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's i /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 HBZSQ Section 241.18. (HBZSO Section 241A8) 11_The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke CUP No. 11-021, CDP No. 11-012, 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 i Municipal Code occurs. (HBZSQ Section 241.16.D) i 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_ (City Charter,Article V) 13.Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 14.All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and dean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSQ. 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. (HBZSQ 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. (HBZS© Chapter 233) i 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) 17.Alcoholic beverage sales shall be prohibited unless a conditional use permit for this particular use is reviewed and approved. (HBZSQ Section 211.04) i 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TON UE ENTS C ; A ION CODE REQUIRE�L_ PROJECT IMPL.EMENTAT 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, FAX 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@SURFClTY-HB_ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION. GUPIGDP: 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 atlowable 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(CPA)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 identifyiing 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 entitlements), 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:, 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 be amended to reflect the entitlement plan amendment 'A— AT IIACHME N - HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT uhrrrNcrpt:sE£icN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATiQN CODE RE4UIREMENTS 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 PLAINS; OCTOBER 11, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION: 300 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(APN: 024-154-17) PLANT REVIEWER, ARVAR W. ELKINS III, POLICE OFFICER TELEPHONEIIE-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 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_ i Use security-focused, rather than aesthetically pleasing, lighting that enables pedestrians to see I clearly and to ideriffy 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. b �� A f T A-i HI- �1� 0- q- Zo 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 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 i 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 ment.This shows the public where the sidewalk ends and the the cement or different colored ce property of the businesses begins. i 1 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 tragic. With the purposed planter, bench and expansion of Pier Plaza nearly the entire sidewalk is blocked in the area of the expansion. SECURITY SYSTEMS: Silent or audible alarm systems shall be installed. 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 door to shipping and receiving area -Any security gaffing . s CCTV security cameras are recommended, covering the following areas: a -Lobby entrances -Building perimeter -Shipping and receiving areas -Parking structure -Exterior entrance - -Stairwells -Interior hails ROOF TOP TERRACE -A minimum-6'wall-compr-ised�#solid-r-nater-ial-and-or-glass-shat.d-surround the_p.erimeter-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 ATT&P i i E I i I I I I P T N10- J• HUNTINGT'ON BEACH ';- BUILDING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH 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 TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 872-6123, KHOA@CSGENGR.COM 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 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: 1. None M Page 2 of 2 I!. 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 (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- TEE T , k ' J� HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT HUNTIMGTON 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 FONG, DETECTIVE TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 536-5960, SFONG@HBPD.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, 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 Page 2 of 2 the highest crimes rates in the city.I 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 fight. 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 4th of July and the US Open of Surfing. NO, a.10 ::�Y s: =�ir•�tw:', � ram.. +i:..f< ��.,::Fo�n'h..� =-'+S="' ' '•",, - - -�-�'E•3`•'�x. A���: `m'•'N=c�S••+:�.... ��t�e,}�s'S�+,a!�!i�4;�..,xn �s �.i�Ta'-� C�•�.�.C'a{:�'^'z tom' Z;.•^ }r,r :4: R^.",w^4.�. �.i-+,r �5y"•I Vie- '+ . ' �fc�'.,y-,rg �•,+._'�-ate,` ,*.&�?�.stz.,�r:�l�ti � .ax -[.x :?•^a; 'k�3�'u'$eac6xc+i✓• -`!C .;'t,'J „'r` c-s�^�. - �z01, ^' 'Urq '#yt?.' .ti ,+:_'s... N:. -. s sue" -r Ns ,.�. "n' "n...ii' lk. 'C�u xaF�'' .sc �:: °&' - 'r ,.a,,,•.'-„'J' _ r'i�a ".:`�; may' _ .. .vM... 31�T,'b!t+-.•5zf'i✓.�:=.�c'.ii.?R •A,:>L••':�w„_F.- - ^� AM,•�.:s �. -�.�..w9-S.1..' :�aj��.'='4'•t"'� ''��' �t 5`i. -WWisrE- F�t�S`, ; .x'�M'.:,.� .�- .i.' x''u•-;.,.. r am-..1 t * .-xw9. , _ ,"J..^ .0.5.,.. ~'�'�� •°` - �✓�' i-:; _ _ - �'� .F�,,:� Cr S.s �,_ .`�'�.' ( - �t' 5.�:. _ 'b`� 52.:� i�P,.'"•' T.^f'as"'*5.. T��F?�,�rti':c..�:f���?a.'-c.' i ��._3!„� ,�'.,��^_ ����v-":`f"^��y'"a..'`__- $��•s:r• '=•x . j +- _ :er:'-, ' ii.":Yti�`''v'IX+'}Tr}'. •'k '- y-3 LS•a'"�'kx` •,.•'-,.�_-, ....*>`y'L '°_ - � •'n-Lta. _ �i'��-�'.o .:�.�;�^� �i��.4rrt �•y, j:.?:Y'1-Srt`.. .+�..�: 3.. ��.iv`�-«•�'4..t-+-'_._ A'. 0�s✓5::`?�Jy'+` iR�S`�T - - ��'.'F•5,c.:�y^,A`.i A'- t•r.L.•.v:�Yn _ 6�.�2�w'":d...,.;:- � -bvLn",5.`.-�U. 7.�£-y-.F ry _ _ _ - ::iY."!q�ki' _ _� _ _�^.•�KF� ::�:_ !n _;T,`,�925:! 9,.C.. yY�, . �_la.� . e"-7 snE. �'t t S-�Y�stx>.;s.`.b'n `.F -t•er;�,4t.._ty .cy x: , - - �:.:,ad.S-.r:. -m 'P��t2aacY,-:s3,x;5�2�- .��,-r�`t!•t�n�:.��•��+-' - .,'�--'„sue-p, �;�.'ti•._�'.k,�.,"�t;h--�.t:.-.s i � 6} '•";r: ;LL h -'k w.: _..>«a At*�: ta_r .�;c+;''�s;"'.. y,.-:wt. ram'�±`x."��=s,°�.,= - - i�w;�.x'.�_"-�,�.'.�".�."e� _:;�' },Gfi:lvxr���; :'ram r,:r.�F-.�5�3'.`.;.V.,aY.._:s�r�=�s�,�.•.=fi�A �_a�r; 'mtra�� -.. '�"� i <k, 1-,.�.:.,,.,„�".3�. :,. 3• :. � �,,-E�.�a:r;:i;'�T�3s�'r-� z*�.^-•H;;r r� as �,,,,.7� �L•�yxx-a�''.,f`--3..3sr.,-&;� ";,+_e'.,r r:.�s:- .y �. a ,x+as, xa.�sr'�-�._ �, +-?�r;'�:' s.-x`c:-Fig..`"s'�+'st:�;: ^�.-�.�'w::::��a:c.�.>stfn:=.��.Y:s.a:;,Efiz����k'"•6'�._:r-sa�r:;:-=M'z;�'v-`'��.. �_„1..�!:k.'�c: �;l.�c'�..":sn...f�,.�a-c a"::?,:Yca^.+u.�, .�.... .'."'�.�;�"'.- 1. PROJECT TITLE: Pierside Pavilion Expansion F 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. 11-015 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 comer of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street) 1 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Michael Adams Michael C.Adams Associates P.O.Box 382 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Contact Persona: Michael Adams Phone: (714)374-5678 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M->3 0-sp-pd(Mixed Use—specific plan overlay—design overlay — pedestrian overlay) i 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 serving/office building and 9,401 sq. ft. infrll expansion by extending existing ing storefronts. The table below describes the existing area,proposed infill area, new building area,and total area for the project: GIENVIRONMICHECKLST Page 1 TTAC"I MMIENT N , S ,_t, -.,H r- •C'•__+.�_ay-"_,:4i2"�A3 -_ t'.2::`S:?:.rimG:•,z'x wF"`z:.`T_.•�"'t+.-A;EZy :, y ;,., _�:3r rjua;�s's; Min'z*-`�s'a'_'� .`:,F..,..;:.__ ..s':>csi�C'"--'"a7Fi'=�_ <„ ', ;.''^'<i`xa'P5:�•k:::� ':;s � a.k.,.rrg...t,�r-,.��•Te,F^!��:?1-;�F9Y�i ��Yfit'G*' 1;ar.�:.3W' r INS-- �,tw�; �'� :1 `1" sxn: . zz_ai7 ,cta _. .. vn ��i_,-wg x ..:wrr�. }x=�..-_.eani..e:•!w�•�=Fih:�� %:FTI+...+^,\V:: raC._ Existing S.F. ProposedTnfiII 5. . 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 19,929 1,577 4,128 26,654 TOTAL 89,415 91401 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 hvo-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. 10-017 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 periol 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 II 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 teinporarily 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 II will encompass seven months of construction time with the use of an on-site eme/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 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 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 Nvalkway 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. 8. SUI ROUNDING 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 ENVIRONNENTAL 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 project'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. i Page 3 r,a H T NO. -3 ATTA k F s , �. i 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, El 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 ❑ ENV IRONNENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or a`potentially significant unless mitigated impacf'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 ENVMON-MMNTAL 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. 6 Signature Date ETH N F��r��� Ltdlr� �_ Nil Printer Name Title .Page 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIItONMENTAL R"ACTS: EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Iznpaet"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=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=. 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 Q fI.ESTI"ON: 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 nnpaets involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in aflat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). Page 5 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES{and Supporting Information Solaces): Impact Incorporated Impact No Irmpact Z, ]LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ QEl regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (inchiding,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal prograrn, 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 plains,the project requests a variance to allow for deviation from a specific zoning code requirement. The project includes a request for a variance to exceed the maximum height of four stories and 45 feet. The project proposes four stories with a building height of 68 feet tapped with. an 8-foot glass screen wall and an architectural tower (mechanical housing)up to 90 feet high. The proposed project would aot,therefore,comply with the height requirement of the Specific Plan. However,the design intent is to match the existing budding 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 e floor top plate exceeds the minimum required floor height and as such, staff recommends a condition of approval to require a reduction of the e floor top plate to match the existing 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 (II-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 that the sheer massing of the project be modified to further ensure compatibility with the surrounding area The project's public areas and open space incorporate enhanced hardscape and landscape materials consistent with Page 6 TT g NAE" N ,_�•6_� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than: significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting luformation 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 (II-XVEI) 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 1.1.4: 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 flan 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ [.7( (Sources3,4) Discussion: The proposed project would not disrupt or physically divide an established community. The subject site is located at tho northeast comer 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 as area,either Page 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant IS SUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact directly(e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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, ❑ 11 ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ g the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:4) Discussion: The project site does not support any housing. Therefore, the project will not displace existing 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 Nev,Tort-Inglewood fault located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources:1,13) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 Huntington Beach are required to comply virith standards set forth in the California Building Code(CBC)and standard City Page 8 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting information Sources): Impact Tncorporated Trnpact 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 ❑ [ [7[ 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) D j] ❑ [./� 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 land and no slopes or other landforms susceptible to landslides exist in the vicinity of the property. 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 ❑ 8 11 changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading,or fill? (Sources:IA20,22) Dismission: 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, Q 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 large-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 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 © [� of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources:1,6,20,21,22,25) Discussion: The submitted GeotechnicaI 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 Q 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 not relevant to the proposed project. No impact would occur related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. IV.HYDROLOGV AND WATER QUAL.I"Jf Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ requirements? (Sources:1,15) Discussions: 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 WQMW must be approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. The standard erosion control measures,WQR12 and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)will contain Best Management Practices (BMWs)for constriction 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 Potentially .Slgmficant 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 i 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 (UW1v1P), 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 -Aill 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 the 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 IV(c). e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceedEl L1 FA 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 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 Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SVJPPP). 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 j Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources:1,15) Discussion: A 'Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be prepared in accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regr lations 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 N(a)_ Therefore,less than significant impacts are anticipated. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ p1 mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources:1,7) 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 subj ect to federal flood development. restrictions. Therefore,no impacts are anticipated. h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources:l,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, ❑ ❑ �] 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 darn. Therefore,no impacts are anticipated. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources:1,21) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Discussion: According to the Moderate Tsunami Run-up Area reap 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 laud-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 mudflows. Therefore,no impacts are anticipated. Page 12 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact k) Potentially impact stormwater=off from construction activities? (Sources:1,15) ❑ Discussion: Defer to discussion under item IV(a)and(e)above. 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ construction activities? (Sources: 1,15) Discussion: Refer to discussion under item 1V(a),(c),and(d)above. m) Result in a potential for discharge of storrawater El ❑ ,7 0 pollutants from areas of material storage,vehicle or equipment fueling,vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),waste handling,hazardous materials handling or storage,delivery areas,loading j docks or other outdoor work areas? (Sources:1,4,15) i Discussion. During the construction phase, erosion and siltation will be minimized to a less than significant level by employing Best Management Practices(BMI's) for discharge of storm water pollutants,pursuant to a � i 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 ❑ ElQ 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 flowEl Q velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (Sources: 1,15) Discussion: See discussion under Section N(e). p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion ofEl Q Q the project site or surrounding areas? (Soumcs:1,15) Discussion: See discussion under Section 1I1(b). V. AYR 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 ATTAR N yE 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 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources:9,18,21,22) b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ Q ❑ concentrations? (Souxces:9,18,21) c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ C] [,� ❑ number of people? (Sources:9,18,21,22) d) Conflict with or obstruct unplementation of the ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 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 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(PM2.5). The Basin is also a State-level nonattainment area for Ozone,PMio and PK.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 CaIEE-Mod 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 CalEEMod 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 �V 0. 5 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact -:1 {,L=C- ,'e. ,nl'SY••-��i*_ -`L`v"S`��_y- r:e>r;�:�'�'p�'•°{^y ZP..-,'''Fc.S:a V s:�.�:. =a'r :>_� " is Y .n .-s-, = �_s_ r>+ ,- v :`cWF '.�" � �.t'_'�1:.7;`C '-a•7✓Q'.{vls_;41 . 'dL. i,:" w •,t..- '`'-`.r .,:,�,P � �i�a=� -- _- =:+-a;•�tx.�..;.>,,.__ _ �... _ - -. .,.. ,:. � .-.....-.sue-' MoE { �" Regional Significance Threshold(Lbs/day) _.� SO t 'T CO VOC NOx. PMJo 1'-M2s Estimated Construction Emissions for proposed 12.14 2526 L 17.42 4.45 1.25 0.b2 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.EIR. Additionally, the project will be required to Comply with construction activity mitigation measures as identified in DTSP Program EM, MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-7. Therefore, a Iess than significant impact is anticipated- Long-term- Post construction emissions were also calculated using the CaIEEMod program. The program was set to calculate emissions for the proposed project. The default CaIEEMod variables were used for the calculations- . .r..�, .--':�,.,, .._ ---. n- ._az• .+-,,. ;xis:;-,�:•,,r td - - _- .`..''kiE'r'- '-�r'" ; r,; ' - d�:r`�,..•aP.gu, .,�v.v4=�._w.�.r--k_r-;>_`r"�;v-�x`�c;r"�-_��-=.?, F'�.�°a's-.'.�'�'zu :s.0 :,�':,'sa'�': -'�4ya. .,��:�*�-.:-��;:t-r-�,c�sti•�:,:s 2�=��. �_ " �..-��_' a;�r��'�-..t-,3�•-v�'�:.� _ = kw -..r?s.�.7���v_:.?P-�,.�.. --r- ;r.3:,.^.�2`..' ,�5`-`„ "',�S"`:'�-;==t_'an��-r-�-.�..�:i:u:r� ? 93 ? _= 3Q.SOr1St1OIlTT3�S:57{j73dS v. , ` t + Regional Significance Threshold(lbs/day) J�'C:. ro CO VOC NOx I'lv1�fl PM2s 50a 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 BIR. Further,the project will be required to comply with DTSP Program EM 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 V OC)both for construction and post construction and therefore,would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in these pollutants. Vf. TR.ANSPORTATION/TRAF+IBC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy (,7� ❑ establishing measures of effectiveness for the Page 16 Potentially Sigu ficant 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 aad relevant components of the circulations system,including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and fzeeways, 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 MR ster 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 pro'ec#Tri s Land Use Week-clay Prof ect Trips Daily AM Peale Hour PM Peak Hour Total. Total In Out Total In Out Retail 448 ADT 69 33 36 27 12 15 Restaurant 1 702 ADT 6 5 1 58 39 19 Office 175 ADT 25 22 3 24 4 20 Project Trip 1325 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 Street/Walnut Avenue, and Walnut Avenue/3`' Street) will be maintained at an acceptable LOS of"V' 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 PCHlMain 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/PI 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 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 through 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? (Sourc:es: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-tern 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results insubstantial safety risks? (Sources:10,11) Discussion: The project site is not located within two mites of a public or private airstrip and does not propose any structures of substantial height to interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ (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? (Souroes:1,19) ❑ ❑ [] Discussion: Emergency access to and within the project site would be designed to meet City of Huntington Beach Police Department and City of Huntington Beacb 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:2A5) ❑ ❑ ❑ [7� Page 18 Potentially J Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): hupact 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 UTSP. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the prof ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ g 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:1,9) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ [ 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 less 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 ❑ ❑ [] 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-1,9) Page 19 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 ❑ 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 protecting ❑ [, ❑ ❑ 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 (i-amaining 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 tmw1ocatiou. 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 type and size of tree. Implementation of the recommendations of an arborist report pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO 1 would reduce the potentially significant impact to biological resources on the site to a less than significant level. BYO I 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 frees shall be maintained and guaranteed to be alive and thriving after four years by a qualified tree service or arbonst 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, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan;therefore, no impacts would occur. Page 20 y;'A" ,` TTACO €M161 .11 , - 5_?- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VII1. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral Q ❑ ❑ Q resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources:1,9) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important0 ElQ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources:l,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. T.X.ILAZA"S AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. i Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0Q 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 QEl R1 El environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources:1,9,2Q,21) 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 E1R,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 or ❑ �( acutely hazardous material,substances,or waste within ono--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 Potentially Sigmificant 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'/a mile from the project site.No impacts are anticipated. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 onvironmen.t? (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, ❑ ❑ ❑ ,� 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 Ilan 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 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ [,✓J injury,or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources:l) 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 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan Page 22 0.s,�,5 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation. Significant ISSUES (anal Supporting Information Sources): Impact 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 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. 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 Q groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? t (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,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,which exempts noise construction activity between the hours of 7AM and 8PK Monday through Saturday. The proposed mixed use development on the project site will not result in the generation of significant groundbonme 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 grouzrdbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. ,page 23 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 Q El El in the proj ect vicinity above levels existing without the project?(Sources:1,16) Discussion: The type of noise to be generated by the project in the long terra will be similar to that generated by the existing development and other commercial uses is the area and is not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels significantly. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ 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 D d exiles 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 fxom the Center. No impacts are anticipated. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ [J[ 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. X1.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 enviromnental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fireprotection? (Sources:l) El Page 24 } la Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated impact No Impact b) Police Protection? (Sources:l) ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 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 Labe Fire Station and within 1- %Z miles of the Main Police Station and approximately 'l4 mile froze. 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 fist 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:1) ❑ ❑ Q ❑ i 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) ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Discussion: See discussion under Xl(e)and XV—Recreation. e) Other public facilities or governmental services? ❑ ❑ [� ❑ (Sources:l) 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.. XIL Ulf ATI]ES.AND SERVICE SYSTEMIS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ [� ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Soma? (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(WD1Ls)_ WDRs set Page 25 gt�j 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 11Q [� ❑ 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 storm water ❑ ❑ [,7 ❑ 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 of 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 ❑ ❑ [,7 ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources:1,14, 20) Discussion: The proposed project would result in an intensification of the project site with a not increase of approximately 27,772 sq.f-,which may increase overall water demand. However,the project would not result in a significant increase in«rater consumption that was not previously planT for in the 2010 Water Master Plan and 2010 Urban Wager Management Plan as residential uses, which typically use more water, are a permitted use on the site and the Urban Water Management Plan assumes this type of development on the property. Additionally, the proposed uses and estimated square footages are included in the development potential anal}rzed in the DTSP Program EJR. 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 ❑ provider which serves or may serve the project That it has adequate capacity to serve the projects 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. Selvage Page 26 gp grip.,a 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(wgd). 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 ase 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 capacity 0 R1 ❑ to accommodate the prcject's solid waste disposal i needs? (Sourees: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 Q\Ms)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 InTine. 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 tons/day)and Prima Deschecha in San Juan Capistrano(capacity 4,000 tonsiday)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. Ncesa 3T Asa " -... #?, 6 .N :_. `^ 3 y:a s gmt�'w�m: 5 �j,O 1TSi {I`fL ,.. _ E " :<�.-= w _ „"'�T,� �gj L Office 1.241bs/em loyee/day 150 186lbs/da Commercial 10.53 lbslem to ee/da 200 2,106lbs/day 2,292 lbs/day(1.15 tn1day) 836,580 Ibsfyr(418.29 Total 350 ml r) SOURCE: California Integrated waste Management Board,Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, h :www.eiwmb.ca ovIwastechar/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 51 1 " o -7 IT- 1 9Dd S'4 . 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q regulations relatedto solidwaste? (Sources:l) 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 2009, 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 ❑ ❑ [,/ ❑ control Best Management Practice(BIGIP),(e.g_water quality treatment basin,constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources:l) Discussion: The project is required to be designed such that eater quality froze the proposed development shall not exceed the pre-development condition. Development of the project will result in storniwater 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 thm significant impacts are anticipated. X11I. AESTHETICS. JVould the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ © �J( ❑ (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 ch z aracteried 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 R) of the DTSP. The proposed project will be located across PCH,away from nearby scenic vistas(Le.,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:1,21) Discussion: The State of California Department of Transportation designates scenic highway corridors. The project site is located within and visible from an eligible state scenic highway, Pacific Coast Highway. The project is designed with quality architecture and material so as to contribute to the chameter of the area. The Page 28 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 orEl [� 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 ?now development within the existing downtown core primarW consists of commercial and mixed-use developments ranging from bne-story stand alone commercial buildings to four-story mixed use (commercial/office/residenti.aI) 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 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. 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 tmechanical 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 0 floor top plate exceeds the minimum required floor height and as such,staff recommends a condition of approval to require a reduction of the e floor top plate to match the existing e floor top plate. This would allow for the design intent to match floor plates and at the same time, limit 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 El 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 s 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. Page 29 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and.Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact MN. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ [] ❑ ❑d a historical resource as defined in.815064.5? (Sodrees: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 ❑ ❑ - ❑ ❑ an archaeological resource pursuant to 815064.5? (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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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. X'V. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ El ❑ neighborhood,community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources:l) b) Does the proj ect include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ [ ❑ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sourccs:4) c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources:l,4) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: a)—c) The increased use of existing neighborhood,community and regional parks or recreational facilities would be minimal and would likely consist of occasional use by employees. Page 30 y Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Nfitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Irncorporated 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 ❑ ❑ © Q 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 ❑ ❑ C1 [.1j Williamson Act contract? (Sources:I) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources:l) 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. XVfL GREENHOUSE GAS ENRSSIONS.Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 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 CO2 amortized over the 30-year lifetime. Operational 002 emissions Page31 S� �` 'j{ ''-'-.- - >a;•a 8 V �.�§y`-��v B �^'^va.Y...:r^.r�ai, 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. Other 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 greenbouse 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 City to cnergy efficiency and water use efficiency as well as applicable codes and requirements pertaining requirements for construction equipment that would limit truck and equipment idling tunes, 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(CCAT),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. Bemuse the proposed project would comply with City codes and the project emissions would be less than the proposed SCAQI 4D threshold for annual GHG emissions,the project would not conflict with adopted plans to carry out AB 32. Less than significant impacts are anticipated_ XVM_MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGN 1FICANCF. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Q of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or,9 Idlsfe 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 maj or 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 resource area and therefore will not impact any fish,wildlife,or plant community. The site does not contain any historic resource. Based on discussions in Sections I to XVII above,floe project is anticipated to have no izbpact ozr the Page 32 `` U-1-11 E a,�. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): impact Incorporated Impact No Impact f quality of the environment. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 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) ated and considered as part of the new development potential analyzed Discussion; The project was anticip 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 EM is anticipated to have less than significant impacts and would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Does the project have envira"Mental effects which ❑ Q ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human bckgs, 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 BIQ-1, standard wde 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 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 EM 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.huatkeoabeachc&gov/Government! Departments/Planaing/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.hurLtingtoiLbeachca.gov/_zovemment/ charter codes 43 6 City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report City of Huntington Beach Planning& Building Dept.(see#1) 7 I+EMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(December 3,2009) g CEQA.Air Quality Handbook South Coast Air Quality Management District(1993) 9 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook K 10 Trip Generation Handbook,7h Edition,Institute of Traffic Engineers 11 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos(Oct. 17,2002) 12 State Seismic Hazard Zones Map 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) GftEHv1u0ntnmcHEciaST Page 34 •T n 1 City of-Huntington.Beach Planning& 4 ZO10 Urban Water Management Plan 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#i) 16 Noise Impact Analysis City of Huntington Beach Planning& (November 2011) Building Dept(see#1) 11 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#1) 19 Traffic Study City ofHuntiugton Beach Planning& Prepared by Minagar&Associates,In.(February 2012) Building Dept (see#1) i City of Huntington Beach Planning& 21 Downtown Specific Plan EIR Building Dept.(see#1) 22 Downtown Specific Plan F.,IR—Mitigation Measures Attachment 95 23 Project Mitigation Measure Attachment#5 24 Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Huntington Beach Planning& Prepared by Urban.Crossroads(June 2012) Building Dept.(see Al) 75 Geotechnical Report City of Huntington Beach Planning& Prepared by Petra(October 2011) Building Dept.(see#1) Page 35 DTSP Program ElR Mlh ation Measures Applicable to Proposed Prc&ct _ -- _ During MM 42-1:Dug ;�, - -- cir - - iM1construction,demolition and remodei activities,the following BestAvallable Control Measure shall be^ implemented where feasible: • 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 25 mph. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times per day. Cover all stock piles with tarps. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. • Exhaust Emissions • Require 90-day low-NORxR tune-ups for off-road equipment. Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equlpment • Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel o>Qdation catalysts if available. Utilize diesel particulate filter on heavy equipment where feasible. Utilize law ernission mobile construction equipment. • Utilize existing power sources when available,minimizing the use of higher pollufing gas or diesel generators. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. Plan construction to minimize lane closures on existing streets. • A Pull listing of conshcfion emission controls is included in the Air Quality Assessment for Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan dated April 1[3,2009(Appendix B). • Painting and Coatings Use low VOC coatings and high pressure-low volume sprayers. M 4.2-2:The City shall require by contact specificaons that all diesel powered equipment used would be retrofitted with after treatment products(e.g.,engine catalysts and other technologies available at the time construction commences)to 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. Mfg 4.2-3:The City shall require by contract specifications that alternative fuel construction equipment(e.g.,compressed natural gas,liquid petroleum gas,and unleaded gasoline)would be utilized to the extent feasible at 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 shalt require that developers within the project site use locally available building materials such as concrete, stucco,and interior finishes for construction of the project and associated infrastructure. MM 4.2-5.The Cq shall require developers within the project site to establish a construction management plan v&h Rainbow Disposal to divert a target of 50%of construction,demolition,and site clearing waste. MBA 4.6-6.The City shall require by contract specifications that construction equipment engines will be maintained in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specifrcafion for the duration of construction.Contract specifications shall be 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 specfiications 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 constucton 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 E ate that trucks cannot idle in excess of five minutes per trip, clearly visible to truck drivers.These signs shall st ; MM 4.2-3: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 spedfic applicants shall require that all delivery trucks do not idle for more than five minutes.if loading andlor 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-i1:The property awnerldeveloger ofindividual projects within the DTSP will reduce operation-related emissions through implementation of practices identified in SCAOJAUs CEQA Handbook and the URBEMIS v924,some of which overlap.Specific measures are delineated in the DTSP Air Quality Assessment(Volume 11,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 eve this goal.The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and basin are the most important measures to adii 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 faclities 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 i i 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 spedfic data is required q. Ensure that sidewalks and pedestrian paths are installed throughout the project area. Energy Efficient tvieasures 1. improve thermal integrity of ttie 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 eificlent street lighting. 3. Capture waste heat and reem to it in nonresidential buildings,This measure is icable to the commercial E n TTAf LRIIE�FT_�.I/l � J buildings in the project 4. Provide tighter color roofing and road materials and tree planning programs to comply with the AQIVIP Niiscelfaneous Sources MSC-01 measure.This measure reduces the need for cooling energy in the summer. 5 introduce window glazing,wall insulation,and e1ficient ventilation methods. 6. Install low-ernission water heaters,and use bulltin,energy-efficient appliances. - BiolbgrcaJ::Resoui�es > ,• 'r..- -- lementthe following mitigation MM 4.1�44: Prior to the onset ofground disturbance activities,the project developer shad Imp measure which entails nesting surveys and avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and META species,and appropriate agency consultation. Nesting habitat for protected or sensitive species: 1. Vegetafion 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 shali be conducted by a qualified biologist of all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area Surveys shall be conducted no lass 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 nooactive nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the construction site,no further mitigation is necessary.A copy pre- construction survey shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach.If an active nest of a iUiBTA protected species is identified onsfte(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 omithoiogist or biologist.0. _ VL —. MM 4.3�2:During construction adruities,if archaeological and/or paleontological resources are encountered,the contractor shag be responsible for immedEate 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,work shall be hafted and the contractor shall contact the City`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 wdi ensure that proper treatment and disposition of the remains occurs. - ��rcLy. - _ _ -'•Cw:.��y: - - -_.3*_- - - __ :•A>"^ e- _fv:`- ..�5:4e%li. -'?: L _ r.eS�F'wr�.'- ,a' MMM _ _",u,,s`r, ^'*r_ -__ _ _fi"�: 3: ,' c `��" �:5�-�•• --gig�:Soils,; �.��^,�':�:a-r,�, :��.=�r=�`z�� -���,.�__._-�;�.. and b theCi 's uton~devefaprnent in the DTSP area s e�c�mmendations of the requir d frn� is and geotechnid repod,These t services departments,to contain thetians shall be implemented in the design of the project,including but not Eimited to measures associated with site fill placement,temporary shoring and permanent dewatering,groundwater seismic design features,excavation stability,foundations,sons stabilization,establishment of deep foundations,concrete slabs and pavements,surface drainage, and corrosion measures,erosion control,shoring and internal bracing,and plan review. cement type .;.-aa,✓a=i:r; -_ -�;i':;-'.i:G'!'sr :.vy.`:v --s�_Ky - - - ;�`c-?="�_V _ _.�•. �•._ _—_ ��r '�.�3z����'ns�:�_�� Y'•v.�:.�c-.�:=-'-r�,tu<=�:rv.:=.'S'.-3?.-+�i' __ ,�:s:,. __ _ n�.rc.1,._=;t=3�: :=.�1� -'��' �i'�'?t. -�. s.�t�.:�:�.•r.,�,-'Ls:.�:;.;�a.,.,_,.:-i'�s._.-��=•t.z—�.`==� aza_�_ouis=lVfafeiEats��=�_=-_ -  ::,� s�-���;_.�'=,�`� ,,,, . -.,-. .J• ificPlan 3M 4.5-1:The City of Hunfington Beach-shaft require a Phase One assessment on properties within the Downtown Spec 7¢nYrEkFF Ne. area,including properties utilized for oil production activities,proposed for development to assure that any hazardous materiaWcontaminated soils present on the property are identified and remedlated in accordance with City specifications 422 429 i and 431-92.All native and imported sots associated with a project shall meet the standards outlined in City Specification No.43i- 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 immediate vicinity of the contamination shalt cease immediately.If contamination is encountered,a Disk 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 pubic 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,tong-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 Administralion requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area liyd�olog}and.Wate(Quattty'.��:, - VIM 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 Wafer Quality Management Plan(WQMP)emphasizing implementation of LID principles and addressing hydrologic conditions of concern. WQMPs shall be in compliance with the current Galifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)Santa Ana Region, Waste Discharge Requirements permit,and all Federal,State and local regulations. MM 4.5-2:Prior to Issuance of any grading or building permits,a hydrology and hydraulic analysis shall be submitted to the proval(10-,25-,and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms shall be analyzed). Department of Public Works far review and ap II ak back-to-back 100-year storms for on site detention analysis.The drainage In addition,this study shall include 24hour pe 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 steal[provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. VIM 4,6.4:Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developa or applicant shall submit detailed Landscape Architectural plans by a State Licensed Landscape Architect that shall include a designed irrigation system that eiirninates surface runoff and inance(MC-14.52)requirements and a detailed planting plan that specifies meets the Gity's Water Efficient Landscape Ord 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 Ptan,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. ry�n .t..w �}:.�-"''•w`^_.C,-`.."♦s- ti=i`tie='� �' y���f�F.�F�s __ _.l'El)�.J'e.;`3iv'a`�—'u:%e'''ra'::e.y-=S:':;:..">.-rr'e.C".r.;'i?.'.-iz;^_•.- _s.�- ',..'.. n c.-.:._•.. -. ... ' AIM 4.8-1:Noise attenuation devices shall be used on all construction equipments and construction staging areas shall be located" as far as possible from any residences or other noise sensitive 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- •rr A G14,pX-419 � y — y fT significant levels shall be included in the project plans.The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of project approval_ MM 4.10.1:New construction within the Downtown Speafic PEan Area shall be designed th provide for safety measures(e.g., alarm systems,security Fighting,other on site security measures and crime prevention through environmental design policies)and subject to the review and approval o€ifia Cliy Planning Department and Huntington Beach Police Department. MM 4.10-2:Suet 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 level of service through the use of General Fund monies. - +,_:t�. �� —.-:]:rt':iri:.cam:..=.,...n''•"�'" :.._raF.,T.r.�.,,.i'..nrr.. _.. s,=zt� e iced`"st'eiis;:r �=t _ _,�:�., -,.:�..,5:._-. _ M 4.931 ;. µ... projects Utili�es,:andS.ry,.-_..�'�.._...�,.:�:��,..._.,:�.,�.�f�rx__, . w,_. - To ensure that there are no adverse irnp�s associated with the future Downtown Spedfic Plan development projects during construction,ApplicanUdeveloperl builderlcordractor shall coordinate with utility and service organizations prior to the commencement of construction. MM 4.13.2: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 hew water pipeline facilities.Ail connections to existing water and wastewater infrastructure will be designed and constructed per the requirements and standards of the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department Connections to any OCSD sewer line shall be designed to OGSD standards. Such installation shall be coordinated,reviewed,and approved by the appropriate City departments 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 urinals should be specified in all public areas,including restaurants and commercial bathrooms. Law-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 ail new residential and commercial spaces and encouraged in existing developed properties. water efficient kitchen and laundry room appliances should be encourage through rebates for boar residential and commercial units. Landscaping should be completed with drought tolerant plants and native species. Irrigation plans should use smart controllers and have separated irrigation meters. MM 4.13-4:As ind'rvidua!development occurs within the Downtown Sp fG Plan area,additional hydraulic studies shall be performed to verify that water pipes will adequately support each specific project A sewer study shall be prepared for Public Works Department review and approval.A fourteen(14)day or longer flow test data shall be included In the study.The location and number of monitoring test sites,not to exceed three,to be determined by the Public Works Department. MM 4.13.5:As individual development occurs within the Downtown Specific Plan Area,eactr development shall be required to pay for the development's fair share of Infrastructure improvements to electrical systems per Southern Callfomia Edison requirements. ,�,o�Hhri€1VT NO � c Attachment No. 6 Summary of Mitigation Measures i p►escriptiort of Impact mitigation Measure I Tree relocation BIO 1 Tree replacement of any existing mature trees on-site shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 232Landscape 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 r by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department b. Detailed specifications and procedures for the translocation of the identified trees. e. 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 E Department for review_ In the event that any tree is not surviving, it shall be replaced with the same type and size of tree. I A letter from the developer stating that the recommendations of the Consulting Arborist will be followed. Xf i • b RESPONSES TO COMMENTS DRAFT MND 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. COMMENT FETTERS RECEIVED DURING THE DRAFT HIND COMMENT PERIOD No. Commenter/Organization Abbreviation STATE DEPARTMENTS i 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 SM r 13 Bill Garrisi,July 16,2012 GARR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT MND NO. 11-007 STATE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(DOT),Amy 16,2012 DOT-1 The continent 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 Iof17 CITY ADVISORY BOARD HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD(HBEB),JULY 17,2012 HBEB-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. 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. I-IBEB-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 2of17 .� s (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 maj ority 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 AB341. 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. BBEB-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 ,. �� AT TA Hfi r;IE- 1 N ' 16 �l 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 ALBR[GHT(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. TnomAs CONNOLLY(CONN),JULY 16,2012 CONK-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. CONK-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 g;y p jp q p T , t�r9 0 9 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. CONK-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. CONK-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 E l Ty` ENT 1 ,?•6 4, .=fig 5 flk i E-F .��,:,�a�" 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 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. 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 �y�jFq`�9c4 CAROL MCCANN(CMCC),DULY 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. ® TROh1AS MCCANN(TMCC),JuLY 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 17A C_{p T 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-terra 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 `".1ACMc t ��� 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 BzxBy(BIXB),JULY 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 15t floor to be removed from the plans. B1XB-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 9of17 B1XB-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. B1XB-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),JULY 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 qy iJt a. i" - 11 4� F Y 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 f I A h g 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 proj ect. 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 I0-feet from construction activities, impacts from groundborne vibration axe 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-I I 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 AT INPRENT NO �r •TA- n 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(BADE),JULY 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 QAy F ,_ ` a• " 10 (�. 1 LA 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 33.1.4 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 continent 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. i e JEFF SMITH(SN UT),JULY 16,2012 j SM1T-i 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 ATT&O"HiNMENT NO. 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-terra 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 GARwsi(GARR),JULY 16,2012 GARB-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. GARB.-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 S ace 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 1st floor to be removed from the plans. GARR-4 The continent 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 GARB-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. GARB-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. GARB-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 AA T 7 irk E 1#y' T N 0 (� 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. TranMortation/Traffi e 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 July 16,2012 Ja` city CA "JJrttix1gtonl Beach ,_ �} 1 pGOEPPRTMENT OF P1.l+nNING` Ethan Edwards Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department 2000 Main Street RFCEIVE-D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JUL �.Y Dept.of Plannii1a HU14T1uC"YLSN i'IEtY CUt:']NY Qi��F['� Rod Albright b� 200 PCH#141 -Huntington Beach,CA 92-648 Dear Mr. Edwards: I want to document my opposition to the adol2tion of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of the Pierside Pavilion Expansion Project(300 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach,CA). My wife and I have lived in Huntington Beach at Pier Colony for more than 20 years. During _ that time there have been many businesses that have failed on that side of the Pierside Pavilion. Retail space on the first floor at this corner has been mostly vacant. We believe that serious safety issues will occur as a result of the proposed modification to Pierside Pavilion. Moving storefronts closer to Pacific Coast Highway and closing off the open area at the south, east corner will severely limit the space between Pier Colony, Pierside Pavilion and Pacific Coast Highway. In the Downtown Specific Plan 2.5.6 Special permits shall only.be allowed when, in the opinion of the approval authority,significantly greater benefits from the project can be provided than rl would occur if all the minimum requirements were met it goes on to state that it not to be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or city J in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the"value of property"or improvements of the neighborhood or of the city in general.Clearly this building would greatly affect the property value of Pier Colony The original CUP no.88-7 dated April 5, 1988 states that 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 this project"this tells me M that the planning commission truly recognized that the residential and commercial should i maintain as much separation as possible. Furthermore the planning commission put in place that the residential could have a site coverage of 59%whereas the commercial site coverage d 60%.And as I add the existing Pierside Pavilion 89,415 and their proposed 37,173,this brings 1IPage i their site coverage to a total of 126,588.The total of the two parcels (based on CUP 88-7) are 170,912 sq ft, and with the Pierside Expansion,the commercial site coverage would be approx 75%. It also states that the numbers of units were reduced from 160 to 130 to create a greater separation between residential and commercial portions of the project and provide for a better overall building profile and "to provide greater view opportunities" Pier Colony was built with greater upper building setbacks to enhance the ocean experience_ Q The Pierside expansion hopes to build a 4 story building lust 15 feet from Pacific Coast Hwy with only one small setback. This Proposed Expansion (MND)should not be allowed.There are many other opportunities for the developer to maximize the open area courtyard without infringing on their good neighbors, and the citizens of Huntington Beach. Sin erely, i ey A bright 7 4 345-3533 rodalbright aol.co i 2 Pa e JUL 0 20I Z I✓thm Bdviads Dept.of Pfen1ni!)q Aw6de PI ter €s UI1dtll City CAE Rmfi-agton Bewb 'Planning&Building Dement 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach.,,CA 92649 Dear Sir: I aan owner md tesident of a prope-TtY at Pier Colony(200 ftift Coastfth y),annd am wing thts,m respom to*--proposed project"Ptemide Pa hou Ev=910n* lie pxojectr 1tIs IrY uudcmtund ,hc proposed pujea will end the current building at 300 Pacific Coat-M,ghmy(PPiersidePavilion)sigmfl(:a y. The portion of tbehmIdmg betweOMPWCOlOnY and Piemde Pavilion closest t€�Walnut Ave wAII be=tended closer to Fier Colony,and a new lm-tding ,VIII be built in addition to the cat building at the southeast comer of the existing bcuMing. From*e meeting as 711.0,it would appear tb-git-rhe driving fitaor boMnd this addition is tv atd,.exist g ��available e r t to-u�t. t sign cs �t tt o the now addition will be dev ted to an EeAwnmt with tt inmticna of bi acing fM Uaf HO for The=rcut tend Spate Sq= be reseNed as per the 6`ies requirements(m the ground Hoar for vishtor seming commueW use. f f my�o�i=�wilh*e Projectam istltl#�i�5 �!?���: : . P�esi&ntia.l Buffers As per.Semen 3,2.2I of the Dovmtc��Spe lic�elopsn t Plan;re d fial buffers a tobe left betty=commerzial businesses and residential area Awording to section 2,-noise and odor r generating aumbes ass i with c mn=ma aciivity are not perxttcd ehin #1'of a r ides�. p prase restaa t is min 5W of the edge ref Pier Cdony,and by 2 _ defniften an alcohol serving mstmr with Outdoor sca ng Wall a=ft bc+..noise and odor_ ppZ The map induded on the Downtwvn Sp be Dr-vc Wmmt Flan did not specifically shoe'ou it theJ s a b ean- 'Pier Colony and Pi x-Ade Pavilion,but by dentition should be included. B: Public Open.Space M per SeWon 33-1.15 of the Downtown Sp=ibc Develamnent Plan,Public Open SpyPad 1 states t -pub&Open space and pedesftia a s-shall be-mqu red for develolmenat projects it, order tG asses a predomi ntly tor,,eming,pedesVm ezriemkdloe WIMIe in t1=1 areas of the Smuud floor of the.proposal dc-?cloMent have bey set aside Ibr#hat purpose,na c+ncrac tests eve b=shown as irtereAed in ihee 7proiefty- In addition,even cunl=tenants in the a U existing building do nat seem to meet the deftnWon€of visitor suing. Vamc{yaynd turnover rates P�iL.�6 LS EN A YT fit. V U in that area of the building are high,and while empty storefronts may satisfy the letter of the law as per the development plan,they obviously do not fit the spirit of the plan. C:Landscaping and Greenery As per Section 3.3.1.15 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,Public Open Space,part 5 states that"30%minimum of the public open space area shall contain landscaping,including shade trees, accent trees,and other soft landscaping.Hard surfaced areas and specialty paving shall also � be incorporated into the public open space design."According to the plans released by the Z developer, 1,555 square feet of the 8,880 square feet of open space is considered landscaped. This Z is 17.5°/0. In addition,from the plans released by the developer,it would appear that some of the 0 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. D:Public View As per Section 3.3.1.14 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,"Development proposals in District 1 located between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue shall include a public view analysis. Setbacks may be increased and site coverage, density and building heights may be reduced as necessary to protect public views of the ocean Provision of public viewing locations from within a development may be required to offset adverse impacts of the development proposal Z on public views of the ocean." I have not seen any public release of said public view analysis. Z This proposed o osed development will severely curtail the views of the ocean from Walnut Ave. Based u on the drawings released by the developer,views of the ocean will be decreased by 50%from the south side of that pedestrian corridor,and a similar amount from the northem side of the pedestrian. corridor. E: Safety_ The proposed development extends the western edge of the building to approximately 10' from Pacific Coast Highway. This replaces a very large public open space that is a community gathering area for many. The pedestrian corridor between.Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion is a heavily trafficked route to the ocean from inland areas,and the addition of a new building will force all of 0 that traffic closer to Pacific Coast Highway,a high speed thoroughfare_ Vehicle/pedestrian v interactions are virtually unavoidable,and will most likely eventually result in a lawsuit against the city. 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 lames 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 are increase in both the number as well as severity of accidents. F:Future Development In Section 1.4.3.6 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,Pedestrian Environment the Plan states`fin addition to issues with parking,development standards, and design guidelines,a focus of concern in the downtown is the pedestrian nature of the area. it is crucial that the downtown be a pedestrian-oriented environment.There is also a desire to minimize the areas of pedestrian and °« icENT N . G•ZZ vehicle conflict to direct pedestrian traffic flows away from vehicle traffic flows,as well as a desire to accommodate bicycle interplay" Looking south down Pacific Coast Highway from Main Street,there are currently wide sidewalks and open areas leading south.. The addition of a new building in the proposed location will serve as a natal pedestrian block,preventing pedestrian.traffic from progressing south on Pacific Coast Highway. Given that there are developments in several stages of completion throughout that area, reducing pedestrian traffic towards those areas will inhibit farther growth_ For any future growth to be successful in the block to the south of the current Dairy Queen,pedestrian traffic must naturally flow from Main.Street. G: Decreased width of alleyway/pedestrian access to ocean As a part of proposed development,the existing pedestrian corridor between Pier Colony and _ r, Pzersi Pavilion will be narrowed. There is currently a private access open space on the.second ' floor balcony along the southern edge of the building,underneath which is public access open area_ ? This ground floor public access open space represents between 30%-50%of the width of the p corridor leading to the ocean from Walnut Ave. Extending the ground floor of the existing �7 building south will significantly decrease the access to the ocean from Walnut Ave. H:Noise 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 Ievels in the pedestrian corridor between Fier Colorer and Pierside Pavilion. These readings were taken from Friday,October 28 2011 through Monday.October 312011. 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. I question the validity of a noise study performed in late fall,when pedestrian traffic is at a minimum. In addition,a significant amoumt of the measured noise is coming from the existing Black Bull restaurant and bar at the southeastern comer 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 m °o Rancho Mirage,which is a small(10%population of Huntington Beach,trending toward an older Z 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 mmurrum,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 T question if measurements taken in January would match those taken at a time when visitors to the area are at their peak- The noise study assumes that noise from the proposed development will propagate from the source outward equally;while this proposed development Vnll be at both comers 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 additiort,the proposed new restaurant will cover 2 floors,both Nvith 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. I: Construction Noise Construction is anticipated to last 12 months,with self imposed hours of operation between 8A N4 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. Agar,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 2 exposure shall be provided when sound levels exceeded those shown in Table Cy-16"(21CFR JC 1910.95(a)3. 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. J:Design As per Section 1.4.35 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,Design Character,"Existing design regulations encourage adherence to a 1VMediterraaean style of architecture.A desire exists to provide opportunities for a broader interpretation of the Mediterranean architectural style. The revised design guidelines found in this Specific Plan encourage this architectural variation in downtown." _0 Both Pier Colony and the existing building at Pierside Pavilion were designed with the t Mediterranean style of architecture in mind,and the two buildings complement each other. While � there is room within the Downtown Specific Development Plan for a broader interpretation of the Mediterranean style of architecture,the plans as shown thus far by the developer have been a significant departure from that. Case m point;at the meeting on 7110,the developer explicitly stated that the intention was to create a building that would stand out visually from the surrounding buildings. This new building would be separate in design from the remainder of Main Street,and would further serve to isolate anything developed south on Pacific Coast Highway. K: Traffic Traffic along Pacific Coast Highway is already heavy,particularly in the summer months. It is not uncommon to sit at a red light for multiple cycles before enough room opens up to allow for traffic to flow through an i--Aersection. Obviously the worst intersections are the three locations where 7- Pacific Coast Highway intersects the immediate downtown area,and this proposed development wiR cause further congestion at each of them. I have not seen a formal traffic study for this proposed development,has there been one completed? Conclusions: 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€€rho are luck-y enough to reside here. However,these opporbnaities 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. The proposed development at Pierside Pavilion seems to be a solution looking for a problem,and does not appear to satisfy many of the provisions of the Downtown Specific Development Plan_ { No study has been made as to how this project will impact other developments both proposed as 2 €veil as began,and the proposed project has the potential to inflame further tensions between � neighbors in the downtown area. While not within the purview of this discussion, may it may be Q worthwhile to study in more detail the tree visitor serving aspect of the current building and issues U therein prior to moving forward with this proposal. I wcauld 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 Yo for your time r 1J ' Thomas Connolly ?a""S`vt Cs{tEN 3 iStO.--V�_�._._. RECEIVED JUL 1601� Dept,of Planning Ethan Edwards 13uildinTuly 16,2012 Associate Planner Huntington Beach Planning and Building Dept 200 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Mr. Edwards After reviewing the Mitigated Negative Declaration far the Pierside Pavilion Expansion Project,I was prompted to write and express my displeasure and disagreement with the project on several counts. As a resident homeowner in Pier Colony condominium,I believe that this proposal to encroach on an existing finished plaza,built to code,according to the Downtown Specific Plan is detrimental to all of us z who purchased there in good faith.We believed that the existing buffers between commercial and residential properties would be maintained according to Section 3.2.21 of the Downtown Specific Plan. We believed we were not purchasing adjacent to a vacant lot,but a finished site that would be U be.it is a public space used as a through fare to the ocean by maintained as it was built and meant to the public and a gathering space.It provides light and air in an otherwise closely built downtown area. The proposed project would negatively impact the public view as well as the views of Pier Colony ` residents.Section 3.3.1.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan requires a public view analysis.it states "Setbacks may be increased and site coverage,density and building heights maybe reduced as Q necessary to protect public views of the ocean".This expansion proposal, requests the complete ' opposite,asking for a variance to increase the allowable height thereby diminishing the view from t1 Walnut St. and the West side of Pier Colony condominiums. Others against the project are focusing on the excess noise the project will produce,the increase in traffic, obstruction of light and the lack of parking.All of these are reasonable arguments to not allow this expansion. I,however feel this ugly proposed box of a building,squeezed into the Mediterranean architecture that defines our portion of pacific Coast Highway ruins the beautiful current approach to down town Huntington Beach.Please consider the lack of aesthetics related to this project as one more U reason to disallow it. Sincerely, Carol M.McCann Ethan Edwards July 16,2012 Associate Planner � 11 City of Huntington Beach Planning.and Building Department 2000 Main Street JUL Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dept. of FIanning Building Clear Mr.Edwards, I write to oppose the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of the Pierside Pavilion Expansion Project(300 Pacific Coast Highway,Huntington Beach,CA). I own and live in Units 424 and 426 with my wife Carol in Pier Colony Condominiums at 200 Pacific Coast Highway.On our baloneys we look directly at the Pierside Pavilion building.We moved therein 1991 for. my job with Hughes Aircraft Co,rented at Pier Colony for a year and a half,bought 424 at an auction in 1993.We subsequently acquired 426 in 2000 and with City and Pier Colony Board of Directors approval we connected the two units to give us 2200 square feet of living space on the most desirable floor in Pier Colony. i served 20 years in the Air Force, retired in 1986,worked in the Aerospace Industry for 14 years and worked for Walt Disney lmagineering for 7 years.l retired from Disney in 2006.Carol and l have lived frugally and have paid off both mortgages for units 424 and 426.We now live a comfortable life with - pensions and no mortgage payments sharing as often as possible our Pier Colony dream with our four children and six grandchildren. The proposal documented in Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No.11-007 is seriously flawed.The idea of constructing a four story,90 feet high,27,772 sq ft mixed-use,visitor serving/office building and 9,401 sq ft infill expansion by exisisting storefronts in the narrow spaces between Pier Pavilion, Pier Colony and Pacific Coast Highway is absurd. During the 21 years we have lived in Pier Coiony we have observed the creation and dissolution of many businesses at the south east corner of Pierside Pavilion.Most of the time the retail space on the first floor at this corner has been vacant.The congestion and noise on this corner has increased significantly. We believe that serious safety issues will occur as a result of the proposed modification to Pierside Pavilion. Moving storefronts closer to Pacific Coast Highway and closing off the open area at the south east corner will severely limit the space between Pier Colony,Pierside Pavilion and Pacific Coast Highway resulting in acute pedestrian dangers which don't exist today. The noise analysis commissioned by the city is seriously flawed.Data from other cities were used at less than maximum sound generation from traffic noise.The heavy period for downtown Huntington Beach as I'm sure you're aware is between Memorial Day and Labor Day.There was no noise data taken at all during this period.Also the intensification of the sound due to the closing in of space between Pier !� Colony and Pierside Pavilion(the canyon effect)was ignored completely.As a result,any conclusions based on the data obtained to date are highly questionable. Many of my colleagues who reside at Pier Colony have written you letters addressing code issues and M variances with the current downtown development plan.Also,some have addressed the original intent of the downtown development plan of the late 1980s.We feel that the Pier Colony residents have lived up to their responsibilities to the community and deserve a fair and impartial judgment on a project which affects their property value and the quality of their lives.We believe that judgment should maintain the current profile of the Pier Pavilion building as much as possible and addresses our concerns about safety and environment affecting the entire community. Sincerely, Thomas E McCann s 3'A4 �i=�h�'H,� t O, ,irk RECEIVE0 o� c�c LeeJULJ� 6 Z012 Fel& A LAW CORPORATION! Dept of Planning &Building 23161 MILL CREEK DRIVE,SUITE 300 LAGUNA HILLS,CA 92653 (949)729-8002 12707 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE,Suter 200 SAN DIEGO,CA 72130 (949)729-8012 FAx (858)755-3741 www.CAHOALAw.caM July 11,2012 SENT V-fA FAX AND U.S.MAIL TO:(714)374-1540 Ethan Edwards Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning&Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Re- Comment of Huntington .Pier Colony Homeowners Association in opposition.to Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration for Pierside Pavilion Expansion Project 300 Pacific Coast Hi hwa Dear Mr.Edwards: This office serves as legal counsel to the Huntington Pier Colony Homeowners Association ("Association"). As you may know, Huntington Pier Colony is a condominium development comprised of 130 residential dwellings located at 200 Pacific Coast highway, directly adjacent to the site of the proposed Pierside Pavilion expansion. On behalf of the Association and its members, we are contacting you to express our client's strong oppositionto the adoption of the Draft Mitigated � Negative Declaration and continuing concerns regarding the planned expansion of Pierside Pavilion. As you know, our clients' homes are located immediately adjacent to the Pierside Pavilion, the project being separated from the existing structure by only a narrow alleyway. The proposed expansion will inevitably have an extreme adverse impact on our clients'daily lives,as well as their property values. Of particular concern are issues of noise, safety and traffic congestion during the Section X of the Mitigated Negative anticipated twelve month construction period and thereafter. Declaration indicates that during construction 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. The report states that,"Construction of the project will create short-term noise impacts," however,the construction will be anything but short term.Rather,construction is anticipated to take Ethan Edwards City of Huntington Beach Planning&Building Department July 11, 2012 Page-2- approximately twelve months. Once construction is completed, significant noise impacts are anticipated from restaurant terrace activities,including approximately 6,146 sq.ft_of outdoor dining on the second floor and the rooftop deck, with the second floor terrace spanning the length of the alleyway separating the proj ect from the existing residences and extending back to Walnut Avenue. Clearly,.siloh- 0lUtsid �l. ^zguCLTJ2t1 ,4t Cli w111'berlif'StlirlEn t .4tuf�uivlii�tiftd.IielaVLirS,ixJili have more than an minimal impact on our homeowners' use and quiet enj oyment of their homes. The Association and its members are also concerned with the increase in traffic,both vehicular and pedestrian,that will result from the planned expansion, as well as the parking congestion that will occur on the streets surrounding Pier Colony. The project proposes to add 10,527 sq. ft. of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurants, and 21,441 sq. ft of office space without providing for any additional M parking. The increase in traffic to and from the Pavilion generated by the new restaurant and retail space combined with the lack of any additional parking will only contribute to the already congested conditions on the streets immediately surrounding Pier Colony. In addition, the year-long construction of the project is expected to result in interruptions to traffic circulation, including pedestrian and bicycle flow,which will interfere with our homeowners'ability to access their homes. The owners at Pier Colony are further concerned with the effect that the development will have on the value of their homes. The increased noise and light emissions from the expansion will inevitably impact the desirability of the homes in Pier Colony, and the proposed construction of a four-story building will significantly impair the view and light from condominium homes located on the northwest side of Pier Colony. As planned,the four-story building will exceed maximum height 21- requirements of the Zoning Code and Specific Plan,requiring the granting of a variance,a variance y4 j without any factual basis and totally contrary to the laws of California. The reduction in front setback along PCH and planned infilling of open arcade areas within the footprint of the existing will essentially block-in the residential complex and eliminate building with afour-story structure the existing views of condominiums bordering the Pavilion. The impact on views from the condominiums has not been addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and will adversely affect property values. For all of the reasons stated above, as well as the dictates of common decency,the Huntington Pier Colony Homeowners Association,whose members will be greatly impacted by the construction and y„ existence of the proposed expansion, objects to the proposed project and urges the Planning Commission not to adopt the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. j4 t`g�c�..aI =�.ramNRI t�L f'� � � Ethan Edwards City of Huntington Beach Planning&Building Department July 11,2012 Page-3- The proposed structure is an eyesore and inconsistent with the architectural theme for the area. Why, so the developer can have roof top dining and drinking all to the extreme detriment of the citizens by of Huntington Beach. At best, approval would surely create a private and public nuisance for the residential units next door and the public at large. Should you have any questions concerning the foregoing,please do not hesitate to contactthis office. Very truly yours, FELDSOTT&LEE By: J C L 0 By: STAN LEY FEL SO . JP/SF/jk cc: Board of Directors, Huntington Pier Colony Homeowners Association A lTI AL' i re-u— �.- N 0. 6 Xiistribution U ,Seat Vga Facsimile and U.&Mail Michael C.Adams &Associates Kenneth W.Small Architects Chief of Police P_0.Box 382 Huntington Beach Police Department Huntington Beach,CA 92648 2000 Main Street Fax: (714)374-2211 Huntington Beach,CA 92648. Fax:(714)536-5605 City Council Members City of Huntington Beach Attn;Mayor Don Ransen Mayor Pro Tem Devin Dwyer . Council Member ConWe Boardman Council Member Keith Bahr Council Member Joe Carcbi.o Council Member Matthew Hauper Council Member Joe Shaw 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA.92649 Fax: (714)536-5233 City Planning Commission City of Hunturfg on Beach Attu.:Commissioner Barbara Delgleize Commissioner Jams Manfti Commissioner Erik Peterson Comssioner Mark Bixby Commissioner Timothy J.Ryan Commissioner Elizabeth Shier Burnett Commissioner Blair Farley Planning and Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Fsx:(714)374-1648 Sherilyn Sarb Deputy Director California Coastal Commission-Orange County 200 Oceangate,I M Floor LonS Beach,CA M02-4416 Fin- (562)590-5084 E� July 15,2012 City of Huntington Beach Dept.of Planning &Building Planning& Building Department ATTN: Ethan Edwards 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Pierside Pavilion Expansion Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No.11-007 Dear Mr. Edwards, I am writing to express the following concerns with the Pierside Pavilion Expansion Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)No. 11-007. Land.Use and PIa- ninon Visitor-Serving Commerei.al Overlay The General Plan consistency analysis on p. 6 of the MND states: "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„ However,elsewhere throughout the MND, project narrative,and project plans,there are references to"retail/office" or"office" uses designated for the additional ground floor square rzo footage being proposed for this project. General Plan Coastal Element Policy C 1.1.3 states: "The use of private lands suitable for visitor serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance pubic opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial,or_general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry." (emphasis added) 1 s�� The Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP)is the implementation vehicle for the above policy within the downtown portion of the Coastal Zone. The DTSP defines visitor-serving facilities as: "Public and private developments that provide accommodations,food,and services,including hotels, motels,timeshares, campgrounds,restaurants, retail sales,cultural uses,and amusement areas for tourists."(emphasis added) DTSP Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses implements the Coastal Element C 1.1.3 policy giving priority to visitor-serving commercial uses (emphasis added): 1) Visitor-serving commercial uses are re aired for all ground floorsguare footage in the District 1 Visitor Servin Commercial Overia (see Figure 3-22a.}: a) Within the Lake Street overlay, all uses permitted on the ground floor of District 1 are allowed. In addition,single-family residential, multi-family residential,and offices are allowed at the ground floor street frontage (see Figure 3-22b.). The legend for DTSP Figure 3-22a depicting the boundaries of the Visitor Serving Commercial Overlay states: "Visitor Serving Commercial Overlay(District 1):All ground floor square footage within the V_isitorServinq Commercial overlay shall be v sitor-serving commercial uses. Non-Visitor Serving Commercial uses may be permitted only above the %4 ground floor within this overlay area."(emphasis added) Note that the DTSP defines the Lake Street Overlay as a use-superset of the Visitor Serving Commercial Overlay with several"additional ground floor uses including offices. Thus, office uses are not valid ground floor uses within the Visitor Serving Commercial Overlay or else they would not need to be explicitly enumerated for the Lake Street Overlay. The Visitor Serving Commercial Overlay was a suggested DTSP modification by the Coastal Commission that was accepted by the city council on August 15,2011. City staff supported this modification in their recommendation to council in the August 15,2011 staff report: "The Coastal Commission suggested the Visitor-Serving Commercial Overlay modification to ensure that visitor-serving commercial uses would remain proportional Tonal to other lower priority uses such as residential and office uses in the areas with the highest volume of visitors,closest to the beach and along Main Street.Staff believes this modification is a good compromise and will serve its intended purpose as well as further the goals of the DTSP to promote tourism ^ and become a destination for residents and visitors." �4 This project's inclusion of new ground-floor office square footage appears to be inconsistent with Coastal Element Policy C 1.1.3 and DTSP Section 3.3.13. The staff language in this section of the MND needs to specifically address the issue of ground- floor office uses for this project. Blolo_ffi cal Resources Bird Strikes due to Re eeti-ve Glass Surfaces This project proposes a tall expansion building on the coast with a high proportion of the coast- facing side of the building consisting of glass or other reflectiveitransparent materials. !J Bird strikes were a serious problem with the coastal Brightwater residential development's glass perimeter wall until special transparent anti-bird stickers were added. r What potential mitigation strategies exist if the proposed project experiences undue bird strikes after construction? Aesthetics Potential Shade and Shadow irapacts to Pier Colony This project proposes an expansion building where the 76ft-tall edge of the new building is just SQft away from the adjacent Pier Colony residential building. Pier Colony residents are concerned about potential shade and shadow impacts,yet no impact studies have been done as part of this MND. M The recent Beach-Warner Mixed Use and Beach-Ellis Mixed Use projects are approximately the ;14 same height as the proposed project but are located at greater distance from sensitive cv� residential uses,yet shade and shadow impact studies were performed per discretionary BECSP mitigation measure MM 4.1-1. The DTSP lacks a similar shade/shadow mitigation measure, but does include mitigation measure CR 4.1-1 that limits light spill onto adjacent properties. But light and shadow are two s AiC,eI€tit I:Ii I . 3 e close proximity of Pier Colony, understanding of the sides of the same coin,and-due to th potential shadow impacts would be prudent. Third Street Public View Corridor General Plan Coastal Element Policy C 4.2.3 requires preservation of public view corridors: "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 original Pierside Pavilion(Pier Colony project(aka Main Pier Phase 1)was entitled by CUP 88-7 and CUP 88-3. This project included the vacation of Third Street between Walnut and PCH in order to consolidate two full blocks into a single project,with the visitor-serving uses on the half of the site west of Third Street,and the residential portion on the half of the site east of Third Street. The April 5, 1988 planning commission staff report notes that: "The residential portion of the project,located on the eastern half of the parcel farthestfrom Main Street and the pier, has been designed as a separate use from the adjacent visitor-serving uses through the use.of view, light and air corridors." The view corridor described above corresponds to vacated Third Street. The planning commission approved the project on April 5, 1988, and subsequently approved final Conditions of Approval on April 19, 1988. However,this project was conditioned to be dependent on Downtown specific Plan changes that were pending before the city council. � Quoting selected passages from the planning commission April 19, 1988 Notice of Action: "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." "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." "This approval represents conceptual approval only;detailed plans must be submitted for review and the aforementioned conditions completed prior to final approval." Thus final approval for this project was being deferred until after the pending DTSP modifications enacted by Ordinance 2942 were in effect on June 15, 1998. This ordinance made a substantial number of modifications, including the following: "5.4.2.15 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#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." This project was located in District#3 under the numbering scheme then in effect and was thus subject to the view corridor preservation requirement due to the vacation of Third Street. The city council approved a second amended DDA on June 27, 1999,that laid out the obligations of each party including the subsequent sequencing of future milestones �- including the street vacation which apparently had not yet occurred at the time the DDA amendment was approved. This project returned to the planning commission on October 4, 1988,for plan modifications that were not spelled out in the minutes (I lack the staff report for that meeting). The project returned again to the planning commission for review of updated architectural elevations on December 6,1988. At some point that I was unable to determine from city clerk archives,what was once a single tract map (T MI 13478)split into two separate final tract maps (TR 13478 for the residential portion,and TR 13722 for the visitor-serving portion) that were approved by the city council on March 20,1989 and recorded with the county on August 2,1989. Both final tract maps recorded with the county depict Third Street between Walnut and PCH, so apparently it had not yet been vacated by the time the maps were recorded. AT t;,r But long story short from this history lesson is that several key approvals for the project occurred after DTSP section S.42.15 was added requiring preservation of street vacation public view corridors. This view corridor was recognized in later projects. Ina letter from applicant Jonathan P.Chodos to the RDA regarding a February 20, 1990,presentation about the Pierside Village project on the seaward side of PCH,a viewshed analysis map is included that depicts the Third Street view corridor (see Exhibit 1). Contemporary Google Earth aerial imagery as well as a site visit confirms the presence of a public view corridor in the former Third Street location. The aerial width of the corridor is somewhat difficult to ascertain based on the information available to me and so evaluating the extent of any encroachments is imprecise,but it appears that the two existing stairwells may be in violation of the DTSP S.4.2.15 five foot height limit in effect at the time of their construction. Sheet A-0 ("Site Plan/Landscape") depicts the new footprint of the proposed expansion. Present on this sheet are two vertical dashed lines appearing to correspond to the Third Street vacation with the notation "60'0"View Corridor" in the very smallest of fonts which is only readable in the native PDF copy of the plans(this is the exact reason I ask for native PDFs). This sheet depicts major encroachment of the expansion into the view corridor by as much as approximately 16-17ft in places. Staff needs to explain how this apparent encroachment into a public view corridor is r consistent with Coastal Element Policy C 4.2.3 and the DTSP S.4.2.15 section under which the corridor preservation was first obligated. x At the time of this writing(July 15,2012)there is currently uncertainty as to whether the city has actually vacated Third Street between Walnut and PCH. The original project entitlements and the DDA clearly proposed the vacation of Third Street. The Public Works Project Implementation Code Requirements memo attachment page number 4.6 for the proposed project refers to"the vacated 3`i St". So Public Works apparently considered the street to be vacated at the time the project requirements memo was written. But on the other hand,the city clerk's archives contain no record of the street being vacated, and the project applicant asserts that the street was never vacated and thus no view corridor preservation obligation exists. It is instructive to return to the language of DTSP S.4.2.15 that the origina['entitlements were subject to—"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 ,Prot: `0 2� Ad 1ST... between Walnut Avenue and PCH" (emphasis added). According to that Ianguage,the view corridor preservation obligation was incurred by proposing the vacation and thus it should be irrelevant that the city may have dropped the ball and committed a clerical error by not following through on finalizing the vacation. If Third Street was not vacated as per prior plans for this site,then contemporary vacation of the street might trigger the requirements of current DTSP Section 3.2.5 Street Vacations, quoted in part as follows: "Any development proposing the vacation of streets intersecting Pacific Coast Highway in T District 1 shall provide a view corridor that meets the following criteria; x 1) Shall be located between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. M 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." Planning staff needs to clarify the status of Third Street,whether there is a view corridor that needs to be preserved free of encroachments from the proposed building envelope,and which DTSP language applies to said view corridor. Sincerely, ;aEt Mark D. Bixby 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92649-4707 phone:714-625-0876 email: mark@bixby.org Attachments: Exhibit 1—Chodos Pierside Village letter map depicting Third Street view corridor F ' Exhibit I C A U ' d S] T1 p tr.gym n. 4r,l tnl Y.ipnpl 1.nL.p r nrm „ R ,roan:pn m i C m 1 w � Psclllc Ccasl l�riwey y gs ------- -- •, — �{ ...c Y.-erg,'n a ra•. .C-•-;--r �' �,,,+, ,ryw n#^M .r ..n'r..... .ter O , w i tpPY ryuA• p/r/IUN l ........• .....�• ..�. ...........-..... ............r. ....� ••... / .A .h..l, .a..• .•..»..•........�. ................. .. ............... ..... C View Corridors •�•-� Sile Plan r. �Y .Ir d E (!5 3 1L D .(L'r L 4 " E COCA RNJY_.. FAX COVER SHEET TO: ETHAN EDWARDS ASSOCIATE PLANNER CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �U PLANNING&BUILDING DEPARTMENT � � �ts3 714-374-1648 'Dept FROM: ERIC YAO CHRISTINA YAO 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#226 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 MAILING ADDRESS:P.0.BOX.17196 IRVINE,CA 92623 TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 6 SUBJECT: COMMENTS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT"PIERSIDE PAVILION EXPANSION" AI IF O—r dE '�f::z�l w � 1 July 14,2012 Ethan Edwards Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning&Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Via Fax 714-374-1648 Email:eedwards@surfcity-hb.org Hand deliver 7/14/2012 RE:Comments to the proposed project"Pierside Pavilion Expansion" Dear Sir: My wife and I are the original owner and resident of a property at Pier Colony(200 Pacific Coast Highway), and are writing this in response to the proposed project"Pierside Pavilion Expansion" The Project: It is my understanding that the proposed project will expand the current building at 300 Pacific Coast Highway(Pierside Pavilion) significantly.The portion of the building between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion closest to Walnut Ave will be extended closer to Pier Colony, and a new building will be built in addition to the current building at the southeast corner of the existing building. From the meeting on 7/10,it would appear that the driving factor behind this � addition is to add to existing office space available to the current office tenant.A significant portion of the new addition will be devoted to an unknown restaurant with the intention of increasing foot traffic for the current tenant Sparks. Space will be reserved as per the cities requirements on the ground floor for visitor serving commercial use. My concerns with the project are outlined as follows: A.: Residential Buffers As per Section 3.2.21 of the Do-wrilown Specific Development Plan.residential buffers are to be left between commercial businesses and residential areas. According to section 2, noise and tj odor generating;activities associated with commercial activity are not permitted within 50' of a residential area.The proposed restaurant is within 50' of the edge of Pier Colony, and by definition an alcohol serving restaurant with outdoor seating will create both noise and odor. >. The map included on the Downtown Specific Development Plan did not specifically show on it �t S the area between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion, but by definition should be included. B: Public Open Space As per Section 3.3.1.15 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan, Public Open Space,part + 1 states that "Public open space and pedestrian access shall be required for development 1?rojeCl4 in 1 A ` UL' 514..`x YiYL�• a order to assure a predominantly visitor-serving,pedestrian orientation."While in theory areas of the ground floor of the proposed development have been set aside for that purpose, no concrete tenants have been shown as interested in the property.In addition, even current tenants in the existing building do not seem to meet the definition of visitor serving. Vacancy and turnover rates in that area of the building are high,and while empty storefronts may satisfy the letter of the law as per the development plan,they obviously do not fit the spirit of the plan_ C: Landscaping and Greenery As per Section 3.3.1.15 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,Public Open Space,part 5 states that"30%minimum of the public open space area shall contain landscaping,including shade trees, accent trees,and other soft landscaping.Hard surfaced areas and specialty paving shall also be incorporated into the public open space design." According to the plans released by 1 the developer, 1,555 square feet of the 8,880 square feet of open space is considered landscaped. This is 17.5%. 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 111U part of Pier Colony.This should not be included in the calculations for Pierside Pavilion. D: Public View As per Section 3.3.1.14 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,"Development proposals in District 1 located between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue shall include a public view analysis.Setbacks may be increased and site coverage,density and building heights may be reduced as necessary to protect public views of the ocean.Provision of public viewing locations from within a development may be required to offset adverse impacts of the development proposal on public views of the ocean."I have not seem any public release of said public view analysis. This proposed development will severely curtail the views of the ocean from.Walnut Ave. Based on the drawings released by the developer; views of the ocean will be decreased by 50% from the south side of that pedestrian corridor, and a similar amount from the northern side of the pedestrian corridor. E: Safety. The proposed development extends the western edge of the building to approximately 10' from Pacific Coast Highway.This replaces a very large public open space that is a community gathering area for many.The pedestrian corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion is a heavily trafficked route to the ocean from inland areas.and the addition of a new building will force all of that traffic closer to Pacific Coast Highway, a high speed thoroughfare. Vehicle/pedestrian interactions are virtually unavoidable, and will most likely eventually result in a lawsuit against the city. Q0 The addition of planters and trees at the 1111mediate border between the sidewalk and the road 1 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 2nd 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 en 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. F. Future Development. In Section 1.4.3.6 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,Pedestrian Environment,the Plan states"In addition to issues with parking,development standards, and design guidelines, a focus of concern in the downtown is the pedestrian nature of the area. It is crucial that the downtown be a pedestrian-oriented environment. There is also a desire to minimize the areas of pedestrian and vehicle conflict to direct pedestrian traffic flows away from vehicle traffic flows, as well as a desire to accommodate bicycle interplay." Looking south down Pacific Coast Highway from Main Street, there are currently wide Q sidewalks and open areas leading south_ The addition of a new building in the proposed location T will serve as a natural pedestrian block,preventing pedestrian traffic from progressing south on Pacific Coast Highway.Given that there are developments in several stages of completion throughout that area,reducing pedestrian traffic towards those areas will inhibit further growth. For any future growth to be successful in the block to the south of the current Dairy Queen, pedestrian traffic must naturally flow from Main Street. G: Decreased width of alleyway/pedestrian access to ocean As a part of this proposed development, the existing pedestrian corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion will be narrowed_There is currently a private access open space on the second floor balcony along the southern edge of the building,underneath which is public access open area.This ground floor public access open space represents between 30%-50% of the lj width of the corridor leading to the ocean from Walnut Ave.Extending the ground floor of the existing building south will significantly decrease the access to the ocean from Walnut Ave. H:Noise 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. I question the validity of a noise study performed in late fall, when pedestrian traffic is at a minimum. In addition, a significant amount of the measured noise is coming from the existing Black BvII 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 (107o 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 tc,ting. In addition, the testing was perforated in January of 2002. The Palm Springs area, Iike 3 a R £ t£r pp.�T L e� A �' S i4 downtown Huntington Beach,will experience seasonality in their visitors,and I question if measurements taken in January would match those taken at a time when visitors to the area are at their peak. 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 newO 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. I: 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 p 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, 21 CFR Part 1910,"Protection against the effects of T 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 850, 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. J: Design As per Section 1.4.3.5 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan, Design Character, "Existing design regulations encourage adherence to a Mediterraneann style of architecture_ A desire exists to provide opportunities for a broader interpretation of the Mediterranean architectural style.The revised design guidelines found in this Specific Plan encourage this architectural variation in downtown." Both Pier Colony and the existing building at Pierside Pavilion were designed with the Mediterranean style of architecture in mind, and the two buildings complement each other. While there is room within the Downtown Specific Development Plan for a broader interpretation of the Mediterranean style of architecture,the plans as shown thus far by the 4 developer have been a significant departure from that. Case in point, at the meeting on 7I10,the developer explicitly stated that the intention was to create a building that would stand out visually from the surrounding buildings.This new building would be separate in design from the remainder of Main Street,and would further serve to isolate anything developed south on Pacific Coast Highway. K:Traffic Traffic along Pacific Coast Highway is already heavy,particularly in the summer months.It is _ not uncommon to sit at a red light for multiple cycles before enough room opens up to allow for traffic to flow through an intersection.Obviously the worst intersections are the three locations R where Pacific Coast Highway intersects the immediate downtown area, and this proposed � development will cause further congestion at each of them.I have not seen a formal traffic study for this proposed development,has there been one completed? Conclusions. 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. The proposed development at Pierside Pavilion seems to be a solution looking for a problem, and sloes not appear to satisfy many of the provisions of the Downtown Specific Development Plan_No study has been made as to how this project will impact other developments both proposed as well as begun, and the proposed project has the potential to inflame further tensions between neighbors in the downtown area. While not within the purview of this discussion,it may be worthwhile to study in.more detail the true visitor serving aspect of the current building and issues therein prior to moving forward with this proposal. Our homeowners assoeiation would be happy to discuss our concern with you in greater detail at your convenience, and 1 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 P. O. Box, 17196 Irvine, CA 92623 5 B - July 11,2012 Ethan Edwards Associate Planner RECEIVED City of Huntington Beach 6 2012 Planning&Building department JUL 1 2000 Main St flep{ of Manning Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 501 ding i Dear Mr.Edwards: My name is Gary Baker and I am a residentiproperty owner of Pier Colony located at 200 Pacific Coast Hwy.Huntington Beach, directly adjacent to the proposed expansion for Pierside Pavilion,located at 300 Pacific Coast Hwy. I am asking you to consider several areas of great impact that this proj ect will have on our community and to deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)for the Pierside Pavilion Expansion project. Noise With the expansion and the new roof top dining area and reopening of public spaces(terraces)the noise impact will be greatly increased resonating directly in the # living spaces of Pier Colony residents.I am sure you are aware of our on shore air flow patterns and that this proposed project will push the noise directly into the living spaces. Also the"corridor"as it is referred to will also resonate the noise from skateboarding, foot-traffic, etc.The new proposed building will create a tunnel effect causing an echo effect from the glass and concrete building.Being solid and straight by design,the sound has no where to go but to the adjacent residential homes. Safety The creation of the new wall of glass building will be a potential for crime,break ins,drug dealing,and an excellent hiding-place for late night activities. The new building would create protection for the criminal as law enforcement would not be able to have direct view onbreak ins,vandalism.,fights, dealing of drugs,homeless,etc.We know this is a probable situation as when the renovation of the Mann Theater was happening t the construction trailer was a bathroom,drug dealing,fight area as well as homeless Living under the trailer. Not attractive to our tourism traffic. Several of Pier Colony residents had unwanted persons on their patio/balconies. Trafj I'c As you know traffic,parking etc.is a premium in downtown Huntington Beach. Currently during our peak season(May tbru Sept)public parking garages are full, street parking is full and traffic is bustling, searching for a parking space.Again we know how much impact this has as the city has provided the civic center with shuttle service to help rn eliminate some of this problem. With the expansion proj ect more auto and foot traffic will be congesting our streets. This will not help our tourism,our local retailers,and downtown businesses.The request for a variance, 15 feet from Pacific Coast Hwy,would surely be a possible tragedy for the pedestrian traffic,strollers,bicycles, etc.that the Hyatt,Waterfront Hilton, and eventually Pacific City hope to bring to our downtown S 3 T �5iA CNN i i Pik l�i �7•�� Ethan Edwards Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning&Building department Page 2 In the Downtown Specific Plan 2.5.6 Special permits shall only be allowed when, in the opinion of the approval authority, significantly greater benefits from the project can be provided than would occur if all the minimum requirements were met.It goes on to state that it not to be detrimental to the general health,welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or city in general,nor detrimental or injuHous to the"value of property" or improvements of the neighborhood or of the city in general. Clearly this building would greatly affect the property value of Pier Colony In 3.2.14#7 states all buildings shall,be sited to reduce odor,noise,light and glare and visual and other conflicts between commercial and residential uses.This proposed building is not consistent with the current architecture of Huntington Beach downtown, plus adding a four story building fifteen feet(actually 13' after trees and planters)from Pacific Coast Hwy cannot be pleasing to the eye or a warm reception for our tourism tA traffic. In 4.2.1.2 4 Buildings should be designed to take advantage of ocean view by providing windows,balconies, stairway landings and other design features.Pier Colony has met these requirements and the Pierside Expansion would drastically reduce the view, interfere with lifestyle,and general well being for Pier Colony residents and.guests. I am sure you are aware of the original CUP no.88-7 dated April 5, 1988 where it states that the"residential portion of the project shall be elevated to a maximum of 8 feet above existing grade for the crearion of a greater physical separation of the residential from the commercial portions of this project"this tells me that the planning commission truly recognized that residential and commercial should maintain as much separation as possible.Furthermore the planning commission put in place that the residential could have a site coverage of 59%whereas the commercial site coverage 60%.And as I add the existing Pierside Pavilion 89,415 and their proposed 37,173,this brings their site coverage to a total of 126,588.The total of the two parcels(based on CUP 88-7) are 170,912 sq ft, and with the Pierside Expansion,the commercial site coverage would be approx 75%. It also states that the numbers of residential units were reduced from 164 to 130 to create a greater separation between residential and commercial portions of the project, �i� building profile and"to provide greater view opportunities�� �1 ' P rovede for a better overall g Pier Colony was built with greater upper building setbacks to enhance the ocean experience. The Pierside expansion hopes to build a 4 story building just 15 feet from Pacific Coast Hwy with only one small setback. This Proposed Expansion(MND)should not be allowed.There are many other opportunities for the developer to maximize the open area courtyard without infringing on their good neighbors, citizens,and visitors of Huntington Beach. Looking forward to your response. Thank you S e� TAA __ Baker _ C t � :1_N £ �„�,� / �y F €aJe�lg1 $ x ic�. RECEIVED Ethan Edwards Dept of Planning Associate Planner &Bu►ldng HB Planning&Bldg Dept. 2000 Main Street Huntington.Beach, CA92648 Mr.Edwards: - I am a resident of Pier Colony, which would be adjacent to the Pierside Pavilion Expansion proposed for 300 Main Street in Huntington Beach. As a resident of the downtown area for more than 12 years,I know that any project of this nature will have a very adverse effect on the entire downtown area.Not only does it add another bar to a community over- saturated with them,you can be sure that crime and health violations by inebriated patrons will increase and seriously impact the quality of life that we enjoy and further tarnish the reputation of our city in this regard. In addition,the community will lose the open space of the original design of 300 Main Street. "Wedging" the 4-story building of the new project i between two complementary and compatible buildings that now co-exist 4 there,will be an eyesore and probably encourage further development once the architectural beauty we currently enjoy is destroyed. Too many residents, citizens and visitors to our beautiful downtown area will be victimized by this project that has no apparent"upside." Let's not compromise all the design integrity invested in our downtown renewal. The expansion is of value only to the developer,who seeks to profit from the talent and dedication of those who preceded him. Very truly yours, Robert Bryant Unit 348 Pier Colony 200 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714-960-6091 July 13th,2012 Ethan Edwards RECE—NE Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning&Building Department JUL16 G 1 RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration of the Pierside Pavilion Expansion & Elul d;no Dear Mr.Edwards, I am writing to.opPose the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration No.11-007 for the Project Title Pierside Pavilion Expansion. I own unit 320 in Pier Colony,and I have been living here for 8 years. I moved to Huntington Beach a few years after I completed college,and purchased my first property here in the condominium complex. Up until about 4 years ago or whenever the Black Bull Chophouse was introduced to downtown,I had enjoyed a very peaceful and quiet living situation. With the introduction of the Black Bull,my weekend days are now interrupted by drunken patrons smoking on the outdoor R patio for brunch and dinner,and my nights are long with the dull thud of bass vibrations and fights in the 3r°street corridor k- right below my bedroom. I believe that the City was sold a false bill of goods with regard to what the Black Bull was supposed < to be,and I don't want to see that repeated with this new Pierside Pavilion expansion project. The Black Bull has an outside �< "dining patio"and at this point, I think everyone knows that it more of a designated smoking and drinking area then it is a h the proposed Pierside Pavilion expansion that will add to the Place to sit down and enjoy a meal. Below are my concerns wit negative experience that I have had with Pierside Pavilion tenants over the past several years. Faulty noise analysis relating to this MND 1. The noise analysis that is submitted as a part of this MND was not performed diligently. The contractor that was hired by the City did not take into accountthe noise levels as heard by Pier Colony residents from either the Pier Colony balconies,or inside the Pier Colony living spaces. The results that you see in the report are not representative of what can actually be heard from our building. This noise analysis needs to be performed again,and needs to take the comments above into consideration. • 1 2. The addition of another outdoor dining area,just like the Black Bull patio,will introduce more disruptive behavior, such as intoxicated patrons and after-hours activity on the 3rd street corridor. If you do not already know,the corridor between the two buildings acts as a sound chamber and all noises in this alleyway are amplified. For example,I can throw a dime off my 3rd floor balcony and hear it hit the ground and roll,in the middle of the day with heavy traffic on both sides of the corridor. You can only imagine how loud voices are at 22m. I hope that you will consider the points in this letter before approving this project. Please contact me with any questions,or if you would like to survey the proposed building site from the viewpoint of my condo unit. Sincerely, Se Smith 200 PCH#320 Pier Colony 805-708-4290 jsmith@govplace.com Bill Garrisi 200 Pacific Coast Highway,#123 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Ethan Edwards Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning&Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE:Comments to the proposed project"Pierside Pavilion Expansion" Dear Sir: I am an owner and resident of a property at Pier Colony(200 Pacific Coast Highway),and am writing this in response to the proposed project"Plerside Pavilion Expansion". Based on the information given in the project documentation, I believe this proposed project would not be an asset to the downtown area. Some of my concerns are outlined below,and with that information,I would ask the Mitigated Negative Declaration be denied. 1 The Project: �l [t is my understanding thatthe proposed project will expand the current building at 300 Pacific Coast Highway (Pierside Pavilion) significantly. The portion of the building between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion closest to Walnut Ave will be extended closer to Pier Colony,and a new building will be built in addition to the current building at the southeast corner of the existing building. From the meeting on 7J10,it would appear that the driving factor behind this addition is to add to existing office space available to the current office tenant. A significant portion of the new addition will be devoted to an unknown restaurant with the intention of increasing foot traffic for the current tenant Sparks. Space will be reserved as per the cities requirements on the ground floor for visitor serving commercial use. My concerns with the project are outlined as follows: A:Residential Buffers As per Section 3.2.21 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan, residential buffers are to be left between commercial businesses and residential areas. According to section 2,noise and odor generating activities associated with commercial activity are not permitted within 50'of a residential area. The proposed restaurant is within 50' of the edge of Pier Colony, and by definition an alcohol serving restaurant with outdoor seating will create both noise and odor. The map included on the Downtown Specific Development Plan did not specifically show on it the area between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion,but by definition should be included. B: Public Open Space M As per Section 3.3.1.15 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,Public Open Space, part 1 states that "Public open space and pedestrian access shall be required for development projects in order to assure a predominantly visitor-serving,pedestrian orientation." While in theory areas of the ground t—j floor of the proposed development have been set aside for that purpose,no concrete tenants have been shown 4 as interested in the property. In addition, even current tenants in the existing building do not seem to meet the definition of visitor serving. Vacancy and turnover rates in that area of the building are high,and while empty storefronts may satisfy the letter of the law as per the development plan,they obviously do not fit the spirit of the plan. C:Landscaping and Greenery As per Section 3.3.1.15 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,Public Open Space, part 5 states that"30% minimum of the public open space area shall contain landscaping,including shade trees,accent trees, and other o te public open spa soft landscaping.Hard surfaced areas and specialty paving shall also be incorporated i880 h uare feet of opence design."According to the pla ns released by the developer, 1,555 square feet of the 8, s q space is considered landscaped. This is 17.5%. In addition, from the eplans eaa oa considered to bereleased by the va part of Pier it uld appear that some of the area considered landscaped wouldY Colony. This should not be included in the calculations for Pierside Pavilion. D: Public View As per Section 3.3.1.14 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,"Development proposals in District 1 ue shall include a public view analysis.Setbacks maybe located between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Aven increased and site coverage,density and building heights may be reduced as necessary to protect public views of the ocean. Provision of public viewing locations from within a development may be required to offset adverse t impacts of the development proposal on public views of the ocean." I have not seen any public release of said public view analysis. This proposed development will severely curtail the views of the ocean from Walnut Ave. Based on the drawings released by the developer,views of the ocean will be decreased by 50%from the south side of that from the northern side of the pedestrian corridor. pedestrian corridor, and a similar amount E:Safety approximately 10'from Pacific Coast The proposed development extends the western edge of the building to approxima area for many. The Highway. This replaces a very large public open space that is a commtrafficked route to the ocean from unity gathering pedestrian corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion is a heavily closer to Pacific Coast Highway,a high inland areas,and the addition of a new building will force all of that traffic speed thoroughfare. Vehicle/pedestrian interactions are virtually unavoidable,and will most likely eventually result in a lawsuit against the city. i 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 Street and Main Street,on Pacific Coast Highway,has a huge volume of pedestrian traffic, particularly in the summer. Instances alk signal Loobserved er v dPacific Coast Highway.nReduc g thes are ,ng daily wher there,or trying to cut across traffic lanes to beat 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. F:Future Development �. ecific Development Plan,Pedestrian Environment,the Plan states In In Section 1.4.3.E of the Downtown Sp addition to issues with parking, development standards, and design guidelines,a focus pedestrian-oriented concern in the downtown is the pedestrian nature of the area.It is crucial that the downtown be a 4 environment.There is also a desire to minimize the areas of pedestrian and vehicle conflict to direct pedestrian traffic flows away from vehicle trafficflows,as well as a desire to accommodate bicycle interplay." Looking south down Pacific Coast Highwayfrom Main Street,there are currently wide sidewalks and open areas leading south. The addition of a new building in the proposed location will serve as a natural pedestrian block, preventing pedestrian traffic from progressing south on Pacific Coast Highway. Given that there are developments in several stages of completion throughout that area, reducing pedestrian traffic towards those areas will inhibit further growth. For any future growth to be successful in the block to the south of the current Dairy Queen(Pacific City),pedestrian traffic must naturally flow from Main Street. G: Decreased width of alleyway/pedestrian access to ocean As a part of this proposed development,the existing pedestrian corridor between Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion will be narrowed. There is currently a private access open space on the second floor balcony along the southern edge of the building,underneath which is public access open area. This ground floor public access open space represents between 30%-50%of the width of the corridor leading to the ocean from Walnut Ave. Extending the ground floor of the existing building south will significantly decrease the access to the ocean from Walnut Ave. H:Noise The city of Huntington Beach commissioned a study to determine the potential noise impacts of the proposed project. Asa part of this,longterm(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,October312011. 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. 1 question the validity of a noise study performed in late fall,when pedestrian traffic is at a minimum. 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 atthe 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 I question if measurements taken in January would match those taken at a time when visitors to the area are at their peak. 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. _ _ ¢ r s 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. h Construction Noise Construction is anticipated to last 12 months,with self imposed hours of operation between 8AM and 5PM. (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 99di3 in the Site Preparation stage. Again,l would challenge these estimations,as the majority of the work will be performed in an area that is basically a narrow 4 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 1910.9S(a)). The accompanying table shows sound levels down to 85dB,which is within even the optimistic estimates shown on the noise study. ous, and would require mitigation even in an industrial These noise levels are considered by OSHA to be danger f acility, let alone a residential area. 7:Design As per Section 1.4.3.5 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan,Design Character,"Existing design regulations encourage adherence to a Mediterranean style of architecture.A desire exists to provide opportunities for a broader interpretation of the Mediterranean architectural style.The revised design chitectural variation in downtown." Further guidelines for guidelines found in this Specific Plan encourage this ar this can be found in Section 3.2.14, Mixed Use Projects. In subsection 3 "Architectural style and use of quality materials shall be consistent throughout an entire mixed-use project". in Subsection 7 "All buildings shall be silted to reduce odor,noise, light and glare,and visual and other conflicts between commercial and residential uses." Both Pier Colony and the existing building at Pierside Pavilion were designed with the Mediterranean style of architecture in mind, and the two buildings complement each other. While there is room within the Downtown Specific Development Plan for a broader interpretation of the Mediterranean style of architecture,the plans as shown thus far by the developer have been a significant departure from that. Case in point,at the meeting on 7/10,the developer explicitly stated thatthe intention was to create a building that would stand out visually from the surrounding buildings. This new building would be separate in design from the remainder of Main V Street, and would further serve to isolate anything developed south an Pacific Coast Highway. In addition, District 2 of the Downtown Specific Development Plan(Pacific City),details setbacks, distance from that will allow the proposed Pacific City development to Pacific Coast Highway,and other design requirements blend in with the current architecture and look of the existing buildings at Pier Colony and Pierside Pavilion. Should the proposed building go forward as planned at Pierside Pavilion,the existing design criteria for Pacific City will serve to further emphasize the differences between all other construction along Pacific Coast Highway and the proposed Pierside Pavilion expansion. Al K: Traffic l Traffic along Pacific Coast Highway is already heavy,particularly in the summer months. It is not uncommon to c" sit at a red light for multiple cycles before enough room opens up to allow for traffic to flow through an intersection. Obviously the worst intersections are the three locations where Pacific Coast Highway intersects the immediate downtown area,and this proposed development will cause further congestion at each of them. 1 ly have not seen a formal traffic study for this proposed development,has there been one completed? Conclusions. 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. The proposed development at Pierside Pavilion seems to be a solution looking for a problem, and does not appear to satisfy many of the provisions of the Downtown Specific Development Plan. No study has been made as to how this project will impact other developments both proposed as well as in progress,and the proposed project has the potential to inflame further tensions between neighbors in the downtown area. While not within the purview of this discussion,it may be worthwhile to study in more detail the true visitor serving aspect of the current building and issues therein prior to moving forward with this proposal. M Failure to adhere to a strict interpretation of the guidelines set forth in the Downtown Specific Development f 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, a ny developer interested in building would be expected to cV` 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, l 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 MI STATE CALIFORNIA--Bl7SR 1FSS• SPORTATION HOUSING GSN Y $ and G.Bro . Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION = „~ District 12 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 � Irvine,CA 92612-9894 JUL q Oaxyourpowerl Tel:(949)724-2000 U U L Be enerU efficient! Fax:(949)724-2592 Dept, or Planning FAX&NVIAIIJ&Building July 12,2012 Ethan Edwards File: IOR/CEQA SCH##: 201ZO61044 Associate Planner Log 4: 3018 City of Huntington Beach SR-1 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: 300 Pacific Coast fthway(PCH) at Main. Street Dear Mr.Edwards, nity to review and comment on the Pierside Pavilion Expansion;Draft Thank you for the opportu Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007.The proposed project would result in construction of a ately 27,772 square feet of Mixed-Use for visitor Four story structure 90 feet high, approxim serving/office building, 9,401 sq. ft. of in expansion by extending storefronts,rterrace el ing 10,527 sq. ft. f and 6,14E sq. ft of retail, 5,705 sq. ft. of restaurant,21,441 sq. $. of office, 3,069 sq. outdoor dining. The nearest State route to the.proj ect is SR-1- The California Department of Transportation(Department),District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. The Department's Traffic Operations Branch requests all applicants to use the method outlined in the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM)when analyzing traffic impacts on State Transportation Facilities. The use of HCM is preferred by the Department because it is an operational analysis as opposed to the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)method,which is a planning analysis. In the case of projects that have direct impacts on State Facilities,the Department recommends that the traffic impact analysis be based on HCM method. Should the project require an encroachment permit, �.. Traffic Operations may find the Traffic Impact Study based on ICU methodology O inadequate resulting in possible delay or denial of a permit by the Department. All input sheets, assumptions and volumes on State Facilities including ramps and intersection analysis should be submitted to the Department for review and approval. "Catirans improves mobility across California r`� NU c The traffic impact on the state transportation system should be evaluated based on the Department's Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies which is available at: http /Iwww dot ea.goy/hg/traffo7ps/developserv/gperationalsysterns/ret�ortsltis uide•pdf Please ensure the EIR includes appropriate mitigation measures to offset any potential impacts. The effect of this project on State facilities will potentially be significant unless mitigated properly. 2. If any project work(e.g. storage of materials, street widening, emergency access improvements, sewer connections, sound walls, storm drain construction,street connections, etc.)will occur in the vicinity of the Department's Right-of-Way, an encroachment permit is required prior to commencement of work.Please allow 2 to 4 weeks for a complete submittal to be reviewed and for a permit to be issued. When applying for an Encroachment Permit,please incorporate Environmental Documentation, SWPPP/WPCP,Hydraulic Calculations,Traffic Control Plans, Geoteehnical Analysis,Right-of-Way certification and all relevant design details including p design exception approvals.For specific details on the Department's Encroachment Permits procedure,please refer to the Department's Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition of the manual is available on the web site: http://www.dot.r-a.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/ 3. All woik performed within the Department's Right-of-Way shall be in accordance with the n!t Department's Standard Specifications, Standard Plans,Encroachment Permit manual, and the California N UTCD. Please continue to keep us iuforred of this project and any future developments,which could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us,please do not hesitate to contact Farhad Edward Khosravi at ed khosrayiQdot_ca.gov or(949)724-2338. V r Herre,Branch Chief Local D evelopmentatergovernnmental Review 'Ica ans improves mobility across California" F %��� � �N e e RECEIVED TO: Tess Nguyen,Associate Planner JUL 17 2012 f-ROM: ITB Environmental Board Wit•of Planning SUBJECT: ENVrRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 11-007 (Draft NDtigated Negative Declaration Pierside Pavilion Expansion) DATE: July 16,2012 The Environmental Board reviewed this project on July 5, 2012. We are pleased to provide our comments, and project suggestions summarized below: I. Concerns: L Page 2-3 regarding document readability and clarity: ility and clarity of both the text and attached diagrams. ® The Board is concerned with the readab Square footage totals in text and summary charts to not match. The PDF document security was also set to prevent easy demonstration of this problem. This impairs our ability to read and comment in lane,and thus perform our assigned responsibilities. 2. Traffic flow and Level of Service: N ® The Minagar Study results and implications are not sufficiently documented. 3. Storm water,Flooding, Solid Waste Generation and Sustainability Options: The DTSP notes flooding during storms: Section 26 (c)is silent on this topic. 4. Energy Beachmarking and market competitiveness: ® The large expanse of west facing glass windows and other energy/comfort factors. ® ? No useful information is provided regarding the ways that cost effective Title 24— CalGreen W challenges will be addressed in ways that benefit the owner and tenants over the life of this 1 building. S. Land Use Planning " ® Section(a), on page 6, paragraph 5 Comment: It is the concern of the Environmental Board d,n that no accommodation has been made for the removal of the existing public areas and open ` e n i space the proposed construction which was previously designated in the original Pierside p Pavilion. 6. Request for a Variance ® Section (a), on page 6, paragraph 4 Comment: Less than significant impact - The t° Environmental Board agrees, with the stipulation that Bird Strike mitigation efforts be incorporated into the installation of glass walls, dividers, and/or windows. � 7. V.Air Quality • Section (a--e), on page 15, paragraph 2, Comment: This is the only reference to refuse collection. There is no reference to the_inclusion of recycling collection containers or services for the expanded development identified in this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration r- anywhere. This would include containers during the construction phase of the project; an cil subsequent long-term recycling collection services. The State of California has mandator commercial recycling, as mandated by legislation,AB341. Section (a-e), on.page 15, paragraph 4, Short Term. Construction Comment: This is the only reference to demolition. L 8. Utilities and Service Systems 2_ Clarification/Error Correction Required Section (f) on page 27, paragraph 4, Rainbow Disposal's Transfer Station has a design capacity of 4,000 tons per day. Section. (f) on page 27, paragraph 5, The reference to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) is in error. The correct title of this State oversight agency is The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), previously known as the California Integrated Waste Management Board(CIWMB). • Recycling Services-The Environmental Board is concerned that the reference to commercial ao and construction waste does not adequately address the treed and incorporation of recycling for construction and demolition materials (C/D) during the project; nor does it adequately address the inclusion of commercial recycling containers and the subsequent service of said recycling of commercial waste for the entire building as mandated by State of CA legislation, AB341. • Omission of AB 341 Section (g) on page 28, paragraph IThere is no reference or defined requirements regarding State of CA legislation,AB341. • appropriate recycling of paint products and other stains and varnishes should be identified in this document. II. Project Suggestions We request the owner utilize these simple and effective tools in order to properly address the s- following areas of concern: 1. Justification for accepting a LOS D needs to be better justified and the lack of parking, bike 411 opportunities,public shuttle services, and related mobility topics identified and addressed. 2. The board suggests that the owner request City Water experts or the HB Chamber of Commerce Business Sustainable Action Committee to recommend steps to reduce storm water runoff through landscaping, retention, green roof strategies, etc. as well as HB Chamber/ Visitors Bureau sustainable restaurant best practices listed herel. The options can reduce your operating costs and improve your public image. 3. The board suggests energy benchmarking as early as possible in the design stage. Voluntary ` are well known,but mandatory energy benchmarking is to become law on January 1, LEED criteria wn, ry 2013 (AB 531; was AB 1103). The board suggests utilizing known LEED practices for energy efficiency with window placement, screening,tinting, awnings,landscaping etc. 4. The board suggests accommodation for public areas with seating access, bicycle parking and — community art installations should be incorporated. S. The board suggests adequate enclosure for both refuse and recycling be included in this proposal along with collection containers and service contracts. Show how the project will comply with AB341. 6. The board suggests the addition of onsite recycling throughout the duration of the project. It is �. further recommended that a portion of the construction and demolition waste be utilized for public art on the proposed site. 7. The board suggests the recycling of C/D materials Which will significantly address carbon � emissions reduction identified by State of CA legislation,AB32. " "" 6!'°�; 4�x�yAH N 1�_-I t, n v 3 In summary, we believe that both public and developer interests in a vibrant, successful, and cite-friendly project can be reasonably and effectively strengthened through consideration of the above suggestions. As always,we remain available and eager to assist in any way the stakeholders deem appzopriate. Thank you again for the opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted Michael Marshall, Chairman,HB Environmental Board City ®f Huntington beach 2000 Main Street - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC JOAN L. FLYNN 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 92648 APPLICANT: Michael C. Adams Associates APPLLANT: Joe Carchio, Councilmember 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 Use 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 Cities: Anjo, Japan - Waitakere, New Zealand (Telephone:78 4-536-5227) ATTACHMENT NO.-2 FINDINGS ARID CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-017 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: .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. 10-017: 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 Pacific 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 peddestrian 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 du/ac max. - Specific Plan Overlay - 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. i (PW) 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 4t 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 `�TA� �� f T n_U ACTION Monday, December 6,2010 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CATHYGREEN and PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Mayor JILL HARDY GIL COERPER Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH KEITH BOHR DEVIN DWYER tsss zsos No Study Session Coundirnerriber Coundirnember � 5:00 PEN—Closed Session JOE CARCHIO DON HANSEN Councilmember Councilmember 6:00 PM—Regular Meeting Council Chambers -2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 http:/ANww.surfeity-hb.org 5:00 PM -Council Chambers -Closed Session 6:00 PEN-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 will convene in the Council Chambers at that time. CALL TO ORDER- 5:00 P1W ROLL CALL Carchio, Coerper, Hardy, Green Bohr, Dwyer, Hansen All Present(Coerper arrived 5:05 PM) ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA DISTRIBUTION PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS City Clerk.loan L. Flynn announced Late Communications: Item pertaining to Frontage Road PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit) 9 Speaker RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION—5.05 P 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: ATTACHMENT N . . 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 i 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. 201or98, "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 certifficate of occupancy for parcel#9_ 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$300,006 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- PUBLIC HEARING 7. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 10-017 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval—Plerside 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 Main 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 Alain Street, six carts on Pack 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/iocations for the carts and there will be a review by the Planning Director after one year. Approved 4-3(Coerper, hardy, Green no) ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION_ 8. 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 9. 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 RuCeSS - Reception in meeting rooms adjacent to the Council Chambers RECONVENE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCYIPUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEETING CALL TO ORDER— E: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 Councilmember Carchio elected new Mayor. Approved 7-0 OATH OF OFFICE TO NEW MAYOR City Clerk 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 re-elected City Councilmembers and City Attorney COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) Hone ADJOURNMENT— 9:07 PM Adjournment to Monday, December 20, 2010,at 4:00 PM in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS A T httlrlgArwsy surfcity-hb.orc�r -7- RESOLUTION NO. 2 011-16 i 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 ;I 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 Distract 1 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. REVIE D ND APPROVED: ]IMNITIA&APPROVED: 6444ger Director of PfarUdgland Building ;Attorneyniey OVED AS TO FORM: L 10-2396.001/59674 Resolution No. 2 011-16 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 a.m.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. 6) '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. 8) 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-approved 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. 10-2396.001/59675 1 s ATTACHMENT Res. No. 2011-16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss: CITY OF ➢-IUNTINGTON BEACH ) 1, 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: None Qwd City erk and ex-officio CUrk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ` HMENT O. Exhibit W go , INTER-oEPARTME ':CIQ I UN CA`TI�iY. } To Scott._Hess. From Catheripp ,,.a�e�II,ar ° Aass oiato 'Planner ��ssistant lal es Subject Envirommental Asseasiment Date February 23, 1900 Ho. 66 Per your recyueet of February 11, 19884 1..,have analyzed the:- develo nt"a hope laropois®d for Phope i of the; ia$, Pier Redevelopauent prr 'ect. envirotl¢o�asta1 �6�sosama&t .oft pjroJ6ct alternatives .has. conducted to idefttaty pot" t* 1 danviran nthi concerns that may not have been.ocidressed':In'8IH The project .area is located within_: Dii0#ict #3 of the. tom.. Specific Plan "said 'consists of a. 0 4dbtes (iiipproai 9.anitely l; 3/4 blocks) b6uidea by Paci¢Ic Coast Hi-4 Wa , N0inut A�a�►u i, .Main Street and First �treete Two alternatives are,.progaosed for the.;)' tn.'" Yn the table 641.E-., the alternatives are. Compared to the h othrt�cal developimant scenerio analysed for 'tne :ante n RIR a2-2. Proposal Use SR. Ft. Trip Generatioa Swaor 6en®ratiion Wios/day) t ml/d8jt} e District 03 Office Use 154,115 Office - 1849 Office - 2a,117 Haximun Comercial Use 154,115 Cams:-cial' - 4084 Co rcial - Z3;11 - Buildout Residential Use 208 units Residential - Im Residential EIR 02-2 for Total 7119 Total 73,274 1.75 birth area Proposed 160 Room Hotel 112,000 Hotel - im Hotel - 24.000, Altarnative 01 Office Use 3,ODD Office - 37 Offica Retail Use 20,000 Retail - 530 Retail - . :3000' 160 Residential Units 139,000 Residential - = Residential Total 3159 Total ;250 f a Proposed Off ice/Retai1 85,000 Off ice/Rekail/ - 2252 Office/Retail/ - 12.730 Alternative 02 Comoercial Commial Coesnercial 160 Residential Units 139,000 Residential - QL1 Residential Total 3164 Total 33.550 I i w tl Moto: Trip-q®naration rates wort taken fro" EIR:52—'2. ii,fdontial - 5.7 trips/d.u. Offiba.: m.12.3/ksf Ca_ice_reial 0 25.5/ksf H_otot : Q:TO.5 trips/ram Oaily..seieago generation rates user,cai'cuiatad based on the foil" flair coafficionts.,. } r'acowuendad by QC00: Fiotal:: 150 gal./roaao Offce m 150 ga1_./lclf 1asideOal a 130 gal./unit Comokial ® 150 al./ksf As show 'n_ tie roatriz both of.. t eia gsad` aBterhatl'vef� �AX0,A. as Asa ei ae tlia,n,:the °h ate t Cad.: t s va3,lmg atit`. c�a[Brio. iaa1, y° ._ traffic�2:-2. The projected ampacta .nr ]e �, ass are aeag apactse mouse traffic generation eooaald leas, �to'l :sisftaat ear duality . rlFscts �aou�d be .leas as ;dell. Siace th. atexmmi�ti�es are well' W'xt In the pa.ramer-ers. C$ t9ie- pr@eS�ual� dog 1 f1:Q 1,a`9NIC -n x. fert�aer: enearosental :analaaa, .x�th :raq�rd t0 the .C�liforaaa Es®iro tal duality AC"f ... a3 a�ecesa��� ��R 8B � edeguitel�' aaaY�sea the pateatial—Ympacts;of t2�e p�rcaQo�se�: Fhahw.a da�eB op �at : Although ne::.additional C re i;eie is xequ'i-redly the pkmae r�j�ot shout .,co 3g:.Srith the "ggeated staictrdB eet f®gth ah; :06"t6 SVecific Plan foe:- Distract"' 3 39 eA�, i rorrld'ors. ahoulry, maiflt•aindd a]®atg 'the ezx�st tng right ®f w a a ir3ess a$,ght seed:aia mn _ :... COrsidozs should,be incliadedi)"an order ¢d-Ansure twat 'the-area. mainta ,'n-a-pa:e isaast-pec3estria a ® rosa8s a : CMegbm i (0034d-3) Exhibit X Chapter 230 Site Standards (3249-6/95,3301-11/95,3334-6197,3410-3/99,3455-5/00,3482-12/00,3494-5/01,3525-2/02,3568-9/02, EMG 3594-11/02,EMG 3596-12/02, Resolution No.2002-129-12/02,Resolution No.2004-80-9104,3687-12/04,3710-6/05,3724-02/06,3730-03/06, Interim Urgency Ordinance 3748-8/06,Resolution No.2006-62-9/06,3764-3/07,3779-10/07,3827-4/09,3829-6/09,3835-7/09, Resolution No.2009-36 effective 9/09 per California Coastal Commission certification,3861-2/10,3879-6/10,3903-11/11, 3934-4/12) Note: Ordinance No.3827(expired 4/15/10)and Ordinance No.3879,effective from 5/3110 to 5/3/11,temporarily deferred the payment of certain Development Impact Fees. Sections: 230.02 Applicability Residential Districts 230.04 Front and Street Side Yards in Developed Areas 230.06 (Deleted) (3724-02/06) 230.08 Accessory Structures 230.10 Accessory Dwelling Units 230.12 Home Occupation in R Districts 230.14 Affordable Housing Density Bonus 230.16 Manufactured Homes 230.18 Subdivision Sales Offices and Model Homes 230.20 Payment of Park Fee 230.22 Residential Infill Lot Developments 230.24 Small Lot Development Standards 230.26 Affordable Housing 230.28 (Reserved) 230.30 (Reserved) Non-Residential Districts 230.32 Service Stations 230.34 Housing of Goods 230.36 Transportation Demand Management 230.38 Game Centers 230.40 Helicopter Takeoff and Landing Areas 230.42 Bed and Breakfast Inns 230.44 Recycling Operations 230.46 Single Room Occupancy 230.48 Equestrian Centers 230.50 Indoor Swap Meets/Flea Markets 230.52 Emergency Shelters 230.54 (Reserved) 230.56 (Reserved) 230.58 (Reserved) 230.60 (Reserved) All Districts Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 1 of 59 4/4/12 230.62 Building Site Required 230.64 Development on Substandard Lots 230.66 Development on Lots Divided by District Boundaries 230.68 Building Projections into Yards and Courts 230.70 Measurement of Height 230.72 Exceptions to Height Limits 230.74 Outdoor Facilities 230.76 Screening of Mechanical Equipment 230.78 Refuse Storage Areas 230.80 Antennae 230.82 Performance Standards for All Uses 230.84 Dedication and Improvements 230.86 Seasonal Sales 230.88 Fencing and Yards 230.90 Contractor Storage Yards/Mulching Operations 230.92 Landfill Disposal Sites 230.94 Carts and Kiosks 230.96 Wireless Communication Facilities 230.02 Applicability This chapter contains supplemental land use and development standards, other than parking and loading, landscaping and sign provisions,that are applicable to sites in all or several districts. These standards shall be applied as specified in Title 21: Base Districts, Title 22: Overlay Districts, and as presented in this chapter. Residential Districts 230.04 Front and Street Side Yards in Developed Areas Where lots comprising 60 percent of the frontage on a blockface in an R district are improved with buildings that do not conform to the front yard requirements, the Planning Commission may adopt by resolution a formula or procedure to modify the front and street side yard setback requirements. The Planning Commission also may modify the required yard depths where lot dimensions and topography justify deviations. Blocks with such special setback requirements shall be delineated on the zoning map. Within the coastal zone any such setback modifications adopted by the Planning Commission shall be consistent with the Local Coastal Program. (3334-6197) 230.08 Accessory Structures For purposes of applying these provisions, accessory structures are inclusive of minor accessory structures, except where separate provisions are provided in this section. (3710-6/05) A. Timin . Accessory structures shall not be established or constructed prior to the start of construction of a principal structure on a site, except that construction trailers may be placed on a site at the time site clearance and grading begins and may remain on the site only for the duration of construction. Location. Except as provided in this section, accessory structures shall not occupy a required front, side or street side yard or court, or project beyond the front building line of the principal structure on a site. An accessory structure shall be setback 5 feet from the rear property line except no setback is required for accessory structures, excluding garages and carports,which abut an alley. (3710-6/05) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 2 of 59 4/4/12 Minor accessory structures may be located in required side and rear yard setbacks provided that the structure is located in the rear two-thirds of the lot and a minimum five foot clearance is maintained between said structure and dwelling if it is located in the required side yard. Minor accessory structures that are decorative such as landscape garden walls, fire pits, freestanding barbecues/fireplaces, sculptures, and fountains may be located anywhere on the property provided: (3710-6/05) 1. They do not exceed 6-feet in height or exceed 42-inches in height when located within the front yard setback and; (3710-6/05) 2. A minimum 5-foot clearance is maintained between said structure and the dwelling if it is located in a required side yard; and (3710-6/05) 3. Rock formations shall be setback 1-foot from the side and/or rear property lines for each foot of rock formation height, maximum 5-foot setback required. (3710-6/05) L "1 C. Maximum Height. 15 feet, except a detached garage for a single family dwelling may exceed the maximum height when it is designed to be architecturally compatible with the main dwelling and does not include habitable floor area. D. Maximum Size in RL District. In an RL district,the total gross floor area of accessory structures more than 4 feet in height that are not attached to a dwelling shall not exceed 600 square feet or 10 percent of lot area, whichever is more. E. Patio Covers. A patio cover open on at least 2 sides and complying with all other provisions of this subsection may be attached to a principal structure provided a 5-foot clearance to all property lines is maintained. F. Decks. A deck 30 inches or less in height may be located in a required yard. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 3 of 59 4/4/12 G. Separation. The distance between buildings on the same lot shall not be less than 10 feet. 230.10 Accessory Dwelling Units A. Permit Required. Accessory dwellings may be permitted in all R districts on lots with a single family dwelling subject to Director approval. Requests shall be submitted to the Director accompanied by the required Neighborhood Notification, plans and elevations showing the proposed accessory dwelling and its relation to the principal dwelling, descriptions of building materials, landscaping and exterior finishes to be used and parking to be provided, and any other information required by the Director to determine whether the proposed unit conforms to all requirements of this code. The Director shall approve an accessory dwelling unit upon finding that the following conditions have been met (3710-6105) 1. The dwelling conforms to the design and development standards for accessory dwelling units established in Subsection (B) of this Section 230.10 and Section 230.22 A; (3710-6/05) 2. The accessory unit maintains the scale of adjoining residences and is compatible with the design of existing dwellings in the vicinity in terms of building materials, colors and exterior finishes; 3. The main dwelling or the accessory dwelling will be owner-occupied; and 4. Public and utility services including emergency access are adequate to serve both dwellings. B. Design and Development Standards. 1. Minimum Lot Size. 6,000 square feet. 2. Maximum Unit Size. The maximum square footage of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 650 square feet and shall not contain more than one bedroom. 3. Required Setbacks. Accessory dwelling units shall comply with minimum setbacks of Chapter 210. 4. Height and Building Coverage. The basic requirements of Chapter 210 shall apply unless modified by an overlay district. 5. Parking. All parking spaces shall comply with Section 231.18D. (3334-6/97) 6. Design. The accessory unit shall be attached to the main dwelling unit in such a manner as to create an architecturally unified whole, not resulting in any change to the visible character of the street. The entrance to the accessory unit shall not be visible from the street in front of the main dwelling unit. Building materials, colors and exterior finishes should be substantially the same as those on the existing dwelling. C. Ownership. The second unit shall not be sold separately from the main dwelling unit. D. Covenant. A covenant with the ownership requirements shall be filed for recordation with the County Recorder within 30 days of Planning department Plan Check approval and issuance of building permits. Evidence of such filing shall be submitted to the Director within 30 days of approval. (3710-6/05) E. Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee. A parkland dedication in-lieu fee shall be assessed as set by resolution of the City Council pursuant to Section 230.20 and paid prior to issuance of the building permit. (3710-6/05) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 4 of 59 4/4/12 230.12 Dome Occupation in R Districts A. Permit Required. A home occupation in an R district shall require a Home Occupation Permit, obtained by filing a completed application form with the Director. The Director shall approve the permit upon determining that the proposed home occupation complies with the requirements of this section. B. Contents of Application. An application for a Home Occupation Permit shall contain: 1. The name, street address, and telephone number of the applicant; 2. A complete description of the proposed home occupation, including number and occupation of persons employed or persons retained as independent contractors, amount of floor space occupied,provisions for storage of materials, and number and type of vehicles used. C. Required Conditions. Home occupations shall comply with the following conditions: 1. A home occupation shall be conducted entirely within one room in a dwelling.No outdoor storage shall be permitted. Garages shall not be used in connection with such business except to park business vehicles. 2. No one other than a resident of the dwelling shall be employed on-site or report to work at the site in the conduct of a home occupation. This prohibition also applies to independent contractors. 3. There shall be no display of merchandise, projects, operations, signs or name plates of any kind visible from outside the dwelling. The appearance of the dwelling shall not be altered, or shall the business be conducted in a manner to indicate that the dwelling or its premises is used for a non-residential purpose,whether by colors, materials, construction, lighting, windows, signs, sounds or any other means whatsoever. 4. A home occupation shall not increase pedestrian or vehicle traffic in the neighborhood. 5. No commercial vehicle or equipment used in conjunction with the home occupation shall be parked overnight on an adjacent street or in any yard visible from the street. 6. No motor vehicle repair for commercial purposes shall be permitted. 7. A home occupation shall not include an office or salesroom open to visitors, and there shall be no advertising of the address of the home occupation. 8. Neighborhood Notification shall be in compliance with Chapter 241 when a home occupation involves instruction and/or service, e.g. music lessons, beauty shop, swimming lessons. Where a home occupation involves swimming instruction in an outdoor swimming pool, each swimming class shall be limited to 4 students, and no more than 2 vehicles shall be used to transport students to such classes. (3710-6/05) 9. Any authorized City employee may inspect the premises of a home occupation upon 48 hours notice to ascertain compliance with these conditions and any requirements of this code. The permit for a home occupation that is not operated in compliance with these provisions shall be revoked by the Director after 30 days written notice unless the home occupation is altered to comply. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 5 of 59 4/4/12 230.14 Affordable Housing Density Bonus. A. When a developer of a residential property which is zoned and general planned to allow five (5) or more dwelling units proposes to provide affordable housing, he or she may request a density bonus and incentives or concessions through a conditional use permit subject to the provisions contained in this section. A density bonus request pursuant to the provisions contained within this section shall not be denied unless the project is denied in its entirety. (3764-3/07) B. Affordability requirements. 1. Percentage of affordable units required. To qualify for a density bonus and incentives or concessions,the developer of a residential project shall elect at least one of the following: (3764-3/07) a. Provide at least ten percent(10%)of the total units of the housing development for lower income households, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5; or (3764-3107) b. Provide at least five percent(5%) of the total units of the housing development for very low income households, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50105; or (3764-3/07) C. Provide a senior citizen housing development as defined in Civil Code Sections 51.3 and 51.12, or mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Civil Code Sections 798.76 or 799.5; or (3764-3/07) d. Provide at least ten percent(10%)of the total dwelling units in a common interest development as defined in Civil Code Section 1351 for persons and families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code,provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. (3764-3/07) The density bonus shall not be included in the total number of the housing units when determining the number of housing units required to be affordable. Remaining units may be rented, sold or leased at "market" rates. (3764-3/07) 2. Duration of affordability. An applicant shall agree to, and city shall ensure, continued affordability of all low and very low income units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus for thirty(30)years or a longer period of time if required by a construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. (3764-3/07) Where there is a direct financial contribution to a housing development pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 through participation in cost of infrastructure,write- down of land costs, or subsidizing the cost of construction,the city will assure continued availability for low- and moderate-income units for 30 years. The affordability agreement required by Section 23O.1413.4 shall specify the mechanisms and procedures necessary to carry out this section. (3764-3/07) An applicant shall agree to, and the city shall ensure that,the initial occupant of the moderate-income units that are directly related to the receipt of the density bonus in the common interest development as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, are persons and families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The City shall enforce an equity-sharing agreement, unless it is in Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 6 of 59 4/4/12 conflict with the requirements of another public funding source of law. The following shall apply to the equity-sharing agreement: (3764-3107) a. Upon resale,the seller of the unit shall retain the value of any improvements, the down payment, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. The City shall recapture any initial subsidy and its proportionate share of appreciation, which shall then be used within three years for any of the purposes described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code that promote homeownership. (3764-3/07) b. The City's initial subsidy shall be equal to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate-income household, plus the amount of any down payment assistance or mortgage assistance. If upon resale the market value is lower than the initial market value,then the value at the time of the resale shall be used as the initial market value. (3764-3/07) C. The City's proportionate share of appreciation shall be equal to the ratio of the initial subsidy to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale. (3764-3/07) 3. Affordable unit distribution and product mix. Affordable units shall be located throughout the project and shall include a mixture of unit types in the same ratio as provided throughout the project. 4. Affordability agreement. Affordability shall be guaranteed through an "Affordability Agreement" executed through the developer and the City. Said agreement shall be recorded on the subject property with the Orange County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of building permits and shall become effective prior to final inspection of the first unit. The subject agreement shall be legally binding and enforceable on the property owner(s) and any subsequent property owner(s) for the duration of the agreement. The agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the following items: (3764-3/07) a. The duration of the affordability and the number of the affordable units; (3764-3/07) b. The method in which the developer and the City are to monitor the affordability of the subject affordable units and the eligibility of the tenants or owners of those units over the period of the agreement; C. The method in which vacancies will be marketed and filled; d. A description of the location and unit type(bedrooms, floor area, etc.) of the affordable units within the project; and e. Standards for maximum qualifying household incomes and standards for maximum rents or sales prices. 5. City ction. Pursuant to this section the City shall: a. Grant a density bonus and at least one of the concessions or incentives identified in Section 230.14D unless the City makes a written finding pursuant to Section 230.14J. (3764-3/07) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 7 of 59 4/4/12 C. Calculation of Density Bonus. 1. The amount of density bonus to which the applicant is entitled shall vary according to the amount by which the project's percentage of affordable housing exceeds the percentage established in Section 23O.14B. (3764-3/07) a. For housing developments meeting the low income criteria of Section 23O.14B.Ea, the base density bonus of 20 percent shall be increased by one and one-half percent for every one percent increase in the percentage of low income units above 10%. The maximum allowable density bonus shall be 35 percent. (3764-3/07) b. For housing developments meeting the very low income criteria of Section 230.14B.1.b, the base density bonus of 20 percent shall be increased by two and one-half percent for every one percent increase in the percentage of very low income units above 5%. The maximum density bonus shall be 35 percent. (3764-3/07) C. For housing developments meeting the senior citizen housing criteria of Section 230.14B.l.c, the density bonus shall be 20 percent. (3764-3/07) d. For housing developments meeting the moderate income criteria of Section 23O.14B.Ed,the base density bonus of five percent shall be increased by one percent for every one percent increase in the percentage of moderate income units over 10%. The maximum density bonus shall be 35 percent. (3764-3/07) 2. All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change,or other discretionary approval. As used in Section B, "total units"does not include units permitted by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this section. (3764-3/07) 3. The developer may request a lesser density bonus than the project is entitled to, but no reduction will be permitted in the number of required affordable units pursuant to subsection 230.14B.1. (3764-3/07) 4. Reductions in Density Within the Coastal Zone. In reviewing residential development application for low- and moderate-income housing, as defined in Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3), the City may not require measures that reduce residential densities below the density sought by an applicant if the density sought is within the permitted density or range of density established by local zoning plus the additional density permitted under Government Code section 65915, unless the City makes a finding, based on substantial evidence in the record,that the density sought by the applicant cannot feasibly be accommodated on the site in a manner that is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program. (Resolution No.2009-36-9/09) D. Incentives and Concessions. 1. Types of incentives or concessions. The City shall grant an incentive or concession to the developer. An incentive or concession includes, but is not limited to,the following: (3764-3/07) a. A reduction in site development standards or modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901)of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 8 of 59 4/4/12 reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. (3764-3107) i. At the request of the developer,the City will permit a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, for a development meeting the criteria of Section 230.1413 at ratios that shall not exceed: (3764-3/07) 1. Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space. (3764-3107) 2. Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces. (3764-3107) 3. Four or more bedrooms: two and one-half onsite parking spaces. (3764-3107) ii. If the total number of parking spaces required for a housing development is other than a whole number,the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of the Section only, a housing development may provide "onsite parking"through tandem parking or uncovered parking but not through on-street parking. (3764-3107) b. Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located. (3764-3107) C. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the City that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. (3764-3/07) 2. Number of Incentives and Concessions. An applicant for a density bonus shall receive the following number of incentives or concessions: (3764-3107) a. One incentive or concession for projects that included at least 10 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least five percent for very low income households, or at least 10 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development. (3764-3107) b. Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 10 percent for very low income households, or at least 20 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development. (3764-3/07) C. Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent for very low income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development. (3764-3/07) 3. Requirements for Incentives and Concessions Within the Coastal Zone. Within the coastal zone, any incentive or concession or combination of incentives and concessions must be consistent with the requirements of the certified Land Use Plan. (Resolution No.2009-36-9/09) E. Waiver or Reduction of Development Standards. An applicant may submit to the city a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards. The applicant shall show that Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 9 of 59 414112 the waiver or modification is necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. (3764-3/07) F. Donation or Transfer of Land. A developer may donate or transfer land in lieu of constructing the affordable units within the project pursuant to Government Code § 65915 (h). (3764-3/07) G. Child Care Facilities. l. When a developer proposes to construct a housing development that includes affordable units that conform to Section 230.1413 and includes a child care facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to the housing development, the City shall grant either of the following: (3764-3/07) a. An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the child care facility. (3764-3/07) b. An additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child card facility. (3764-3/07) 2. A housing development shall be eligible for the density bonus or concession described in this Section if the City makes all of the following findings: (3764-3/07) a. The child care facility will remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the density bonus units are required to remain affordable pursuant to Section 230.1413.2. (3764-3/07) b. Of the children who attend the child care facility,the percentage of children of very low income households, lower income households, or moderate income households shall be equal to or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are required to be affordable to very low income households, low income households, or moderate income households. (3764-3/07) 3. "Child care facility," as used in this section, means a child day care facility other than a family day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers,preschools, extended day care facilities, and school age child care centers. (3764-3/07) H. Procedure. (3764-3/07) 1. In addition to submitting all documentation required to apply for a conditional use permit, a developer requesting a density bonus pursuant to this section shall include the following in the written narrative supporting the application: (3764-3/07) a. A general description of the proposed project, general plan designation, applicable zoning, maximum possible density permitted under the current zoning and general plan designation and such other information as is necessary and sufficient. The property must be zoned and general planned to allow a minimum of five (5)units to qualify for a density bonus. b. A statement detailing the number of density bonus units being proposed over and above the number of units normally permitted by the applicable zoning and general plan designations. (3764-3/07) C. A description of the requested incentive or concessions that the developer requests. (3764-3/07) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 10 of 59 4/4/12 d. A calculation of the density bonus allowed. (3764-3/07) 2. All subsequent City review of and action on the applicant's proposal for a density bonus and/or consideration of any requested incentives or concessions shall occur in a manner concurrent with the processing of the conditional use permit and any other required entitlements, if any. If the developer proposes that the project not be subject to impact fees or other fees regularly imposed on a development of the same type, final approval will be by the City Council. (3764-3/07) 3. The Planning Commission/City Council shall review the subject Affordability Agreement concurrently with the development proposal. No project shall be deemed approved until the Affordability Agreement has been approved by the City Council. (3710-6/05) 4. The Planning Commission/City Council may place reasonable conditions on the granting of the density bonus and any other incentives as proposed by the applicant. However, such conditions must not have the effect, individually or cumulatively, of impairing the objective of California Government Code Section 65915 et seq., and this section, of providing affordable housing for qualifying residents. (3764-3/07) 5. A monitoring fee, as established by resolution of the City Council, shall be paid by the applicant to the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first unit. This fee shall be in addition to any other fees required for the processing of the conditional use permit, environmental analysis, and/or any other entitlements required. I. Required findings for approval. (3764-3/07) 1. Density bonus. In granting a conditional use permit for a density bonus,the Planning Commission/City Council shall make all of the following findings: a. The proposed project, which includes a density bonus, can be adequately serviced by the City and County water, sewer, and storm drain systems without significantly impacting the overall service or system. b. The proposed project,which includes a density bonus,will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities, school enrollments, or recreational resources. C. The proposed project which includes a density bonus is compatible with the physical character of the surrounding area. d. The proposed project, which includes a density bonus, is consistent with the overall intent of the General Plan. e. If located within the coastal zone,the proposed project which includes a density bonus will be consistent with the requirements of the certified Land Use Plan and will not result in the fill, dredge, or diking of a wetlands. (3334-6197,Resolution No.2009-36-9109) J. Required finding for denial. (3764-3107) 1. Concessions or Incentives. The city shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of one or more of the following: (3764-3/07,Resolution No.2009-36-9/09) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 11 of 59 4/4/12 a. The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in California Government Code Section 65915(c). (3764-3/07) b. The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate-income households. (3764-3/07) C. The concession or incentive is inconsistent with the requirements of the certified Land Use Plan. (Resolution No.2009-36-9/09) 230.16 Manufactured Homes A. General Requirements. Manufactured homes may be used for residential purposes if such manufactured home conforms to the requirements of this section and is located in an R district. Manufactured homes also may be used for temporary uses, subject to the requirements of a temporary use permit issued under Chapter 241. B. Location and Design Requirements. Manufactured homes may be located in any R district where a single family detached dwelling is permitted, subject to the same restrictions on density and to the same property development standards,provided that such manufactured home meets the design and locational criteria of this subsection. These criteria are intended to protect neighborhood integrity, provide for harmonious relationship between manufactured homes and surrounding uses, and minimize problems that could occur as a result of locating manufactured homes on residential lots. 1. Location Criteria: Manufactured homes shall not be allowed: a. On substandard lots that do not meet the dimensional standards of Chapter 210; b. As a second or additional unit on an already developed lot; or c. As an accessory building or use on an already developed lot. 2. Design Criteria: Manufactured homes shall be compatible in design and appearance with residential structures in the vicinity and shall meet the following standards: a. Each manufactured house must be at least 16 feet wide; b. It must be built on a permanent foundation approved by the Building Official; c. It must have been constructed after June 1, 1979, and must be certified under the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Act of 1974; d. The unit's skirting must extend to the finished grade; e. Exterior siding must be compatible with adjacent residential structures, and shiny or metallic finishes are prohibited; f. The roof must have a pitch of not fewer than 2 inches vertical rise per 12 inches horizontal distance, with eave overhangs a minimum of 12 inches; Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 12 of 59 4/4/12 g. The roof must be of concrete or asphalt tile, shakes or shingles complying with the most recent editions of the Uniform Building Code fire rating approved in the City of Huntington Beach; h. The floor must be no higher than 20 inches above the exterior finished grade; and i. Required enclosed parking shall be compatible with the manufactured home design and with other buildings in the area. C. _Cancellation of State Registration. Whenever a manufactured home is installed on a permanent foundation, any registration of said manufactured home with the State of California shall be canceled, pursuant to state faws and standards. Before occupancy,the owner shall provide to the Director satisfactory evidence showing: that the state registration of the manufactured house has been or will, with certainty, be canceled; if the manufactured house is new and has never been registered with the state, the owner shall provide the Director with a statement to that effect from the dealer selling the home. 230.18 Subdivision Sales Offices and Model Homes Subdivision sales offices and model homes in conjunction with an approved subdivision is permitted with the following requirements. (3525-2/02) A. The office shall be discontinued within 30 days following sale of the last on-site unit. A cash bond shall be posted with the City in the amount of$1,000 for the sales office and$1,000 for each model home to guarantee compliance with the provisions of this code. B. The developer or contractor shall furnish a site plan showing the placement of the sales office and all model signs, parking signs, directional signs, temporary structures,parking and landscaping. C. No sales office shall be converted or expanded into a general business office for the contractor or developer. 230.20 Payment of Park Fee As a condition of development approval, all new commercial and industrial development and all new residential development not covered by Chapter 254 of Title 25, Subdivision Ordinance, except for mobile home parks, shall pay a park fee. The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution. (EMG 3594-11/02,EMG 3596-12/02,Resolution No.2002-129-12/02,3827-4109,3879-6/10) Note: Ordinance No.3827(expired 4/15/10)and Ordinance No.3879,effective from 5/3/10 to 513/11,temporarily defer the payment of certain Development Impact Fees. 230.22 Residential Infill Lot Developments The following Residential Infill requirements are intended to minimize impacts on contiguous developed single family residential property and provide standards that insure compatibility and appropriate design for projects located within existing residential neighborhoods,unless to do so would contravene the terms of an existing Development Agreement. (3301-11/95) Infill development site plans and building design shall be harmonious and compatible with streets, driveways,property lines, and surrounding neighborhood. Compatibility considerations should include,but not be limited to, lot size, lot frontages,building layout,building Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 13 of 59 4/4/12 configuration and design, building materials, product type, grade height and building height relative to existing dwellings, and visual intrusion concerns. The Director of Planning shall cause all requests for plan check and issuance of building permits for residential infill lot development to be reviewed in accordance with these requirements. (3301-11/95,3710-6/05) A. Privacy Design Standards. 1. New residences and accessory dwelling units shall off-set windows from those on existing residences to insure maximum privacy. The use of translucent glass or similar material, shall be used for all bathroom windows facing existing residences. Consider locating windows high on elevations to allow light and ventilation, and insure privacy. (3301-11/95,3710-6/05) 2. Minimize the canyon effect between houses by clipping roof elevations on side yards. Provide roof line variations throughout a multi-dwelling infill development. (3301-11/95) 3. Provide architectural features(projections, off-sets)to break up massing and bulk. 4. Upper story balconies shall be oriented toward the infill house's front or rear yard areas, a public street or permanent open space. (3301-11/95) B. Noise Considerations. 1. Swimming pool/hot tub equipment, air conditioning equipment, and other permanently installed motor driven equipment shall be located to minimize noise impacts on contiguous residences. (3301-11/95) C. Pad Height. 1. Pad height for new construction shall match to the extent feasible pad heights of contiguous residences. Any property owner/developer who intends to add fill above the height of the existing contiguous grades shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director and the City Engineer that the additional fill is not detrimental to surrounding properties in terms of compatibility and drainage issues. (3301-11/95) D. Public Notification Requirements. 1. Ten (10) working days prior to submittal for plan check(plan review) the applicant shall give notice of the application to adjacent property owners and the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Development by first class mail. The notice of application shall include the following: (3301-11/95) a. Name of applicant; b. Location of planned development, including street address (if known) and/or lot and tract number; (3301-11/95) c. Nature of the planned development, including maximum height and square footage of each proposed infill dwelling unit; (3301-11/95) d. The City Hall telephone number for the Department of Community Development to call for viewing plans; e. The date by which any comments must be received in writing by the Department of Community Development. This date shall be ten (10) working days from plan check(plan review) submittal; and Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 14 of 59 4/4/12 f. The address of the Department of Community Development. 2. The applicant shall submit a copy of each notice mailed and proof of mailing of the notice(s)when submitting the application for plan check (plan review). The adjacent property owners shall have ten(10) working days from plan check(plan review) submittal to provide comments regarding the application to the Director of Community Development. All decisions of the Director regarding the application shall be final. (3301-11/95) 230.24 Small Lot Development Standards A. Permitted Uses. The following small lot development standards are provided as an alternative to attached housing in multi-family districts. Small lot developments are permitted in RM, RMH, and RH Districts (excluding RL Districts and RMH-A Subdistricts) subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board shall review and forward recommendations on all small lot development proposals prior to Planning Commission action. These standards shall apply to all small lot subdivisions, whether the tentative map is designed with single units per lot, or multiple units per lot(condominium). B. Design standards. The following standards shall be considered by the Planning Commission prior to development approval: 1. Architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development shall enhance the orderly and harmonious development of the area or the community as a whole. 2. Architectural features and complementary colors shall be incorporated into the design of all exterior surfaces of the building in order to create an aesthetically pleasing project. 3. All vehicular access ways shall be designed with landscaping and building variation to eliminate an alley-like appearance. C. Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to all small lot developments: Minimum Building Site or Lot Size 3,100 sq. ft. (3,400 sq. ft. avg.) Minimum Lot Frontage 40 ft. Cul de sac and knuckle 30 ft. Maximum Height Dwellings 30 ft.; max. 2 stories except 3Td level permitted <500 sq. ft. Min. 5/12 roof pitch No decks above the second story Accessory Structures 15 ft. Minimum Setbacks Front Dwelling 15 ft. +offsets in front fagade Covered Porches (unenclosed) 10 ft. Garage 18 ft Upper Story Upper story setback shall be varied Side 8 ft. aggregate, min. 3 ft. 0 ft. permitted with min. 8 ft. on other side Street Side 10 ft.; includes min. 4 ft. landscape lettered lot Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 15 of 59 4/4/12 (6 ft. between bldg. and prop. line) Rear Dwelling 15 ft.; 50% of bldg. width may be at 13 ft. Garage 3 ft.; 0 ft. if garage is designed to back to another garage Maximum Lot Coverage 50%+ 5% for covered porches,patio covers, balconies. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.7 Minimum Interior Garage Min. 400 sq. ft.; Dimension(width x depth) min. 18 ft. wide Minimum Building Separation to 6 ft. Accessory Building Open Space Common recreational area Projects of 20 units or more: (project) 150 sq. ft./unit; min. 5,000 sq. ft.; min. 50 ft. dimension. Projects less than 20 units: Min. 600 sq. ft. private and/or common per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. Common open space requires min. 10 ft. dimension. Required Parking Small lot developments shall provide parking consistent with single family residential developments specified in Chapter 231. In addition, minimum I on-street space per unit for guest/visitor parking shall be provided. A parking plan depicting the location of all parking spaces shall be submitted with the conditional use permit application. Street Sections Streets The city shall review proposed street sections upon submittal of the tentative map and conditional use permit applications. Min. 36 ft. curb to curb may be permitted provided all units in the development are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems. On-street parking shall be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalks/Parkways Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the street. Min. 6 ft. landscape parkways may be provided on both sides of the street. Sidewalk widths shall be designed to Public Works Standards. Walls and Fences Block walls required; may allow wrought iron element where appropriate Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 16 of 59 4/4/12 Landscaping Tree wells adjacent to landscape parkways on the street side of curb is encouraged, however shall not encroach into the min. 24 foot wide drive aisle. Also see Chapter 232 Landscaping 230.26 Affordable Housing A. Purpose. 1. The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Housing Element. It is intended to encourage low and moderate income housing,which is integrated, compatible with and complements adjacent uses, and is located in close proximity to public and commercial services. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) 2. The affordable housing program is one tool the City utilizes to meet its commitment to provide housing affordable to all economic sectors, and to meet its regional fair- share requirements for construction of affordable housing. (3687-12/04) 3. As a result of being located within a redevelopment area and/or Specific Plan area, additional restrictions or requirements may apply. (3829-6/09) B. Applicability. This section shall apply to new residential projects three (3) or more units In size. (3687-12/04) 1. A minimum of ten(10)percent of all new residential construction shall be affordable housing units. The whole number established by dividing the total unit count proposed by ten(10) shall be affordable housing units unless Section 230.2613.4 applies. Any fractional amount may be paid with an equivalent in-lieu fee. (3687-12/04, 3829-6/09) 2. Rental units included in the project shall be made available to low-income households as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5, or a successor statute. Rental units included in the project may be made available to moderate income households as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50093, or a successor statute if the moderate income units are located on-site within the project. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) 3. For sale units included in the project shall be made available to moderate income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50093, or a successor statute. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) 4. Developers of residential projects consisting of thirty or fewer units may elect to pay a fee in lieu of providing the units on-site to fulfill the requirement of the Section, unless the affordable housing requirement is outlined as part of a specific plan project. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) 5. Developers of residential projects may elect to provide the affordable units at an off-site location pursuant to subsection B unless otherwise outlined as part of a specific plan project. If affordable units are off-site, they must be under the full control of the applicant, or other approved party. (3687-12/04) 6. New residential projects shall include construction of an entirely new project or new units added to an existing project. For purposes of determining the required number of affordable housing units, only new units shall be counted. (3687-12/04) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 17 of 59 4/4/12 C. Fees in Lieu of Construction. 1. Fees paid to fulfill the requirements of this Section shall be placed in the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the use of which is governed by subsection E. (3687-12/04) 2. The amount of the in-lieu fees shall be calculated using the fee schedule established by resolution of the City Council. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) 3. One hundred (100)percent of the fees required by this Section shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. (3687-12/04,3827-4/09,3879-6/10) Note: Ordinance No.3827(expired 4/15/10)and Ordinance No.3879,effective from 5/3/10 to 5/3/11,temporarily defer the payment of certain Development Impact Fees. 4. Fees paid as a result of new residential projects shall be based upon the total number of the new residential units which are to be constructed. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) D. Off-Site Construction of Affordable Units. Except as may be required by the California Coastal Act and/or the Government Code Section 65590 or a successor statute, developers may provide the required affordable housing off-site, at one or several sites, within the City of Huntington Beach. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) 1. Off-site projects may be new construction or substantial rehabilitation, as defined by Government Code Section 33413 affordable housing production requirements, of existing non-restricted units conditioned upon being restricted to long-term affordability. "At Risk" units identified in the Housing Element or mobile homes may be used to satisfy this requirement. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) 2. All affordable off-site housing shall be constructed or rehabilitated prior to or concurrently with the primary project. Final approval (occupancy) of the first market rate residential unit shall be contingent upon the completion and public availability, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion, of the affordable units. (3687-12/04) E. Miscellaneous Provisions. 1. The conditions of approval for any project that requires affordable units shall specify the following items: (3687-12/04) (a) The density bonus being provided pursuant to Section 230.14, if any; (3687-12/04) (b) The number of affordable units; (3687-12/04) (c) The number of units at each income level as defined by the Health and Safety Code; and (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) (d) A list of any other incentives offered by the City. (3687-12/04) 2. An Affordable Housing Agreement outlining all aspects of the affordable housing provisions shall be executed between the applicant and the City and recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office, or the applicable in-lieu fee shall be paid in full,prior to issuance of the first building permit. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 18 of 59 4/4/12 3. The Agreement shall specify an affordability term of not less than fifty-five (55) years for rental housing or forty-five (45) years for ownership housing. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) 4. All affordable on-site units in a project shall be constructed concurrently with or prior to the construction of the primary project units unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan. Final approval (occupancy) of the first market rate residential unit shall be contingent upon the completion and public availability, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion, of the affordable units. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) 5. All affordable units shall be reasonably located throughout the project unless otherwise designed through a master plan, shall contain on average the same number of bedrooms as the market rate units in the project, and shall be comparable with the market rate units in terms of exterior appearance, materials and finished quality. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) 6. Affordable Housing Trust Funds shall be used for projects which have a minimum of fifty(50)percent of the dwelling units affordable to very low-and low-income households, with at least twenty(20)percent of the units available to very low- income households. Concurrent with establishing the annual fee schedule pursuant to subsection C,the City Council shall by resolution set forth the permitted uses of Affordable Housing Trust Funds. All units that obtain Affordable Housing Trust Funds shall maintain the affordability of the units for a minimum of fifty- five (55)years. The funds may, at the discretion of the City Council, be used for pre-development costs, land or air rights acquisition, rehabilitation, land write downs, administrative costs, gap financing, or to lower the interest rate of construction loans or permanent financing. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) 7. New affordable units shall be occupied in the following manner: (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) (a) If residential rental units are being demolished and the existing tenant(s) meets the eligibility requirements, he/she shall be given the right of first refusal to occupy the affordable unit(s); or (3687-12/04) (b) If there are no qualified tenants, or if the qualified tenant(s) chooses not to exercise the right of first refusal, or if no demolition of residential rental units occurs,then qualified households or buyers will be selected. (3687-12/04) F. Price of Affordable Units. Affordable housing cost shall be calculated in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5 standards for ownership units and Health and Safety Code Section 50053 standards for rental units. This methodology is fully described in the City's adopted housing policies. (3687-12/04,3829-6/09) G. Reduced Fees for Affordable Housing. Projects that exceed inclusionary requirements on-site will be eligible for reduced City fees,pursuant to an Affordable Housing Fee Reduction Ordinance, upon adoption by the City Council. (3829-6/09) H. Annual Program Review and Periodic Adjustment of the Fee. Within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year,the City Council shall review the status of the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund, including the amount of fees collected, expenditures from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and the degree to which the fees collected pursuant to this Chapter are assisting the City to provide and encourage low and moderate income housing. The fee shall be updated annually using the Real Estate and Construction Report published by the Real Estate Research Council of Southern California. The fee change shall be based on the percentage difference in the New Home Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 19 of 59 4/4/12 Prices in Orange County published in the 4th quarter report for the then current year versus the immediately preceding year. (3829-6/09) 230.28 (Reserved) 230.30 (Reserved) Non-Residential Districts 230.32 Service Stations The following supplemental development standards shall apply to the Service Station use classification. A. Minimum parcel size. 22,500 square feet. B. Minimum frontage. 150 feet and located at the intersection of arterial highways. C. Site Layout. Conditions of approval of a conditional use permit may impose restrictions on outdoor storage and display and location of pump islands, canopies and service bay openings and require buffering, screening, lighting, or planting areas necessary to avoid adverse impacts on properties in the surrounding area. D. Design standards. 1. In reviewing proposals, emphasis shall be placed on quality design of building materials and landscape features. Service stations shall be designed so that form and scale are harmonious and consistent with the character of the specific site,the adjacent uses and structures, and the general neighborhood. 2. The location, number, and design of driveways as well as on and off-site traffic circulation impacts shall be analyzed. 3. Service bay openings shall be designed to minimize the visual intrusion on surrounding streets and properties. A maximum of 3 service bays shall be permitted per site, none of which shall face a public right-of-way. 4. Lighting shall be of low profile design, indirect or diffused, and shall create no negative impact on surrounding uses. 5. A minimum 10 percent of the site shall be landscaped. Landscaping plans shall conform to all applicable provisions of Chapter 232 as well as conform to the following requirements: a. A 3 foot-wide planter(inside dimension) along interior property lines shall be provided, except at vehicular circulation openings. Additional landscaping may be required to screen service bays from surrounding properties. b. A 600 square-foot planter with a minimum dimension of 20 feet shall be provided at the corner of intersecting streets. c. A total of 70 square feet of planting area shall be located adjacent to and on the street side of the main building. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 20 of 59 4/4/12 6. Buildings shall conform to the setback regulations stated for the district in which the site is located. Pump islands and canopy structures shall maintain the following minimum setbacks from street side property lines: Pump island: 20 feet Canopy: 10 feet with ground clearance of 12 feet E. Storage of Materials and Equipment. The provisions of Section 230.74, Outdoor Facilities, shall apply, except that a display rack for automobile products no more than 4 feet wide may be maintained at each pump island of a service station and a single tire storage display no more than 8 feet high and 16 feet long may be located on the site of a service station. If display racks are not located on pump islands, they shall be placed within 3 feet of the principal building, and shall be limited to 1 per street frontage. Outside storage of motor vehicles for more than 24 hours (7 days if the vehicle is actively being serviced) is prohibited, except as provided for truck and utility trailer rentals. The location of display racks and vending machines shall be specified by the conditional use permit. F. Accessory Uses. The accessory uses listed below shall be permitted as included on the approved site plan. Such uses shall be subordinate to the main operation and shall not impede safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation or be detrimental to surrounding properties or potential customers. Such uses shall be included as part of the original conditional use permit request or shall be subject to a new conditional use permit if proposed subsequent to the original conditional use permit. 1. Convenience markets are permitted provided no automotive repair or truck or trailer rental is permitted on the same site. 2. Automatic washing, cleaning and waxing of vehicles. Such activity shall be of an integral design with the main structure. 3. Truck and utility truck rental is permitted provided the trucks do not exceed 25 feet in length and are stored a minimum of 50 feet from the street property lines. 230.34 Dousing of Goods All goods, wares, merchandise,produce, and other commodities which are stored or offered for sale or exchange in the commercial and industrial districts shall be housed in permanent buildings except as otherwise provided by this code. 230.36 Transportation Demand Management A. Purpose and intent. It is the purpose and intent to implement the requirements of Government Code Section 65089.3(a)(2),to mitigate the impacts that development projects may have on transportation mobility, congestion and air quality, and to promote transportation demand management strategies. B. Definitions. For purposes of this Section,the following definitions for the following terms shall apply: 1. Alternative transportation mode: Any mode of travel that serves as an alternative to the single occupant vehicle. This can include all forms of ridesharing, public transit, bicycling or walking. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 21 of 59 4/4/12 2. Camool: Two (2)to six (6)persons traveling together in a single vehicle. 3. Employee: Means any person employed by a firm,person(s),business, educational institution, non-profit agency or corporation, government agency, or other entity which employs 100 or more persons at a single worksite. "Employee" shall include persons employed on a full-time,part-time, or temporary basis. 4. Employer: Means any person(s), firm,business, educational institution, government agency, non-profit agency or corporation, or other entity which employs or houses tenants that collectively employ 100 or more employees at a worksite on a full and/or part-time/temporary basis. 6. Building Size: Means the total gross floor area measured in square feet of a building or group of buildings at a worksite. Includes the total floor area of both new development and existing facilities. 7. Mixed-Use Development: Means new development projects that integrate any one of these land uses with another: residential, office, commercial, industrial and business park. 8. Tenant: Means the lessee of facility space at a development project who may also serve as an employer. 9. Transportation Demand Management(TDM): Means the implementation of programs, plans or policies designed to encourage changes in individual travel behavior. TDM can include an emphasis on alternative travel modes to the single occupant vehicle (SOV) such as carpools, vanpools and transit; and reduction of VMT and the number of vehicle trips. 10. Vanpool: Means a vehicle occupied by seven (7) or more persons traveling together. 11. Worksite: Means a building or group of buildings which are under common ownership and the place of employment, base of operation, or predominate location of an employee or group of employees. C. Applicability: 1. These provisions apply to commercial, industrial, institutional, or other uses which are determined to employ 100 or more persons, as determined by the employee generation factors specified under subsection 4. This includes any permit for existing facilities that already have 100 or more employees or will have 100 or more employees. 2. These provisions apply to all districts,planned communities and specific plan areas including those covered by development agreements. These provisions shall supersede other ordinances with which there is a conflict. 3. Notwithstanding "1" above,the following uses and activities shall be specifically exempt from the provisions of this section: a. Temporary construction activities on any affected project, including activities performed by engineers, architects, contract subcontractors and construction workers. b. Other temporary use classifications or as authorized by the Planning Zoning Administrator/Director when such temporary activities are for a period not to exceed 30 days and held no more than once a year. (3710-6/05) 4. Employee generation factors shall be based on one of the following: Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 22 of 59 4/4/12 a. Employment projections developed by the property owner, subject to approval by the Director; b. Building sizes shall be considered equivalent to the 100 employee threshold as follows: Building Size (in square feet) Type of Use Equivalent to 100 Employees Office/Professional 35,000 Hospital and Medical/Dental 40,000 Industrial (excluding Warehouses) 50,000 Commercial/Retail 50,000 Hotel 0.8 employees/hotel room Motel 1.2 Resort Hotel 100,000 Mixed or multiple use Warehouse 100,000 * The employment projection for a development of mixed or multiple uses shall be calculated on a case-by-case basis based upon the proportion of development devoted to each type of use. D. Site development standards: Development projects subject to this section shall comply with the following site development standards: 1. Parking for Carpool Vehicles a. The following percentages of the total required parking spaces per Chapter 231 shall be reserved and designated for employee carpool vehicles by making such spaces "Carpool Only": Percent of Total Parking Devoted to Type of Use Employee Carpool Parking Office Professional 13% Hospital and Medical/Dental Office 9% Industrial/Warehouse 14% Commercial/Retail 5% Hotel space for every 2 employees b. Carpool spaces shall be located near the building's identified employee entrance(s) or at other preferential locations within the employee parking areas as approved by the Director. 2. Shower and Locker Facilities Shower and locker facilities shall be provided for use by employees or tenants who commute to the site by bicycle or walking. The use of such facilities shall be provided at no cost to the user. The design of such facilities shall be shown on the plot plans in the permit application and conform to the following: a. Lockers shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 1 for every 20 employees. b. Separate shower facilities shall be provided at a minimum rate of 2 per 100 employees. 3. Bicycle Parking Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 23 of 59 414112 a. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at the minimum rate of 1 bicycle parking space for every 20 employees or fraction thereof, in a secure location, and in close proximity to employee entrances, for use by employees or tenants who commute to the site by bicycle. b. A bicycle parking facility shall be a stationary object to which the user can lock the bicycle frame and both wheels with a user-provided six (6) foot cable and lock. 4. Commuter Information Areas A commuter information area shall be provided to offer employees appropriate information on alternative transportation modes. This area shall be centrally located and accessible to all employees or tenants and shall be sufficient size to accommodate such information on alternative transportation modes. 5. Passenger Loading Areas Unless determined unnecessary by the decision-maker, per Title 24,passenger loading areas to embark and disembark passengers from rideshare vehicles and public transportation shall be provided as follows: a. Passenger loading area shall be large enough to accommodate the number of waiting vehicles equivalent to 1% of the required parking for the project. b. The passenger loading areas shall be located as close as possible to the identified employee entrance(s), and shall be designed in a manner that does not impede vehicular circulation in the parking area or in adjoining streets. 6. Parking for Vanpool Vehicles Unless determined unnecessary by the decision-maker, per Title 24, parking for vanpool vehicles shall be provided as follows: a. The number of vanpool parking spaces shall be at least 1% of the employee carpool parking spaces and reserved for such by marking the spaces "Vanpool Only." b. For parking structures, vanpool vehicle accessibility shall include minimum 7' 2" vertical clearance. c. Vanpool parking spaces shall be located near identified employee entrance(s) or other preferential locations. 7. Bus Stops Unless determined unnecessary by the decision-maker,per Title 24, bus shelter, pullouts, and pads shall be provided as necessary in consultation with affected transit service providers. 230.38 Game Centers The following supplemental requirements shall apply to the operation of game centers, including mechanical or electronic games or any other similar machine or device, in order to control the location and hours of operation of game centers so as not to allow school children to play the games during school hours or to encourage minors to congregate in areas close to commercial establishments that sell alcoholic beverages. The following conditions shall apply: (3710-6/05) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 24 of 59 4/4/12 A. Neighborhood Notification. Submit a request to the Director with neighborhood notification pursuant to Chapter 241. (3710-6/05) B. Adult Manager. At least one adult manager shall be on the premises during the time a game center is open to the public. C. Hours of Operation for Minors under 18 Years of Age. No game center owners, manager or employees shall allow a minor under 18 years of age to play a mechanical or electronic game machine during the hours the public schools of the district in which the center is located are in session, or after 9 p.m. on nights preceding school days, or after 10 p.m. on any night. It is the responsibility of the owner or manager of the game center to obtain a current schedule of school days and hours. D. Locational Criteria. A game center shall not be permitted within 2,500 feet of a school site, 300 feet of the boundary of a residential district, or within 500 feet of a liquor store, a nightclub, cocktail lounge or bar. The distance shall be measured as walking distance from the game center to the property line of the school site,the district boundary, or the property line of the liquor store,nightclubs, cocktail lounge, or bar, as the case may be. E. Restrictions. The Director may impose reasonable restrictions on the physical design, location, and operation of a game center and require a special bicycle parking area in order to minimize the effects of noise, congregation,parking, and other nuisance factors that may be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community. (3710-6/05) 230.40 Helicopter'Takeoff and Landing Areas A. Permit Required. A conditional use permit may be issued for the construction and operation of a heliport,helipad, or helistop if the Planning Commission finds that: 1. The helipad, heliport, or helistop conforms to the locational criteria and standards established in Subsections (B) and(C) of this section, and the requirements of the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics; 2. The heliport, helipad, or helistop is compatible with the surrounding environment; and 3. The proposed operation of the helicopter facility does not pose a threat to public health, safety or welfare. The Commission may impose conditions of approval on the conditional use permit to prevent adverse impacts on surrounding properties. If such impacts can not be mitigated to an acceptable level,the conditional use permit application shall be denied. B. Locational Criteria. 1. Minimum Separation. Minimum separation between heliports, helipads, and helistops shall be 1.5 miles, except for facilities specifically intended for emergency use, such as medical evacuation or police functions, and temporary landing sites. 2. Protected Areas. No heliport,helipad, or helistop shall be located within 1,000 feet of an R district or the site of a public or private school, except for heliports or helistops specifically intended only for emergency or police use. Temporary landing sites within 1,000 feet of a public or private school may be allowed with a temporary use permit subject to approval of the California Department of Transportation. C. Site Development Standards. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 25 of 59 4/4/12 l. Approach and departure paths 65 feet wide shall be free of obstruction for a minimum distance of 400 feet. 2. Setbacks from property lines shall be as follows: a. Takeoff and landing area- 50 feet; b. Helicopter maintenance facilities - 25 feet; c. Administrative or operations building- 15 feet. 3. Any lighting used for nighttime operations shall be directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 4. A telephone shall be provided on or adjacent to the heliport, helipad or helistop. 5. Helipads or helistops intended for emergency use shall have a landing pad with a standard landing area designated and the words "Emergency Only." The initial direction of the departure routes shall be indicated on the takeoff and landing area. D Application Requirements. The following additional information shall be submitted with a conditional use permit application: (3710-6/05) 1. An area map, at a scale of 1" = 800' showing existing land use within a two-mile radius of the facility site and the proposed flight paths. 2. A plot plan of the site and vicinity, including all land within a 400-foot radius of the takeoff and landing area,that shows clearly the height of the takeoff and landing area; the height of existing, approved and proposed structures and trees within 50 feet of the approach and takeoff flight paths; and the maximum allowable building height under existing zoning. 3. A description of the proposed operations, including the type of use, names and descriptions of helicopters expected to use the facility, and anticipated number and timing of daily flights. 4. A helicopter noise study including a map of the approach and departure flight paths at a scale of 1" = 800' showing existing day/night average noise levels in decibels(LDN noise contours), future day/night average noise levels with the proposed facility and anticipated flight operations, and single-event maximum sound levels associated with the types of helicopters expected to use the facility. 230.42 Bed and Breakfast Inns A. Permit Required. The Zoning Administrator may approve a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast inn in any C District and RMH-A District after a duly noticed public hearing upon finding that: (3710-6/05) 1. The bed and breakfast inn will be operated by a property owner living on the premises; 2. The bed and breakfast inn conforms to the design and development standards of Subsection(B) of this section and is compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of building materials, colors and exterior finishes; and 3. Public and utility services, including emergency access, are adequate to serve the bed and breakfast inn. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 26 of 59 4/4/12 B. Design and Development Standards. 1. Minimum Size and Maximum Number of Guest Rooms. The inn shall contain at least 2,000 square feet, but no more than six rooms shall be rented for lodging. 2. Parking. The requirements of Chapter 231 shall apply. 3. Signs. The requirements of Chapter 233 apply. In addition, in the RMH-A district, no identifying sign shall be displayed other than a sign no larger than 2 square feet identifying the name of the establishment. The face of the sign may be indirectly illuminated by an exterior light source entirely shielded from view, but no internal illumination from an interior light source shall be permitted. 230.44 Recycling Operations Collection containers shall be permitted for charitable organizations such as Goodwill. Recycling containers shall be permitted as an accessory use to a permitted use. Recycling and collection containers shall not be located within required parking or landscaped areas or obstruct pedestrian paths. Recycling as an accessory use shall not exceed 500 square feet including any required attendant parking space. A recycling operation as a primary use shall comply with the development standards contained in Chapter 212. 230.46 Single Room Occupancy Single room occupancy (SRO) shall comply with the following requirements: A. General Provisions. I. All projects shall comply with the most recently adopted City Building, Plumbing, Mechanical,Electrical, Fire, and Housing Codes. 2. No more than one (1)person shall be permitted to reside in any unit, excluding the manager's unit and up to 25 percent of the total number of units which have double occupancy. (3494-5/01) 3. A Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval with the conditional use permit application. The Management Plan shall contain management policies, operations, emergency procedures, overnight guest policy, security program including video cameras monitoring building access points at every floor, rental procedures and proposed rates, maintenance plans, staffing needs, and tenant mix, selection and regulations. Income levels shall be verified by a third party and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach as part of the annual review. (3494-5/01) 4. An on-site,twenty-four(24) hour manager is required in every SRO project. In addition, a manager's unit shall be provided which shall be designed as a complete residential unit, and be a minimum of 300 square feet in size. (3494-5/01) 5. Rental procedures shall allow for monthly tenancies only; deposit requirements shall be specified. (3494-5/01) 6. All units within SRO projects shall be restricted to very low and low income individuals as defined by the City's housing element,with the exception of the twenty-four(24) hour manager. Rental rates shall be calculated using a maximum of 30% of income toward housing expenses based on County of Orange income figures. (3494-5/01) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 27 of 59 4/4/12 7. Each SRO project shall be subject to annual review by the City which includes the review of management services. The management services plan shall define third parry verification criteria. The SRO project owner shall be responsible for filing an annual report to the Planning and Economic Development Departments which includes the range of monthly rents,the monthly income of residents, occupancy rates, and the number of vehicles owned by residents. (3494-5/01) 8. The Planning Commission or City Council may revoke the conditional use permit if any violation of conditions or any of the adopted Huntington Beach Codes occurs. (3494-5/01) B. Unit Requirements. 1. Minimum unit size shall be 250 square feet except double occupancy units shall be a minimum of 400 square feet. (3494-5/01) 2. Maximum unit size shall be three hundred (300) square feet excluding manager's unit and double occupancy units. (3494-5/01) 3. Each unit shall contain a kitchen and bathroom. (3494-5/01) a. Kitchens shall contain a sink with garbage disposal, counter top (minimum 16" x 24"),refrigerator, and stove/oven unit and/or microwave; (3494-5/01) b. If stoves/oven units are not provided in each unit,then stoves/oven units shall be provided in a common kitchen area(s). (3494-5/01) c. Bathrooms shall contain a lavatory, toilet, and shower or bathtub. d. Each unit shall have a minimum forty-eight(48) cubic feet of closet/storage space. C. Project Requirements. 1. Common recreational space shall be provided in each project as follows: a. Minimum common recreational space shall be four hundred (400) square feet. b. For projects exceeding thirty (30) units, an additional 10 square feet of recreational space per unit is required. (3494-5/01) Units that are 400 square feet or greater shall have a minimum of 15 square feet of recreational space per unit. (3494-5/01) c. Common recreational space may be indoor or outdoor provided there is at least forty percent (40%) allotted toward indoor space and forty percent(40%) outdoor space; the balance may be either indoors or outdoors. d. Common recreational space may be in separate areas provided each space is not less than two hundred (200) square feet in size and has no less than a ten (10) foot dimension. 2. A single controlled entryway for routine ingress and egress shall be situated adjacent to and in full view of the manager's desk. 3. A secured office area shall be incorporated in the facility for the storage of confidential resident records and security office personnel. (3494-5/01) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 28 of 59 4/4/12 4. Mailboxes shall be provided for each unit located near the lobby in plain view of the entry desk. (3494-5/01) 5. Handicap access facilities shall be as required by applicable state or local law. (3494-5/01) 6. At least one handicapped accessible unit shall be required for every twenty(20)units. (3494-5/01) 7. Laundry facilities shall be provided in a separate room in a location near the common indoor recreational space. Washers and dryers may be coin operated. (3494-5/01) 9. A cleaning supply storeroom and/or utility closet with at least one (1) laundry tub with hot and cold water on every floor shall be provided on every floor. (3494-5/01) 9. Storage Lockers (3494-5/01) a. Storage lockers shall be provided in a secured area. b. The cumulative total of locker space shall be no less than a ratio often(10) cubic feet per unit. 10. All common indoor space areas shall have posted in a conspicuous location a notice from the City's Planning Department regarding contact procedures to investigate housing code violations. (3494-5/01) 11. Bicycle stalls shall be provided at a minimum of one(1) stall per five (5) units in a secured and enclosed and covered area. (3494-5/01) 12. Trash disposal chutes as well as a centralized trash area shall be provided on all multi-story projects. (3494-5/01) 13. A minimum of two (2) pay telephones shall be provided in the lobby area. The telephone service shall only allow outgoing calls. (3494-5/01) 14. Phone jack(s) shall be provided in each unit. (3494-5/01) 15. A shipping and receiving/maintenance garage shall be provided near a convenient vehicular access on the ground floor. (3494-5/01) 230.48 Equestrian Centers A. Permit Required. Equestrian centers shall be permitted in the OS-PR and PS districts, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. Where all off-site improvements are not provided, initial approval shall be for a maximum period of five years subject to annual review. One year extensions of time may be granted after public hearing by the Planning Commission. On requests to allow a facility on a permanent basis,the Planning Commission shall determine required improvements based on the existing and proposed land uses and the existing off-site improvements within the area. B. Design and Development Standards. 1. Minimum Parcel Size/Frontage. The minimum lot size and lot frontage shall be: Area Frontage Temporary facilities: 2 acres 100 feet Permanent facilities: 5 acres 100 feet Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 29 of 59 4/4/12 2. Density/Riding Areas. Maximum density for horse facilities shall be determined by the following criteria: (a) Maximum density shall be twenty-five (25) horses per acre. (b) Minimum riding area shall be five thousand(5,000) square feet per fifteen (15) horses. For facilities with over one hundred(100)horses,two separate arenas shall be provided. In the alternative, off-site riding area shall be provided adjacent to the facility at the rate of one acre per fifteen(15) horses. (c) Exercise rings shall have no dimension less than thirty(30) feet. (d) The minimum arena size shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet with no dimension less than eighty(80) feet. 3. Maximum Building Height. Maximum building height shall be thirty (30) feet. 4. Required Setbacks. Front: 50 feet (30 feet for caretaker's residence) Interior side: 25 feet Exterior side: 50 feet Rear: 25 feet Minimum distance to any 300 feet residential zone or use: 5. Corral Design. Corrals designed for one horse shall comply with the following requirements. Corrals designed for more than one horse shall provide a minimum area per horse as indicated below. All corrals, racks and stalls shall be of compatible design, materials to be approved by the fire department. (a) Corral size: 288 square feet Minimum dimension: 12 feet Shelter size: 96 square feet Minimum dimension: 8 feet (b) Each corral shall have an approved water system with automatic drinking controls provided. (c) Box stalls may be provided in lieu of horse corrals. Such stalls shall be a minimum of 144 square feet with no dimension less than twelve (12) feet. 6. Wash rack. One wash rack per thirty-five (35)horses or fraction thereof shall be provided subject to the following requirements. Wash racks designed for more than one horse shall provide a minimum area per thirty-five(35) horses as indicated below: (a) Individual wash racks shall be 6 feet by 8 feet. (b) Each wash rack shall have an approved watering system and be connected to a sewer facility with a back-siphon device at the water source. (c) A concrete slab floor shall be provided. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 30 of 59 4/4/12 C. Insect and Rodent Control. l. Feed mangers or boxes shall not be placed near water sources. 2. Nonleak valves shall be provided for all troughs, bowls, cups and other water sources. 3. Automatic valves or sanitary drains shall be provided for large troughs or cups. 4. Grading in paddocks and corrals shall be properly integrated into a master drainage plan to prevent ponding of water. Shelters shall be sloped away from the center of the corrals, or rain gutters shall be installed to the exterior of the corral. 5. Method of disposal of solid wastes shall be approved by Planning Commission. Trash disposal areas and dumpsters shall be designated and conveniently located with an all-weather road access provided. 6. All dry grains shall be stored in rodent-proof metal containers and hay storage shall be covered. Bulk or commercial amounts of grain or hay shall be located a minimum of fifty (50) feet away from any horse enclosure. D. Miscellaneous Operating Requirements. 1. The ground surface of horse enclosures shall be graded above their surroundings. A grading plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a conditional use permit. 2. Storage and tack areas shall be designated on the site plan. 3. Continuous dust control of the entire premises shall be maintained subject to the regulations contained in Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.24. The method for water sprinkling arenas and exercise pens shall be indicated on the site plan. 4. A permanent single family residence shall be provided on the site with a watchman on duty twenty-four(24) hours a day. Two fully enclosed parking spaces shall be provided. Where a mobilehome is used to satisfy this requirement, one carport space and one open space shall be permitted. 5. A back-siphoning device shall be installed to protect the public water supply. An approved pressure vacuum breaker is recommended on the waterline serving the corrals. The vacuum breaker shall be at least twelve (12) inches above the highest point of water usage or an approved double-check valve may be used. 6. Security lighting shall be confined to the site and all utilities shall be installed underground. 7. A log containing the name of every horse, its location in the facility,the owner's name and address, and the names and addresses of persons to be notified in case of emergency shall be maintained in the watchman's quarters for ready reference. 8. All fire protection appliances, appurtenances, emergency access, and any other applicable requirements, pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.56, shall meet the specifications of the fire department. 9. The entire site,exclusive of riding areas, shall be fenced in such a manner as to confine horses within the site in order to protect the perimeter landscaping from damage. Individual corrals shall be enclosed by a minimum five (5) foot high fence. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 31 of 59 4/4112 E. Off-street Parking and Landscaping. 1. Parking and circulation design shall comply with the standards outlined in Chapter 231. In addition,the perimeter of the parking area shall be delineated by pilasters or wooden poles with chain, cable, or heavy rope connectors. The parking lot shall be surfaced in accord with the specifications of the Department of Public Works. 2. Landscaping, as set out in Chapter 232, shall be provided except that the minimum landscaped area required shall be a ten(10) foot wide(inside dimension)planter along all property lines. 230.50 Indoor Swap Meets/Flea Markets Indoor swap meets/flea markets shall comply with the following requirements: A. Conditional Use Permit Required. Indoor swap meets/flea market uses may be permitted as temporary uses only upon approval of conditional use permit by the Planning Commission for a period of time not to exceed ten (10)years. One year extension of time may be granted after public hearing by the Planning Commission. B. Location Considerations: The Planning Commission shall consider the following issues when evaluating a proposed conditional use permit: 1. The site's proximity to residences, schools,hospitals and other noise sensitive uses. 2. The potential adverse impacts on traffic circulation and pedestrian safety. 3. The site's proximity to other indoor swap meets/flea markets to avoid overconcentration of facilities. 4. The site's proximity to businesses processing hazardous materials. C. Location Criteria. 1. Indoor swap meet/flea market uses shall only be allowed on property located adjacent to arterial streets. D. Minimum Building Size. 1. Minimum building gross floor area shall be one hundred thousand(100,000) square feet. E. Miscellaneous Requirements. 1. Ancillary Uses. Ancillary uses may be permitted as included on the approved site plan. Such uses shall be included as part of the initial conditional use permit requirements or shall be subject to new entitlement if proposed after the initial application has been filed. 2. Ste. Individual vendors shall not be permitted any outdoor signs, including temporary. Signs shall comply with the standards outlined in Chapter 233. 3. Parking. Parking shall comply with the standards outlined in Chapter 231. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 32 of 59 4/4/12 230.52 Emergency Shelters (3861-2/10) Emergency Shelters may be permitted subject to the following requirements: (3861-2/10) A. A single Emergency Shelter for 50 occupants, or a combination of multiple shelters with a combined capacity not to exceed 50 occupants, shall be permitted. Religious Assembly uses within an Industrial zone may establish Emergency Shelters for up to 30 occupants provided they meet the minimum development standards of the zone in which they are located. (3861-2/10) B. Stays at the Emergency Shelter facility shall be on a first-come first-serve basis with clients housed on-site. Clients must vacate the facility by 8:00 am each day and have no guaranteed bed for the next night. (3861-2/10) C. Maximum stay at the facility shall not exceed 120 days in a 365-day period. (3861-2/10) D. A minimum distance of 300 feet shall be maintained from any other Emergency Shelter, as measured from the property line. (3861-2/10) E. An on-site client intake and waiting area shall be provided in a location not adjacent to the public right-of-way, be fully screened from public view, and provide consideration for weather events including shade and rain cover. The waiting area shall contain a minimum area of 10 square feet per bed. (3861-2/10) F. Any provision of on-site outside storage shall be fully screened from public view. (3861-2/10) G. Exterior lighting shall be provided for the entire outdoor area of the site consistent with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. (3861-2/10) H. A minimum of one staff person per 15 beds shall be awake and on duty during facility hours of operation. (3861-2/10) I. On-site parking shall be provided at the ratio of 1 space per staff member, plus 1 space for every five (5) beds and an additional '/z space for each bedroom designated for families with children. (3861-2/10) J. A Safety and Security Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval. The site-specific Safety and Security Plan shall describe the following: (3861-2/10) 1. Both on and off-site needs, including, but not limited to, the separation of individual male and female sleeping areas, provisions of family sleeping areas, and associated provisions of management. (3861-2/10) 2. Specific measures targeting the minimizing of client congregation in the vicinity of the facility during hours that clients are not allowed on-site. Goals and objectives are to be established to avoid disruption of adjacent and nearby uses. (3861-2/10) 3. Provisions of a system of management for daily admittance and discharge procedures. (3861-2/10) 4. Any counseling programs are to be provided with referrals to outside assistance agencies, and provide an annual report on a facility's activity to the City. (3861-2/10) 5. Clients are to be appropriately screened for admittance eligibility. (3861-2/10) 6. Refuse collections schedule to provide the timely removal of associated client litter and debris on and within the vicinity of the facility. (3861-2/10) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 33 of 59 4/4/12 K. A proposed Emergency Shelter offering immediate and short-term housing may provide supplemental services to homeless individuals or families. These services may include, but are not limited to, the following: (3861-2/10) 1. An indoor and/or outdoor recreation area. (3861-2/10) 2. A counseling center for job placement, educational,health care, legal or mental services, or similar services geared toward homeless clients. (3861-2/10) 3. Laundry facilities to serve the number of clients at the shelter. (3861-2/10) 4. Kitchen for the preparation of meals. (3861-2/10) 5. Dining hall. (3861-2/10) 6. Client storage area(i.e. for the overnight storage of bicycles and personal items). (3861-2/10) 230.54 (Reserved) 230.56 (Reserved) 230.58 (Reserved) 230.60 (Reserved) All Districts 230.62 Building Site Required No building or structure shall be erected or moved onto any parcel of land in the city except on a lot certified in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local subdivision and zoning provisions at time of creation or on a parcel created as a result of a public taking. No building or structure shall be altered or enlarged to increase the gross floor area by more than 50 percent within any one-year period except on a legal building site. 230.64 Development on Substandard Lots Development on substandard lots shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. A legally created lot having a width or area less than required for the base district in which it is located may be occupied by a permitted or conditional use if it meets the following requirements or exceptions: A. The lot must have been in single ownership separate from any abutting lot on the effective date of the ordinance that made it substandard. Two or more contiguous lots held by the same owner shall be considered as merged if one of the lots does not conform to the minimum lot size or width for the base district in which it is located. B. A substandard lot shall be subject to the same yard and density requirements as a standard lot, provided that in an R district, one dwelling unit may be located on a substandard lot that meets the requirements of this section. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 34 of 59 4/4/12 C. An existing legal lot comprising a minimum size of 5,000 square feet or greater and a minimum width of 50 feet or greater shall not be considered substandard for purposes of this section. 230.66 Development on Lots Divided by District Boundaries The standards applicable to each district shall be applied to the area within that district. No use shall be located in a district in which it is not a permitted or conditional use. Pedestrian or vehicular access from a street to a use shall not traverse a portion of the site in a district in which the use is not a permitted or conditional use. 230.68 Building Projections Into Wards and Courts Projections into required yards and courts shall be permitted as follows: ALLOWABLE PROJECTIONS IN FEETa Front Side Street Side Rear Yard Ward Yard Yard Fireplace or chimney 2.5 2.5b 2.5 2.5 Cornice, eaves and ornamental features 3 2.5b 3 3 Mechanical equipment 2 2b 2b 2 Uncovered porches, terraces,platforms, 6 3 4 5 subterranean garages, decks, and patios not more than 3 feet in height serving only the first floor Stairs, canopies, awnings and uncovered porches 4 2b 4 4b more than 3 feet in height Bay windows 2.5 2.5b 2.5 2.5 Balconies 3 2b 3 3 Covered patios 0 0 5c 5 Notes: allo individual projection shall exceed 1/3 of the building length, and the total of all projections shall not exceed 2/3 of the building length on which they are located. bA 30-inch clearance from the property line shall be maintained. cNo projection shall extend more than 1/2 the width of the street side yard. 230.70 Measurement of height This section establishes standards for determining compliance with the maximum building height limits prescribed for each zoning district or as modified by an overlay district. A. Datum (100) shall be set at the highest point of the curb along the front property line. If no curb exists, datum shall be set at the highest centerline of the street along the front property line. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 35 of 59 4/4/12 B. The differential between top of subfloor and datum shall be a maximum of two (2) feet as determined by Public Works. In the event that any subfloor, stemwall or footing is proposed greater than two (2) feet above datum,the height in excess shall be deducted from the maximum allowable ridgeline height. C. Lots with a grade differential of three (3) feet or greater between the high point and the low point, determined before rough grading, shall be subject to conditional use permit approval by the Zoning Administrator. Conditional use permit approval shall be based upon a building and grading plan which terraces the building with the grade and which is compatible with adjacent development. 230.72 Exceptions to Height Limits Chimneys; vent pipes; cooling towers; flagpoles;towers; spires; domes; cupolas;parapet walls not more than 4 feet high; water tanks; fire towers; transmission antennae (including wireless communication facilities);radio and television antennas (except satellite dish antennae); and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances (except wind-driven generators) may exceed the maximum permitted height in the district in which the site is located by no more than 10 feet. The Zoning Administrator may approve greater height with a conditional use permit. Within the coastal zone exceptions to height limits may be granted only when public visual resources are preserved and enhanced where feasible. (3334-6/97,3568-9/02) 230.74 Outdoor Facilities A. Permit Required. Outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials, or equipment, including display of merchandise, materials, and equipment for customer pick-up, shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator in the CG, IL, IG, CV and SP districts. Sidewalk cafes with alcoholic beverage service and/or outdoor food service accessory to an Eating and Drinking Establishment shall be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator in the CO, CG,CV, OS and SP districts, but no outdoor preparation of food or beverages shall be permitted. (3525-2/02) B. Permit Conditions: Grounds for Denial. The Zoning Administrator may require yards, screening, or planting areas necessary to prevent adverse impacts on surrounding properties. If such impacts cannot be prevented,the Zoning Administrator shall deny the conditional use permit application. C. Exceptions. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A) and (B) above, outdoor storage and display shall be permitted in conjunction with the following use classifications in districts where they are permitted or conditionally permitted: 1. Nurseries, provided outdoor storage and display is limited to plants, new garden equipment and containers only; and 2. Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Rentals, provided outdoor storage and display shall be limited to vehicles, boats, or equipment offered for sale or rent only. D. Screening. Outdoor storage and display areas for rental equipment and building and landscaping materials shall be screened from view of streets by a solid fence or wall. The height of merchandise, materials, and equipment stored or displayed shall not exceed the height of the screening fence or wall. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 36 of 59 4/4/12 230.76 Screening of Mechanical Equipment A. General Requirement. Except as provided in subsection (B) below, all exterior mechanical equipment, except solar collectors and operating mechanical equipment in an I District located more than 100 feet from another zoning district boundary, shall be screened from view on all sides. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork, and transformers. Screening of the top of equipment may be required by the Director, if necessary to protect views from an R or OS district. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. B. Utility Meters and Backflow Prevention Devices. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electrical transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall not be located in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. C. Screening Specifications. A mechanical equipment plan shall be submitted to the Director to ensure that the mechanical equipment is not visible from a street or adjoining lot. 230.78 Refuse Storage Areas A. Refuse storage area screened on three sides by a 6-foot masonry wall and equipped with a gate, or located within a building, shall be provided prior to occupancy for all multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, and public/semipublic uses. Locations, horizontal dimensions, and general design parameter of refuse storage areas shall be as prescribed by the Director, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. The trash area shall not face a street or be located in a required setback. The design and materials used in such trash enclosures shall harmonize with the main structure. 230.80 Antennae A. Purpose. The following provisions are established to regulate installation of antennae to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons living and working in the City and to preserve the aesthetic value and scenic quality of the City without imposing unreasonable limitations on,prevent the reception of signals, or imposing excessive costs on the users of the antennae. B. Permit Required. Approval by the Director shall be required for the installation of an antenna or satellite antenna to ensure compliance with the locational criteria. Construction shall be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Building Code and National Electrical Code, as adopted by the City. Within the coastal zone, approval of a coastal development permit shall be required for installation of any antenna that meets the definition of development to Section 245.04 unless it is exempt pursuant to Section 245.08. (3334-6/97,3568-9/02) C. Locational Criteria: Satellite Antennae. A satellite antenna maybe installed on a lot in any zoning district if it complies with the following criteria: 1. Number: Only one satellite antenna may be permitted on a residential lot. 2. Setbacks: Interior side and rear property lines, 10 feet, except that no setback shall be required in interior side and rear setback areas if the antenna or satellite antenna does not exceed 6 feet in height. No antenna or satellite antenna shall be located in a required front yard. When roof-mounted,the antenna or satellite antenna shall be located on the rear one-half of the roof. (3568-9/02) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 37 of 59 4/4/12 3. Maximum Height: a. The maximum height of a satellite antenna shall not exceed 10 feet if installed on the ground or the maximum building height for the district in which the satellite antenna is located, if roof-mounted. (3568-9102) b. The maximum height of an antenna shall not exceed the maximum building height for the district in which the antenna is located. (3568-9102) 4. Maximum Dimension: The maximum diameter of a satellite antenna shall not exceed 10 feet in all districts with the exception that the diameter may be increased in non-residential districts if a conditional use permit is approved by the Zoning Administrator. (3568-9102) 5. Screening: The structural base of an antenna or satellite antenna, including all bracing and appurtenances, but excluding the antenna or dish itself, shall be screened from public view and adjoining properties by walls, fences, buildings, landscape, or combinations thereof not less than 7 feet high so that the base and support structure are not visible from beyond the boundaries of the site at a height-of-eye 6 feet or below. (3568-9/02) 6. Undergrounding: All wires and/or cables necessary for operation of the antenna or satellite antenna or reception of the signal shall be placed underground, except for wires or cables attached flush with the surface of a building or the structure of the antenna or satellite antenna. (3568-9102) 7. Surface Materials and Finishes: No advertising or text or highly reflective surfaces shall be permitted. 8. Exception: Requests for installation of an antenna or satellite antennae on sites that are incapable of receiving signals when installed pursuant to the locational criteria may be permitted subject to conditional use permit approval by the Zoning Administrator. The applicant shall submit documentation that installation at a height greater than permitted, or in another yard area, is necessary for the reception of usable antenna or satellite signals. Applications shall be approved upon finding that the aesthetic value and scenic quality of the City is preserved,pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision is not obstructed, and upon the findings contained in Chapter 241. (3568-9102) 230.82 Performance Standards For All Uses A. Applicability and Compliance. The development standards set forth in this section apply to every use classification in every zoning district unless otherwise specifically provided. The Director may require evidence of ability to comply with development standards before issuing an entitlement. B. Air Contaminants. Every use must comply with rules, regulations and standards of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). An applicant for a zoning permit or a use, activity, or process requiring SCAQMD approval of a permit to construct must file a copy of the SCAQMD permit with the Director. An applicant for a use, activity, or process that requires SCAQMD approval of a permit to operate must file a copy of such permit with the Director within 30 days of its approval. C. Water Quality. Every use must comply with rules, regulations and standards of the Federal government, State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Orange County Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit(Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2009-0030, dated May 22, 2009, or any amendment to or re-issuance thereof), the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Codes including Chapters 14.24, 14.25, and 17.05, and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 38 of 59 414112 California Coastal Act where applicable. An applicant for a zoning permit, building permit, or a coastal development permit must demonstrate compliance with aforementioned rules, regulations and standards prior to permit approval. General Plan and Local Coastal Program Goals, Objectives and Policies shall be incorporated into water quality management programs prepared for development projects as applicable and to the maximum extent practicable. A Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by a Registered California Civil Engineer, shall be required for all projects that may adversely impact water quality(including, but not limited to projects identified in the Orange County Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit as priority development projects and projects creating more than 2500 square feet of impervious surface that are within 200 feet of, or drain directly to, Resource Protection Areas, and/or water bodies listed on the Clean Water Act Section 3030(d) list of impaired waters). (3835-7/09, 3903-11/11) D. Storage On Vacant Lot. A person may not store, park, place, or allow to remain in any part of a vacant lot any unsightly object. This does not apply to building materials or equipment for use on the site during the time a valid building permit is in effect for construction on the premises. (3835-7/09) E. Archaeological/Cultural Resources. Within the coastal zone, applications for grading or any other development that have the potential to impact significant archaeological/cultural resources shall be preceded by a coastal development permit application for implementation of an Archaeological Research Design (ARD). This is required when the project site contains a mapped archaeological site, when the potential for the presence of archaeological/cultural resources is revealed through the CEQA process, and/or when archaeological/cultural resources are otherwise known or reasonably suspected to be present. A coastal development permit is required to implement an ARD when such implementation involves development (e.g. trenching, test pits, etc.). No development, including grading,may proceed at the site until the ARD, as reflected in an approved coastal development permit, is fully implemented. Subsequent development at the site shall be subject to approval of a coastal development permit and shall be guided by the results of the approved ARD. (3903-11/11) Archaeological Research Design(ARD). The ARD shall be designed and carried out with the goal of determining the ful l extent of the on-site archaeological/cultural resources and shall include, but not be limited to, postulation of a site theory regarding the archaeological and cultural history and pre-history of the site, investigation methods to be implemented in order to locate and identify all archaeological/cultural resources on site (including but not limited to trenching and test pits), and a recognition that alternative investigation methods and mitigation may become necessary should resources be revealed that indicate a deviation from the initially espoused site theory. The ARD shall include a Mitigation Plan based on comprehensive consideration of a full range of mitigation options based upon the archaeological/cultural resources discovered on site as a result of the investigation. The approved ARD shall be fully implemented prior to submittal of any coastal development permit application for subsequent grading or other development of the site. The ARD shall also include recommendations for subsequent construction phase monitoring and mitigation should additional archaeological/cultural resources be discovered. (3903-11/11) The ARD shall be prepared in accordance with current professional practice, in consultation with appropriate Native American groups as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC),NAHC, and the State Historic Preservation Officer, subject to peer review, approval by the City of Huntington Beach, and, if the application is appealed, approval by the Coastal Commission. The peer review committee shall be convened in accordance with current professional practice and shall be comprised of qualified archaeologists. (3903-11/11) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 39 of 59 4/4/12 Mitigation Plan. The ARD shall include appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that archaeological/cultural resources will not be adversely impacted. These mitigation measures shall be contained within a Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan shall include an analysis of a full range of options from in-situ preservation, recovery, and/or relocation to an area that will be retained in permanent open space. The Mitigation Plan shall include a good faith effort to avoid impacts to archaeological/cultural resources through methods such as, but not limited to,project redesign, capping, and placing an open space designation over cultural resource areas. (3903-11/11) A coastal development permit application for any subsequent development at the site shall include the submittal of evidence that the approved ARD, including mitigation, has been fully implemented. The coastal development permit for subsequent development of the site shall include the requirement for a Monitoring Plan for archaeological and Native American monitoring during any site grading, utility trenching or any other development activity that has the potential to uncover or otherwise disturb archaeological/cultural resources as well as appropriate mitigation measures for any additional resources that are found. The Monitoring Plan shall specify that archaeological monitor(s) qualified by the California Office of Historic Preservation(OUP) standards, and Native American monitor(s)with documented ancestral ties to the area appointed consistent with the standards of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be utilized. The Monitoring Plan shall include, but not be limited to: 1) procedures for selecting archaeological and Native American Monitors; 2)monitoring methods; 3)procedures that will be followed if additional or unexpected archaeological/cultural resources are encountered during development of the site including, but not limited to,temporary cessation of development activities until appropriate mitigation is determined. (3903-11/11) Furthermore,the Monitoring Plan shall specify that sufficient archaeological and Native American monitors must be provided to assure that all activity that has the potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits will be monitored at all times while those activities are occurring. The Monitoring Plan shall be on-going until grading activities have reached sterile soil. (3903-11/11) The subsequent mitigation shall be prepared in consultation with Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),Native American trial group(s)that have ancestral ties to the area as determined by the NAHC, and the State Historic Preservation Officer, subject to peer review. (3903-11/11) All required plans shall be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program and in accordance with current professional practice, including but not limited to that of the California Office of Historic Preservation and the Native American Heritage Commission, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of Huntington Beach and, if appealed, the Coastal Commission. (3903-11/11) 230.84 Dedication and Improvements A. Dedication Required. Prior to issuance of a building permit, or prior to the use of land for any purpose, all real property shall be dedicated or irrevocably offered for dedication which the City requires for streets, alleys, including access rights and abutters'rights, drainage, public utility easements, and other public easements. In addition, all streets and alleys shall be improved, or an agreement entered into for such improvements including access rights and abutters'rights, drainage, public utility easements, and other easements. B. Exceptions. Dedication shall not be required prior to issuance of a building permit for: 1. Interior building alterations which do not exceed a third of the value of a building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, and which effect no change of occupancy. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 40 of 59 4/4/12 2. Exterior building alterations or additions for a residential use which do not exceed a third of the value of the building, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, and add no additional residential units. 3. Fences and walls. 4. Temporary uses, as specified in this code. 5. Horticultural Uses. The dedication herein required may be reviewed at the time of entitlement. Upon request by the applicant, a temporary postponement, not to exceed one (1) year, may be granted upon consideration of the following criteria: a. Type of horticultural use proposed. b. Duration (temporary or permanent). c. Vehicular access and effect of the proposed use on traffic in the vicinity of the site. d. Relationship between the proposed requirements and an anticipated expanded use. e. Dedication shall not be required for any purpose not reasonably related to such horticultural use. C. Dedication Determinants. Right-of-way dedication width shall be determined by either of the following: 1. Department of Public Works standard plans; or 2. A precise plan of street, highway or alley alignment. D. Improvements. 1. No building permit shall be issued by the Building Division until an application for permit has been filed, street improvements plans and specifications have been submitted for plan check, and all fees, established by resolution of the City Council, have been paid. The Building Division shall issue such building permit after determining that the work described in the application and the accompanying plans conforms to requirements of the Huntington Beach Building Code and other pertinent laws and ordinances. 2. The Building Division shall make a frame inspection, as required by the Huntington Beach Building Code, at which time all off-site improvements, including curbs, gutters, and street paving, shall be completed. 3. Improvements required by this code may be deferred in the following instances and upon adherence to the following requirements and regulations: a. Where the grade of the abutting right-of-way has not been established prior to the time when on-site structures qualify for final release for occupancy. b. Where a drainage system would be delayed by the installation of improvements. c. Where an agreement is entered into with the City to install improvements by a date certain, said agreement shall be secured by a bond or deposit equal to 150 percent of the City's estimate (including inflation estimates)of the required improvements. Such bond or cash shall be deposited with the City Treasurer. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 41 of 59 4/4/12 d. Where the developer has agreed with the City in writing that the deposit required by subsection(3) of this section may be used by the City after an agreed upon time to complete the required improvements,the remainder of such deposit, if any, shall be returned to the developer upon completion of such improvements by the City. e. The Director of Public Works is authorized to receive applications from persons desiring waivers of street improvement requirements and to enter into the necessary written agreements with such applicants. A non-refundable fee set by resolution of the City Council shall accompany such application. 4. Where construction is limited to one lot and the erection of a detached single family dwelling thereon, street improvements shall include curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, street lights, sewer and water main extensions, and ten(10) feet of street paving to meet Department of Public Works standards. Where necessary,temporary paving shall be installed to join existing street improvements. 230.86 Seasonal Sales A temporary sales facility for the sale of seasonal products including Christmas trees, Halloween pumpkins, or a single, season agricultural product not grown on site are permitted adjacent to any arterial highway in any district and on all church or school sites as a temporary use approved by the Director and in compliance with the following: A. Time Limit. 1. A Christmas tree sales facility shall not be open for business during any calendar year prior to Thanksgiving. 2. A Halloween pumpkin sales facility shall not be open for business during any calendar year prior to October 1. 3. A single agricultural product sales facility shall be approved for a period of time not to exceed 90 days. B. Merchandise to be Sold. A permitted Christmas tree or Halloween pumpkin sales facility may not sell items not directly associated with that season. Only one single, season agricultural product may be sold at any one time. C. Site Standards. 1. Storage and display of products shall be set back not less than ten(10) feet from edge of street pavement, and shall not encroach into the public right-of-way. 2. A minimum of ten (10) off-street parking spaces shall be provided. 3. Ingress and egress to the site shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works to insure that no undue traffic safety hazard will be created. 4. Temporary structures shall comply with Building Division standards. 5. Electrical permit shall be obtained if the facility is to be energized. 6. The facility shall comply with fire prevention standards as approved and enforced by the Fire Chief. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 42 of 59 4/4/12 D. Bond Required. Prior to issuance of a business license and approval by the Director, a five hundred dollar($500) cash bond shall be posted with the City to ensure removal of any structure, cleanup of the site upon termination of the temporary use, and to guarantee maintenance of the property. A bond shall not be required for a seasonal sales facility operated in conjunction with a use on the same site. E. Removal of facility. The seasonal sales facility shall be removed and the premises cleared of all debris and restored to the condition prior to the establishment within ten calendar days of Halloween, Christmas, or the expiration of the time limit for single season agricultural product. 230.88 Fencing and Yards No portion of a required yard area provided for a structure on a lot shall be considered as part of the yard area for any other structure on the same or an adjacent lot. In all districts, minimum setback lines shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way line. Diagrams A, B and C are hereby adopted to illustrate the provisions of this chapter. Where any discrepancy occurs between the diagrams and the printed text,the text shall prevail. Yards and fencing shall comply with the following criteria in all districts or as specified. A. Permitted Fences and Walls. 1. Fences or walls a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in any portion of a lot, except screen walls on lots in the RMH-A subdistrict shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from the front property line. Fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may not be located in the required front yard, except as permitted elsewhere in this Section. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) 2. Fences or walls a maximum of six (6) feet in height may be located in required side and rear yards, except as excluded in this Section. Fences or walls exceeding six(6) feet in height may be located in conformance with the yard requirements applicable to the main structure except as provided for herein or in the regulations of the district in which they are located. a. Fences and walls located adjacent to arterials along the rear and/or street side yard property lines, and behind the front setback, may be constructed to a maximum total height of eight(8) feet including retaining wall with the following: (3525-2/02) (1) The proposed building materials and design shall be in conformance with the Urban Design Guidelines. (3525-2/02) (2) Extensions to existing wall(s) shall require submittal of engineering calculations to the Building and Safety Department. (3525-2/02) (3) The property owner shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of landscape area(s) and wall(s) and required landscape area(s). (3525- 2/02) (4) Approval from Public Works Department. (3525-2/02) b Exception: A maximum two foot (2')lattice extension (wood or plastic)that is substantially open may be added to the top of the six foot(6') high wall or fence on the interior property line without Building Permits so long as notification to the adjacent property owners is provided. (3710-6/05,3730-03/06) 3. Fences or walls in the rear yard setback area of a through-lot shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height. This subsection shall not apply to lots abutting arterial highways. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 43 of 59 4/4112 4. In the RL district, garden or wing walls or fences equal in height to the first floor double plate, but not exceeding nine(9) feet, which are perpendicular to and entirely within a side yard may be constructed to the interior side property line and to within five(5) feet of the exterior side property line provided they are equipped with a three (3) foot gate or accessway. 5. When residential property abuts open or public land or property zoned or used for office, commercial, or industrial purposes, an eight(8) foot high solid masonry or block wall may be constructed on the common side or rear property line. 6. Only at the time of initial construction of the dwellings and in order to allow variations in the street scene in R districts, fences or walls exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height may be permitted at a reduced front setback of six(6) feet subject to plan review approval by the Director in conformance with the following criteria: (3710-6/05) a. The reduced setback shall be only permitted for five (5) or more contiguous lots under the same ownership. (3710-6/05) b. Such walls shall not encroach into the visibility triangular area formed by measuring seven and one-half(7.5) feet along the driveway and ten (10) feet along the front property line at their point of intersection. c. Such walls shall conform to all other applicable provisions of this section. 7. Retaining walls shall comply with the following: a. Where a retaining wall is located on the property line separating lots or parcels and protects a cut below the natural grade, such retaining wall may be topped by a fence, wall or hedge of the same height that would otherwise be permitted at the location if no retaining wall existed. b. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard abutting an arterial or exterior side yard and contains a fill of two (2) ft. or less or protects a cut below the existing grade, such retaining wall may be topped with a six (6) ft. decorative masonry wall. c. Where a retaining wall is on the property line of a rear yard abutting a local street,the maximum retaining wall height shall be twenty-four(24) inches as measured from the adjacent curb and may be topped with a maximum eighteen (18) inch decorative wall or fence for a total height of forty-two (42) inches. d. (1) The maximum height of a retaining wall on the front property line shall be thirty-six (36) inches as measured from the top of the highest adjacent curb. Subject to the Director's approval, a maximum forty-two (42) inch high wall or fence may be erected above the retaining wall with a minimum three (3) foot setback from the front property line. (3334-6/97,3410-3/99) (2) In the RMH-A subdistrict,the maximum height of a retaining wall on the front property line shall be eighteen (18) inches as measured from the top of the highest adjacent curb. Subject to the Director's approval, a second retaining wall up to eighteen (18) inches in height may be erected above the eighteen (18) inch high retaining wall with a minimum three (3)foot front setback. A wall or fence up to forty-two (42) inches in height may be erected on top of the retaining wall with the minimum three foot front setback. (See Exhibit below.) (3410-3/99) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 44 of 59 4/4/12 Required Tree/Palm Landscaping I Building* Front o nrnnerty line Max 4?" Patio I I a Max.18" I E Retaininu Walk Sidewalk/Parkway Max.18" *See Maximum building height in Chapter 210 e. All retaining walls abutting a street shall be waterproofed to the satisfaction of the Director. f. Retaining wall and fence combinations over eight(8) feet in height shall be constructed with a variation in design or materials to show the distinction. Retaining wall and fence combinations over six(6) feet in height shall be designed without decorative block or cap block, except if equal in strength to the main portion of the fence. 8. The height of any fence, wall or hedge located in the front yard setback shall be measured from top of the highest adjacent curb. All other fence heights shall be measured from existing grade. 9. Any fence or wall located on the front property line shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 10. In the industrial districts, nine(9) foot high fences may be permitted in the side and rear setbacks up to the front building line subject to plan review approval by the Director. 11. Deviations from the maximum height requirements for walls as prescribed by this Section may be permitted subject to an approval of conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. 12. Within the coastal zone, no gate, fence or wall shall be permitted that restricts or obstructs public access to the shore. (3334-6/97) B. Required Walls. l. When office, commercial or industrial uses abut property zoned or used for residential, a six(6) foot high solid six (6) inch concrete block or masonry wall shall be required. If a wall meeting these standards already exists on the abutting residential property, protection from vehicle damage shall be provided by a method approved by the Director. The maximum fence height shall be eight(8) feet at the common property line, subject to the same design standards and setback requirements as specified for six (6) foot high fences. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 45 of 59 4/4/12 2. Industrial screening walls abutting arterial highways shall be architecturally compatible with surrounding properties, constructed of a minimum six(6) inch wide decorative masonry block, and designed with landscape pockets at thirty-five (35) foot intervals along the street side sufficient in size to accommodate at least one (1) 15-gallon tree. Approval by the Director shall be required prior to construction of such walls. (3710-6/05) C. Visibility. 1. On reverse corner lots and corner lots abutting an alley, no fence, wall or hedge greater than forty-two (42) inches in height may be located within the triangular area formed by measuring ten (10) feet from the intersection of the rear and street side property lines. 2. On corner lots, no fence, wall, landscaping, berming, sign, or other visual obstruction between forty-two (42) inches and seven (7) feet in height as measured from the adjacent curb elevation may be located within the triangular area formed by measuring twenty-five (25) feet from the intersection of the front and street side property lines or their prolongation. Trees trimmed free of branches and foliage so as to maintain visual clearance below seven (7) feet shall be permitted. 3. Visibility of a driveway crossing a street or alley property line or of intersecting driveways shall not be blocked between a height of forty-two (42) inches and seven(7) feet within a triangular area formed by measuring ten (10) feet from intersecting driveways or street/alley and driveway. aRopER�"NE 2. GVRB NE�C'R� 230-CORD DIAGRAM A • 10 10' 10' -10' - - - - 10• 10' 10•- 10' - 230-satb STREEPALLEY DIAGRAM B Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 46 of 59 4/4/12 REVERSE CORNER LOT CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT CORNER LOT ABUTTING ALLEY 45- ,\1 �w 45' \� i ( I If 10 0' IS, - 0 THROUGH THROUGH LOT CORNER LOT HEIGHT MEASUREMENT OF FENCE OR WALL A 42 inch high fence may be constructed on any portion of the lot. E1Indicates that portion of the lot on which a 6 foot high fence may be constructed. I "A' Indicates minimum front yard setback. 25 d5d DIa ram C ORIN G*0WDWWa3QQRAP 230.90 Contractor Storage Yards/Mulching Operation Contractor storage yards in conjunction with public facility improvement contracts, and mulching operations on unimproved public or private property may be permitted subject to the following: A. Initial approval shall be for a maximum of two (2)years. The use shall be eligible for a maximum of three one year extensions by the Planning Commission. B. The development shall comply with parking, access and setback requirements contained in Chapter 231. 230.92 Landfall Disposal Sites Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 47 of 59 4/4/12 Excavation of landfills or land disposal sites shall be subject to the requirements of this section. These provisions are not intended to apply to grading and surcharging operations, permitted under Appendix Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Permits for grading on previously approved development projects shall be subject to approval of the Director. A. Land Disposal Site/Definitions. The following words and phrases shall be construed as defined herein unless a different meaning is apparent from the context: I. Excavation. Any activity and/or movement of material which exposes waste to the atmosphere. 2. Land disposal site. Any site where land disposal of Group I, II or III waste, as defined by the California Administrative Code, has been deposited either legally or illegally on or into the land, including but not limited to landfill, surface impoundment, waste piles, land spreading, dumps, and coburial with municipal refuse. B. Operations Plan. 1. No person shall conduct any excavation activity at any land disposal site in the City of Huntington Beach without first submitting to the City an operations plan approved by the Director. Such plan shall include complete information regarding the identity, quantity and characteristics of the material being excavated, including a chemical analysis performed by a laboratory acceptable to the City, together with the mitigation measures that will be used to insure that health hazards, safety hazards, or nuisances do not result from such activity. 2. Mitigation measures contained in the operations plan may include gas collection and disposal of waste, encapsulation, covering waste, chemical neutralization, or any other measures deemed necessary by the City. 3. Ambient air quality monitoring, as well as other monitoring or testing deemed reasonably necessary, shall be included in the operations plan. C. Approval of Operations Plan. 1. The City shall not approve an operations plan unless such plan includes provisions for the immediate cessation of excavation activity when the operator, or any agent thereof, of a land disposal site has been notified by the City that a nuisance, health, or safety hazard has or is about to occur as a result of such activity therein. 3. Upon determination by any government agency that a nuisance, safety, or health problem exists on any land disposal site in the City, mitigation measures, contained in the operations plan, shall be implemented immediately. D. Hazardous Waste Sites. For any land disposal site determined to be a hazardous waste site by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control and/or the City of Huntington Beach, the following additional measures shall be taken prior to excavation of such site: (3710-6/05) 1. All property owners within a half mile radius of the site shall receive written notice of all public hearings to be held regarding proposed excavation on the site. The cost of preparing and mailing such notice shall be paid by the operator/applicant. 2. A type of bond, acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be posted by the operator/applicant insuring that necessary funds are available to restore the site to a safe condition if excavation is prematurely terminated. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 48 of 59 4/4/12 4. Excavation of the site shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the State Department of Health Services, and any other public agency with jurisdiction over hazardous waste sites. E. Operations Plan Contents. The operations plan shall contain the following: 1. A plan establishing lines of authority and responsibility between public agencies and the operator/applicant, or his agents, during excavation. The plan shall contain specific procedures to be followed by all responsible parties involved with the excavation. 2. A plan containing specific measures to monitor air quality to be implemented during excavation to prevent the exposure of on-site workers or area residents to unhealthful vapors from the site. If deemed necessary by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, the plan shall also include specific measures for evacuation of residents in the vicinity of the site. (3710-6105) 3. A plan showing specific routes for vehicles transporting hazardous wastes from the site. 4. A plan containing specific steps for restoration of the site to a safe condition if excavation is terminated prematurely. F. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the requirements of this section unless otherwise determined by the Director: 1. The drilling of holes up to twenty-four(24) inches in diameter for telephone or power transmission poles or their footings. 2. The drilling of oil wells, gas wells or landfill gas collection wells or the maintenance of gas or leachate collection systems. 3. Any excavation activity which has been determined by the Director to pose an insignificant risk, or any activity which has been covered sufficiently in a plan prepared for any other agency having jurisdiction over the site. G. Excavation Activity Prohibited. l. No person shall excavate at any land disposal site in the City of Huntington Beach unless he or she first certifies that all applicable regulations of other public agencies with jurisdiction over hazardous waste sites have been met. 2. Compliance with the provisions of this section shall not exempt any person from failing to comply with the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code, and any other applicable codes, rules or regulations. 230.94 Carts and Kiosks Carts and kiosks may be permitted on private property zoned for commercial purposes, subject to approval by the Planning Director and compliance with this section. Carts and kiosks may be permitted as a temporary use on public property subject to Specific Event approval pursuant to Chapter 5.68. (3249-6/95;3482-12/00;3525-2/02) A. Location and Design Criteria. Cart and kiosk uses shall conform to the following: (3249-6/95) 1. No portion of a cart or kiosk shall overhang the property line. (3249-6/95) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 49 of 59 4/4/12 2. The cart or kiosk shall not obstruct access to or occupy a parking space; obstruct access to a parked vehicle, impede the delivery of materials to an adjoining property, interfere with access to public property or any adjoining property, or interfere with maintenance or use of street furniture. If any existing parking spaces will be displaced or partially or totally blocked by the proposed cart or kiosk,those spaces must be replaced on-site at a one-to- one(1:1) ratio. (3249-6195) 3. The cart or kiosk shall not exceed a maximum of four(4) feet in width excluding any wheels, eight (8) feet in length including any handle, and no more than six (6) feet in height excluding canopies, umbrellas or transparent enclosures unless a larger size is approved. (3249-6/95,3525-2/02) 4. A limit of one cart or kiosk shall be allowed for each commercial business that meets the above locational and design criteria. B. Factors to Consider. The following factors shall be considered regarding the location and the design of cart or kiosk uses including: (3249-6/95,3525-2/02) 1. Appropriateness of the cart or kiosk design, color scheme, and character of its location; (3249-6195) 2. Appropriateness and location of signing and graphics; (3249-6/95) 3. The width of the sidewalk or pedestrian accessway; (3249-6/95) 4. The proximity and location of building entrances; (3249-6195) 5. Existing physical obstructions including, but not limited to signposts, light standards, parking meters,benches, phone booths, newsstands, utilities and landscaping; (3249-6/95) 6. Motor vehicle activity in the adjacent roadway including but not limited to bus stops, truck loading zones,taxi stands, hotel zones,passenger loading or parking spaces; (3249-6/95) 7. Pedestrian traffic volumes; and (3249-6/95) 8. Handicapped accessibility. (3249-6/95) C. Operating Requirements Provisions and Conditions. 1. During hours of operation, the cart or kiosk must remain in the location specified on the approved site plan. (3249-6/95) 2. A cart or kiosk operator shall not sell to or solicit from motorists or persons in vehicles. 3. The cart or kiosk operator shall pay all fees and deposits required by the Huntington Beach Municipal Code prior to the establishment of the use. (3249-6/95) 4. All provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code which are not in conflict with this section shall apply. (3249-6/95) 5. The prices of items sold from a cart or kiosk must appear in a prominent, visible location in legible characters. The price list size and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. (3249-6/95;3525-2/02) 6. The sale of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited. (3249-6/95) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 50 of 59 4/4/12 7. The number of employees at a cart or kiosk shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) persons at any one time. (3249-6/95) 8. Fire extinguishers may be required at the discretion of the Fire Department. (3249-6/95) 9. All cart and kiosk uses shall be self contained for water,waste, and power to operate. (3249-6/95) 10. A cart or kiosk operator shall provide a method approved by the Planning Director for disposal of business related wastes. (3249-6/95, 3525-2/02) D. Parkin.. Additional parking may be required for cart or kiosk uses by the Planning Director. (3249-6/95,3525-2/02) E. Review; Revocation. The Planning Department shall conduct a review of the cart or kiosk operation at the end of the first six(6) month period of operation.At that time, if there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of this section or the approval,the approval shall be considered for revocation. (3249-6195; 3525-2/02) F. Nei);hborhood Notification. Pursuant to Chapter 241. (3525-2/02,3710-6/05) 230.96 Wireless Communication Facilities A. Purpose. This Section of the Zoning Code is to protect public safety, general welfare, and quality of life by regulating the location, height and physical characteristics and provide for orderly and efficient placement of Wireless Communication Facilities in the City of Huntington Beach. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) Because of the potential negative aesthetic impacts of Wireless Communication Facilities, including visual blight and diminution of property value, the City endeavors to locate antennas within commercial, industrial and other non-residential zones, screen them from view, and encourage co-location with other Wireless Communication Facilities. However, the Federal Telecommunications Act, specifically 47 U.S.C. Section 332 (c)(7), preempts local zoning where a Wireless Facility is necessary to remedy a significant gap in the Wireless Provider's service. Consequently, where the City determines that the Facility does not satisfy City planning and zoning standards,the Wireless Provider may then choose to establish Federal preemption because (i) a significant gap in wireless coverage exists, and(ii) there is a lack of feasible alternative site locations. A myriad of factors are involved in determining if a gap is significant, such as: whether the gap affects a commuter highway; the nature and character of the area and the number of potential users affected by the alleged lack of service; whether the signal is weak or nonexistent, and whether the gap affects a commercial district. Consequently,the City will require scientific evidence from an expert in the field demonstrating the existence of a significant gap in service and a lack of feasible alternative sites. The applicant will be required to pay for the cost of said expert opinion. (3934-4/12) B. Definitions. For the purpose of this Section,the following definitions for the following terms shall apply: (3568-9102,3934-4/12) 1. Accessory Structure. Any structure or equipment that is to be located ancillary to an antenna or antennas in the establishment and operation of a Wireless Communication Facility. (3568-9/02,3934-4112) 2. Co-Location or Co-Located. The location or placement of multiple Wireless Communication Facilities which are either owned or operated by more than one service Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 51 of 59 414112 provider at a single location and mounted to a common supporting structure, wall or building. (3568-9/02,3934-4/12) 3. Completely Stealth Facility. Any Wireless Communication Facility that has been designed to completely screen all aspects of the facility including appurtenances and equipment from public view. Examples of completely stealth facilities may include, but are not limited to, architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, fagade mounted antennas treated as architectural elements to blend in with the existing building, church steeples,fire towers, flag poles and light standards of a typical diameter. (3568-9/02,3779- 10107,3934-4/12) 4. Ground Mounted Facility. Any Wireless Antenna that is affixed to a pole,tower or other freestanding structure that is specifically constructed for the purpose of supporting an antenna. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07) 5. Microwave Communication. The transmission or reception of radio communication at frequencies of a microwave signal (generally, in the 3 GHz to 300 GHz frequency Spectrum). (3568-9/02) 6. Modified Facility. An existing Wireless Communication Facility where the antennas and/or supporting structure are proposed to be altered in any way from their existing condition, including like-for-like replacement but excluding co-location. (3934-4/12) 7. Pre-existina Wireless Facilit . Any Wireless Communication Facility for which a building permit or conditional use permit has been properly issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance, including permitted Wireless Antennas that have not yet been constructed so long as such approval is current and not expired. (3568-9/02,3934-4/12) 8. Public Right-of-Way. The area across, along, beneath, in, on, over, under, upon, and within the dedicated public alleys,boulevards, courts, lanes, places,roads, sidewalks, streets, ways,private streets with public access easements within the City's boundaries, and City owned properties, as they now exist or hereafter will exist. (3934-4/12) 9. Roof Mounted. Any Wireless Antenna directly attached or affixed to the roof of an existing building, water tank, tower or structure other than a telecommunications tower. (3568-9/02,3934-4/12) 10. Stealth Techniques. Any Wireless Communication Facility, including any appurtenances and equipment, which is designed to blend into the surrounding environment. Examples of Stealth Technique include,but are not limited to monopalms/monopines. (3568-9/02,3934-4/12) 11. Utility Mounted. Any Wireless Antenna mounted to an existing above-ground structure specifically designed and originally installed to support utilities such as but not limited to electrical power lines, cable television lines, telephone lines, non-commercial wireless service antennas, radio antennas, street lighting but not traffic signals, recreational facility lighting,or any other utility which meets the purpose and intent of this definition. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07,3934-4/12) 12. Wall Mounted. Any Wireless Antenna mounted on any vertical or nearly vertical surface of a building or other existing structure that is not specifically constructed for the purpose of supporting an antenna(including the exterior walls of a building, an existing parapet, the side of a water tank, the face of a church steeple, or the side of a freestanding sign) such that the highest point of the antenna structure is at an elevation equal to or lower than the highest point of the surface on which it is mounted. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07,3934-4112) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 52 of 59 4/4/12 13. Wireless Communication Facility or Facility or Wireless Antenna. An antenna structure and any appurtenant facilities or equipment that transmits electronic waves or is used for the transmission or receipt of signals that are used in connection with the provision of wireless communication service, including, but not limited to digital, cellular and radio service. (3568-9/02,3779-10107,3934-4112) C. Applicability. This ordinance shall,apply to all Wireless Communication Facilities which are erected, located,placed or modified'within the City of Huntington Beach. (3568-9/02,3779- 10/07,3934-4/12) D. Exceptions_. The following Wireless Communication Facilities shall be exempt from this ordinance. (3934-4/12) 1. Any Facility,which is subjecI I6 a previously approved and valid entitlement,maybe modified within the scope of the applicable permit without complying with these regulations. However, modifications outside the scope of the valid entitlement or any modification to an existing facility that does not have a previously approved and valid entitlement is subject to the requirements of this ordinance. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07,3934-4/12) 2. Any antenna structure that is one meter(39.37 inches) or less in diameter that is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service for television purposes, as defined by Section 207 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and any interpretive decisions thereof. (3568-9/02,3934-4/12) 3. Any antenna structure that is two meters (78.74 inches) or less in diameter located in commercial or industrial zones and is designed to transmit or receive radio communication by satellite antenna. (3568-9/02,3934-4/12) 4. Any antenna structure that is one meter(39.37 inches) or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive Multipoint Distribution Service,provided that no part of the antenna structure extends more than five (5) feet above the principle building on the same lot. (3568-9/02,3934-4/12) 5. Any antenna structure used by authorized amateur radio stations licensed by the FCC. (3568-9/02,3934-4/12) E. Process to Install and Operate Wireless Communication Facilities. No Facility shall be installed anywhere in the City without first securing either a Wireless Permit or a Conditional Use Permit as required below. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) 1. Wireless Permit Application. The applicant shall apply to the Planning and Building Department for a Wireless permit by submitting a completed Wireless Permit Application ("Application") and paying all required fees. The Application shall be in the form approved by the Director, and at a minimum shall provide the following information: (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) a.Precise location of the Facility. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) b. Evidence that the Facility is compatible with the surrounding environment or that the Facility is architecturally integrated into a structure. (3779-10107,3934-4/12) c. Evidence that the Facility is screened or camouflaged by existing or proposed topography,vegetation, buildings or other structures as measured from beyond the boundaries of the site at eye level (six feet). (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 53 of 59 4/4/12 d. Evidence that the massing and location of the proposed facility are consistent with surrounding structures and zoning districts. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) e. Evidence that no portion of the Facility will encroach over property lines. (3779-10/07, 393"M 2) f. Property owner authorization or evidence of fee ownership of property where the Facility will be installed. In the case of City-owned property or any public right-of- way,the applicant shall provide a license, lease, franchise, or other similar agreement from the City to place any Facility over, within, on, or beneath City property or right- of-way. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) g. Locations of all other Wireless Antennas within 1,000 feet of a proposed ground mounted facility. Co-location of ground mounted facilities shall be required where feasible whenever such a facility is proposed within 1,000 feet of any Wireless Antenna. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) h. Any other relevant information as required by the Director of Planning and Building. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) The Planning and Building Department will initially review and determine if the Application is complete. The City may deem the Application incomplete and require re- submittal if any of the above information is not provided. (3934-4/12) 2. Director Approval. Following submittal of a complete Application, the City will determine whether the Facility may be approved by the Director or whether a Conditional Use Permit or other entitlement is required. Wireless Permit applications will be processed based upon the location and type of antennas defined herein. Although said classifications are assigned at project intake, a re-evaluation of antenna classifications may occur at any point in the process including at the time of review by the Director, Zoning Administrator,Planning Commission or City Council. (3934-4/12) A Facility not subject to any other discretionary approval may be administratively approved by the Director by issuing a Wireless Permit if it is: (3934-4/12) a. Co-located on an existing approved Wireless Facility, does not exceed the existing Wireless Facility heights, and employs Stealth Techniques such that the co-located Wireless Facility is compatible with surrounding buildings and land uses; or (3934-4/12) b. A modified Facility that complies with the base district height limit plus up to an additional 10 feet of height as permitted in Section 230.72 and compatible with surrounding buildings and land uses by incorporating stealth techniques; or (3779-10/07,3934-4112) c. A Facility that complies with the base district height limit plus up to an additional 10 feet of height as permitted in Section 230.72, is Completely Stealth, and is not ground of utility mounted. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) The Director may require conditions of approval of the Facility in order to minimize adverse health, safety and welfare impacts to the community. (3934-4/12) A decision of the Director to grant a Wireless Permit shall become final ten (10) days following the date of the decision unless an appeal to the Planning Commission is filed as provided in Chapter 248 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). (3934-4/12) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 54 of 59 4/4/12 The Director shall issue findings of approval that the Facility meets the above criteria and is not a detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3934-4112) 3. Zoning Administrator Approval. In the event the Director determines that the applicant does not meet the requirements for Director approval of a Wireless Permit,then the applicant shall apply for a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)to the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Chapter 241 of the HBZSO. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the HBZSO, any new Wireless Facilities, excluding co-locations and modifications,proposed to be located within 1,200 feet of residential shall be required to obtain a CUP. CUP applications shall also included the same information required under subsection E.1. (3934-4/12) The Zoning Administrator may require, as a condition of approval of the CUP that the applicant minimize significant adverse impacts to the community and public visual resources by incorporating one of more of the following into project design and construction: (3934-4/12) a. Completely Stealth installations; (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) b. Stealth techniques; (3934-4112) c. Co-location and locating Facilities within existing building envelopes (3779-10/07, 3934-4/12) d. Colorization or landscaping to minimize visual prominence; and/or (3779-10/07, 3934-4/12) e. Removal or replacement of Facilities that are obsolete. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) Further conditions of approval of a Facility CUP may be imposed as provided in Chapter 241 of the HBZSO. The Zoning Administrator's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 248 of the HBZSO. (3934-4/12) 4. Design Review. Design review shall be required for any Wireless Communication Facilities pursuant to the H13ZS0 as well as those located on public right-of-way and on or within 300 feet of a residential district or use in the City. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) Notwithstanding any other provisions of the HBZSO, design review is not required for Wireless Communication Facilities that may be approved by the Director pursuant to subsection E.2 (Director Approval) above and have all appurtenant facilities and equipment located underground or within an existing building or existing enclosure. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) F. Applicant May Assert Federal Preemption At Time of Appeal to Planning Commission. 1. If the decision on the Wireless Permit or Conditional Use Permit is appealed(either by applicant or an aggrieved party)to the Planning Commission,the Applicant may assert that Federal Law preempts the City from denying the application because denial would effectively prohibit Wireless service. The applicant shall pay a Denial of Effective Facility, including,but not limited to, issues involving whether a significant gap in coverage exists. A Denial of Effective Service appeal must be submitted prior to the expiration of the appeal period for a Wireless Permit or Conditional Use Permit. (3934-4/12) 2. The Director shall establish the form of the Denial of Effective Service appeal. At a minimum,the Applicant shall provide the following information as part of its appeal: (3934-4/12) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 55 of 59 4/4112 In order to prevail in establishing a significant gap in coverage claim the applicant shall establish at minimum the following based upon substantial evidence: (39344/12) a. Evidence demonstrating the existence and nature of a significant gap in service in the vicinity of the proposed Facility, including but not limited to whether the gap pertains to residential in-building, commercial in-building coverage, in-vehicle coverage, and/or outdoor coverage. (39344/12) b. Evidence demonstrating that the applicant has pursued other feasible sites for locating the Facility,but that they are unavailable on commercially practicable terms. (39344/12) c. Evidence demonstrating the radio frequency signal strength transmission requirements and objectives that the applicant has established for the Southern California region, and for the City of Huntington Beach. (3934-4/12) d. Radio frequency propagation maps demonstrating actual transmission levels in the vicinity of the proposed Facility site, and any alternative sites considered. (39344/12) e. Radio frequency drive tests demonstrating actual transmission levels in the vicinity of the proposed Facility site, and any alternative sites considered. (39344/12) £ Reports regarding the applicant's monthly volume of mobile telephone calls completed, not completed, dropped, handed-off,not handed-off, originated and not originated for the signal area to be covered by the proposed Facility. (39344/12) g. Any proprietary information disclosed to the city or the consultant is deemed not to be a public record, and shall remain confidential and not to be disclosed to any third party without the express consent of the applicant, unless otherwise required by law. In the event the applicant does not provide this information, the City may conclusively presume that no denial of effective service exists. (39344/12) All of the information noted above shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of the filing of the Denial of Effective Service appeal unless an extension is granted by the Director. (3934-4/12) 3. The Denial of Effective Service appeal shall be considered concurrently with the Wireless Permit or CUP appeal hearing before the Planning Commission. Prior to the scheduling of the public hearing on the Wireless Permit or CUP appeal, the City Attorney shall be authorized to issue administrative subpoenas to compel production of such documents, testimony and other evidence relevant to the applicant's denial of effective service claims. (39344/12) G. Wireless Communication Facility Standards. The following standards shall apply to all Wireless Communication Facilities: (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) 1. Screening. All screening used in conjunction with a wall or roof mounted Wireless Antenna shall be compatible with the architecture of the building or other structure to which it is mounted, including color,texture and materials. All ground or utility mounted facilities shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment, or architecturally integrated into a building or other concealing structure. (3568-9/02,3934-4/12) 2. Equipment/AccessoKy Structures. All equipment associated with the operation of the Wireless Antenna, including but not limited to transmission cables, shall be screened in a manner that complies with the development standards of the zoning district in which such equipment is located and Section 230.76. Screening materials and support structures Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 56 of 59 4/4/12 housing equipment shall be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures by duplicating materials and design in a manner as practical as possible. Chain link fencing and barbed wire are prohibited. (3568-9ro2,3934-4/12) 3. General Provisions. All Wireless Communication Facilities shall comply with the Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines. (3568-9ro2,3934-4/12) 4. Building Codes: To ensure the structural integrity of Wireless Communication Facilities, the owners of a Facility shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable state or local building codes and the applicable standards for facilities that are published by the Electronic Industries Association, as amended from time to time. (3568-9/02,3934-4112) 5. Co-Location: Co-location of ground mounted facilities shall be required where feasible whenever such a facility is proposed within 1,000 feet of any existing Wireless Antenna. (3934-4/12) 6. Federal and State Requirements: All Wireless Communication Facilities must meet or exceed current federal and state laws, standards and regulations of the FCC, and any other agency of the federal or state government with the authority to regulate Wireless Communication Facilities. (3568-9/02,3934-4/12) 7. Interference: To eliminate interference, at all times, other than during the 24-hour cure period, the applicant shall comply with all FCC standards and regulations regarding interference and the assignment of the use of the radio frequency spectrum. The applicant shall not prevent the City of Huntington Beach or the countywide system from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's 800 MHz voice and data radio frequency systems. The applicant shall cease operation of any Wireless Antenna causing interference with the City's facilities immediately upon the expiration of the 24-hour cure period until the cause of the interference is eliminated. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) 8. Lighting: All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" onto adjacent properties, unless required by the FAA or other applicable authority, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (3568-9/02,3934-4/12) 9. Maintenance: All facilities and appurtenant equipment including landscaping shall be maintained to remain consistent with the original appearance of the Wireless Antenna. Ground mounted facilities shall be covered with anti-graffiti coating. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07, 3934-4/12) 10. Monitoring: The applicant shall provide a copy of the lease agreement between the property owner and the applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. (3568-9/02,3779- 10/07,3934-4/12) 11. Sins: The Wireless Antenna shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than owner identification, certification,warning, or other required seals of signage. (3568-9/02, 3779-10/07,3934-4/12) 12. Landscaping: Landscape planting, irrigation and handscape improvements may be imposed depending on the location, the projected vehicular traffic,the impact on existing facilities and landscape areas, and the visibility of the proposed Wireless Antenna. Submittal of complete landscape and architectural plans for review and approval by the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Building Departments may be required. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 57 of 59 4/4/12 13. Utility Agreement: If the proposed facility will require electrical power or any other utility services to the site,the applicant will be required to furnish the City's Real Estate Services Manager either a drafted utility franchise agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the applicant to place those lines in the public right-of-way, or a written statement from the utility company that will be supplying the power or other services,that they accept all responsibility for those lines in the public right-of-way. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) H. Facilities in the Public Ri hg t-of-Way. Any Wireless Communication Facility to be placed over, within, on or beneath the public right-of-way shall comply with the Undergrounding Ordinance (Chapter 17.64 of HBMC). (3568-9/02,3779-10/07,3934-4/12) I. Facility Removal. Wireless Communication Facilities affecting the public view and/or located in areas designated Water Recreation, Conservation, Parks and Shoreline, and Public Right of Ways shall be removed in its entirety within six(6)months of termination of use and the site restored to its natural state. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) J. Cessation of Operation. 1. Abandonment. Within thirty(30) calendar days of cessation of operations of any Wireless Communication Facility approved under this Section,the operator shall notify the Director in writing. The Wireless Antenna shall be deemed abandoned pursuant to the following sections unless: (3568-9/02,3779-10/07,3934-4/12) a. The City has determined that the operator has resumed operation of the Wireless Communication Facility within six(6) months of the notice; or (3568-9/02,3779-10/07, 3934-4/12) b. The City has received written notification of a transfer of the Wireless Communication Facility. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07,3934-4/12) 2. City Initiated Abandonment: A Wireless Antenna that is inoperative or unused for a period of six (6) continuous months shall be deemed abandoned. Written notice of the City's determination of abandonment shall be provided to the operator of the Wireless Antenna and the owner(s) of the premises upon which the antenna is located. Such notice may be delivered in person, or mailed to the address(es) stated on the permit application, and shall be deemed abandoned at the time delivered or placed in the mail. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07,3934-4/12) 3. Removal of Abandoned Wireless Antenna: The operator of the Wireless Antenna and the owner(s) of the property on which it is located, shall within thirty(30) calendar days after notice of abandonment is given either(1)remove the Wireless Antenna in its entirety and restore the premises, or(2) provide the Director with written objection to the City's determination of abandonment. (3779-10/07,3934-4/12) a. Any such objection shall include evidence that the Wireless Antenna was in use during the relevant six- (6)month period and that it is presently operational. The Director shall review all evidence, determine whether or not the Facility was properly deemed abandoned, and provide the operator notice of its determination. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07,3934-4/12) b. At any time after thirty-one (31) calendar days following the notice of abandonment, or immediately following a notice of determination by the Director, if applicable, the City may remove the abandoned Wireless Antenna and/or repair any and all damage to the premises as necessary to be in compliance with applicable codes. The City may, but shall not be required to, store the removed Antenna(or any part thereof). The owner of the premises upon which the abandoned Antenna was located, and all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 58 of 59 4/4/12 prior operators of the Antenna, shall be jointly liable for the entire cost of such removal, repair, restoration and/or storage, and shall remit payment to the City promptly after demand thereof is made. The City may, in lieu of storing the removed Wireless Antenna, convert it to the City's use, sell it, or dispose of it in any manner deemed appropriate by the City. (3568-9/02,3779-10/07,3934-4/12) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 59 of 59 4/4/12