Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Pub Hear-Appeal PC Approval CUP 90-17/CDP 90-18/FEIR 90-2 (8)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS fr-- ,c Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing item is requested to complete the attached pink form and _give it to the Sergeant-at-Arms who is located near the Speaker ' s Podium. PUBLIC HEARINGS SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: ( 1) Closed Public hearings with decision continued to this date (2) Public hearings continued open (3 ) New Public hearings D-1 . (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-17/COASTAL 420 . 40 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-18/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 90-2/GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 90-8 - (PIERSIDE) HEARING Public hearing to consider the following appeal : CONT. OPEN APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No . 90-17/ FROM Coastal Development .Permit No . 90-18/Final Environmental { 1/22/91. Impact Report No . 9-0-2/General Plan Conformance No . 90-8 APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency/Jonathan Chodos APPELLANT: Councilwoman Grace Winchell LOCATION: Ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and First Street (southeast of the pier) ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan District 10 (Pier Related Commercial) 4.. REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning-Commission ' s appr.oval of 48 , 250 square feet of commercial development , including up to 5 restaurants and beach-related concessions with' parking and 78 , 250 sq . ft . of public plaza . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The project is . covered by Final Environmental Impact Report No . 90-2 (supplement to- Final Environmental Impact Report No : -82-2) , which- the Council will also act upon. I�?ofia>, 7�v cle,�acj 7��I -�°!OitD 3-q(Akt�/lscs �o.l (3) (3/18/91) Page 4 - Council/Agency Agenda - 3/18/91 (4 ) COASTAL STATUS: This project is in the appealable portion of the Coastal Zone . Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party . Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved . Said appeal must be submitted to the Coastal Commission within ten ( 10) working days of the date of the City Council ' s action pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to : California Coastal Commission, 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 , P . O . Box 1450 , Long Beach, CA 90801-1450 . There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission Recommendation: .1 . Adopt and certify as adequate Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2 by adopting City Council Resolution No . 6260 with Mitigation Measures , Statement of Overriding Considerations , and Findings and Facts in Support of Findings - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO . 90-2 FOR PIERSIDE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT. " f AND - 2 . Approve Coastal Development Permit No . 90-18, Conditional Use Permit No 90-17, General Plan Conformance No. 90-8 with findings and conditions of approval as outlined in Attachment 1 to the report dated March 18 , 1991 . _QR - Staff Recommendation: r.. 1 . Approve Alternative Action No . 1, to adopt and certify as adequate Final Environmental Impact Report-No . 90-2 by adopting Council Resolution No. 6260 with Mitigation Measures , Statement of Overriding Considerations ,_-and Findings , and Facts in Support of Findings - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2 FOR PIERSIDE �t x/A 6EIIS, RESTAURANTD EVE LOPMENT. Gur i % 4 T/- 3 / r'w';tE.101 l " 2 . Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 90-18, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-17 as modified by the applicant , and General Plan Conformance No. 90-a with findings and conditions of approval as outlined in Attachment 2 to the report dated March 18 , 1991 . �j�jd�ovcd �-3 �LrJiri�he// �^eC�i, /l�ouf�r,- /70 (3/18/91) (4 ) i 4 SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT`90-2 SUPPLEMENT TO } ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2 FOR PIERSIDE RESTAURANTS.PROPOSAL I PREPARED BY: . CITY- OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 CONTACT PERSON: LAURA PHILLIPS PHONE (714) 536-5271 JULY, 1990 TABLE OF- CONTENTS= PAGE. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . 1' 2.0 INTRODUCTION . . : 6 �U 2.1 EIR Focus and Effects Not Found to*be Significant 6 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . 8 3.1 Project Location . . . 8- 3.2 Description of Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3 Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.4 Use of the EIR . — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 17 3.4.1 Responsible Agencies Use of EIR and Discretionary Actions 18 3.4.2 Agencies Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.4.3 Incorporation By Reference . . . . . . . . . . 19 . 4.0 EXISTING SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 20 4.1 Historic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.1.1 Existing Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ..4.1.2 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .4.1.3 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . .. . . . . . 22 4.1.4. Level of Significance After Mitigation . . . . . . . . 23 4.2 Traffic and Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.2.1 Existing Setting . . . . . . 24 4:2.2 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 30 4.2.3 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.2.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.3 Aesthetics/Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3.1 Existing Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.3.2 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. • . . 40 4.3.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 5.0 ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5.1 No Project 55_ 5.2 Open Space and Recreation Alternative . . . 56 5.3 Preservation of Maxwell 's Restaurant Alternative . . . . . 58 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS . . . . . . 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 63 07/24/90(P(R001\MASTER.D0Q 1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued PAGE 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES . . . . . . . 67 9.0 RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 10.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 11.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 12.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 ' Appendix A - Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Appendix B - NOP Responses/Correspondence Appendix C - Historic Resources Report Appendix D - Traffic/Parking Report 07/24/9001R001\MASTER.D00 11 UST"0E-.FIGURES PAGE " Figure 3.1 - Regional Location ... 9- Figure 3.2 - Project Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 3.3 - Project Site/Zoning . . . . . . : . . . 11 Figure 3.4 - Site Plan - Plaza Level . . . : . . . . . 13 Figure 3.5 - Site Plan - Beach Access Level . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Figure 3.6 - Site Plan - Lower Parking Level . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 3.7 - Proposed Building Envelope . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 4.2.1 - Lake Street Parking Lot . . * . . 26 r Figure 4.2.2 - Lake S.treet' Public Lot - Existing- Parking . . 28 Figure 4.2.3 - Maxwell 's Restaurant Lot. Existing.Parking Accumulation . 29 Figure 4.2.4 - Forecast Parking Demand-.Analysis . 31 Figure 4.2.5 - Forecast Parking Demand 33 Figure- 4.3.1 - Vantage Point Location Map . . . . . . .. . . . 41 Figure 4.3.2 - Vantage Point One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 4.3.3 - Vantage Point Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 43. Figure 4.3.4 - Vantage Point Three . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 4.3.5' - Vantage Point Four . .. . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 4.3.6 - Vantage Point Five . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure 4.3.7 Modification of. Existing Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 4.3.8 - Pedestrian View Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 4.3.9 - View Corridors . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 r - 07/24/9O(PIROOI\MASTER.DOC) ii1 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Measures . . . . . . . 2 Table 1.A Summary of Impacts & Mitigation . Table 4.2.A - Parking Garage Queuing Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 r 07/24/90(PIR001\14ASTER.DOC) 1V 1 i 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - The following Table Y.A. summarizes' the impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project...- 4 1 1 �I 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.DOC) 1 f, TABLE LA - SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION HISTORIC RESOURCES Project implementation would result in Avoidance, i .e. leaving the structure Although both documentation and memor- the demolition of the Pavilion build- in place rather than demolition. ialization are recommended if the Be- ing a historical resource of the City molition of the Pavilion building is of Huntington Beach unavoidable, these measures would not fully mitigate the significant adverse impact to below a level of signifi- cance. The building has potential for rest- oration to its former appearance, and the feasibility of rehabilitation of the structure should be investigated. A qualified historic architect would be required to provide such an asses- sment. A list of qualified historic architects is maintained by the Cali- fornia Office of Historic Preserva- tion. This could be accomplished by redesign of the project, and incorpo- ration of the rehabilitated Pavilion building into the revised project. Guidelines for rehabilitation are found in the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (1983). 01/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.DOC) 2 1 / sit POTENTIAL' ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATIOR MEASURES LEVEL OF' SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION If demolition is unavoidable, then it is recommended that the history and architecture of the building. be fully recorded .to the standards to the His- toric American Buildings Survey (HABS) . Guidelines and format specifications for HABS are available from the Nat- ional Park Service, Western Regional Office, in San Francisco. `HABS docu- mentation includes the preparation of a detailed historical narrative, and complete graphic documentation of the building through large format photo- graphy. Historic photographs and building plans are also reproduced for the HABS record, which ultimately is 'curated at the Library of Congress. Since the significance of, the building is his- torical rather than architectural., em- phasis would be placed on the histori-. cal narrative, and would requi-re oral history in addition to archival- rec- ords to capture the historical signif-. icance of the Pavilion to the social history of the City of Huntington Beach. 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.DOC) 3 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION In addition to documentation to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey, it is recommended that if the structure is demolished, its historical role be recognized by appropriate means of memorialization could include such measures as place- ment of a commemorative plaque on or near the site, development of an ex- hibit either on or off site. (e.g., at a local historical museum, public li- brary, or City Hall), and/or develop- ment of a publication(s) interpreting the role of the Pavilion in the his- tory of the City, prepared by a quali- fied historian. TRAFFIC AND PARKING No significant impacts to traffic or None required. The project's effects to traffic and parking have been identified. parking are not identified as signif- icant. 07/24/90(PIROOI\NASTER.DOC) 4 .. � �, r i t . POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ' MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES The addition of on-site safety light- Prior to issuance of a building per- The obstruction of direct views of the ing and reflecting building windows mit, a lighting plan shall be submit- Ocean/Pier viewshed from certain loca- would increase the amount of light and ted to the Director, Planning Division . tions along PCH by the new buildings glare emanating from the site: . or his designee. for' his approval by cannot be mitigated. Project design the project proponent. In order to- -reduces this obstruction to a minimum reduce light and .glare impacts on the through the use of view corridors at Huntington Pier . Colony residential Second, Third and Main Streets, and community to the north, the- plan shall through the utilization of reduced incorporate the use of lighting fix- building silhouettes. However, a sig- tures which shield extraneous light nificant impact is still identified. from adjacent land. uses by directing Pedestrian views from within the pro- light upon the activity they are asso- ject would, however, be significantly ciated with, and shall promote the use enhanced. of nonreflective, building materials and recession or shading of areas where reflective materials .-are to be used. The three proposed buildings would ob- Prior to issuance of a building per- struct'direct views of' the ocean hori- mit, a landscape plan shall be submit-. zon and the pier from PCH .in some lo- ted to the Director, Planning ` Divis- cati,ons. ion, or his designee for his approval by the project proponent. The plan shall incorporate 'appropriate lands- cape materials that .enhance the visual quality of the area and meet the State and City standards for developments adjacent to State Scenic Highways and City "landscape corridors". 07/24/90(PIROOI\MASTER.DOC) 5 2.0 INTRODUCTION This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) addresses the envir- onmental effects found to be associated with the development of the Pierside Restaurant project located on the ocean side of PCH between Main Street and First Street (southeast of the pier) . The City of Huntington Beach is requiring certification of the SEIR prior to considering the request of the developer for approval of the project. The project description, precise location, intended use of the SEIR and environmental effects resulting from the proposed project are described in this document. To assist the reader, a summary of the potential effects on the environment, proposed mitigation and residual effects after mitigation are described in the Summary, Section 1.0. 2.1 EIR Focus and Effects Not Found to be Significant The City prepared an Initial Study (Appendix A) for the project. An Initial Study outlines areas of possible environmental impact resulting from completion of the project. This Initial Study was used to focus the SEIR. In addition, an earlier EIR prepared for the "Downtown" area, inclusive of this project site, was reviewed for completeness in addressing all potential en- vironmental effects of the project. Where necessary to comply with the City's and State of California's environmental guidelines, the analysis of the previous EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan (EIR 82-2) was updated and supple- mented. As a result of this review, the focus of the SEIR is on the following areas of potential environmental effect: Historical Resources Traffic/parking Aesthetics Issues not considered to be of significant concern are as follows: Land Use Risk of Upset Energy Earth Changes/Compaction Seismic Safety Air Quality v Water Drainage/Flood Hazard/Tidal Hazard Biological and Natural Resources Noise 07/24/90(PIROMMASTER.D00 6 Population/Housing ` Public Services Utilities Recreation Resources The Initial Study and previous environmental- review (EIR 82-2) indicate no :evidence of potential effect from these areas of possible concern. Please see the Initial Study in Appendix A for justification for not reviewing these w issues in this SEIR. The City received an NOP response letter from the State Lands Commission regarding appropriate land uses for the site and a disputed easement on the site. This Draft Supplemental EIR (SEIR) does not deal with the legal issues surrounding the disputed easement. Discussion of such legal issues is not required to be included by CEQA..-. Because the proposed project conforms to the Downtown Specific Plan and the,-City's General Plan and-Coastal Plans, land use compatibility issues are not considered in this SEIR. In..preparing the Initial Study (see Appendix A) the City determined that land use effects. will not lead to potentially significant impacts. Therefore, land use does not appear as a ` section in- this SEIR. 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.DOC) 7 r� , i i i 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .The Pierside Restaurants development is proposed for an area of approxi- mately 3.5 acres on the ocean side of PCH between Main Street and First Street (on the southeast side of the pier) . The proposal is for restaurants, beach- related concessions and parking facilities. The project is proposed to be built in one phase in 1991. The proposed project consists of: • 56,000 square feet of beach related retail/restaurants • 575 to 635 parking spaces l� The maximum potential build out of the project that will be assessed in this SEIR is based on maximums allowed pursuant to a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement and ground lease with the Redevelopment Agency and a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Huntington Beach. The maximum allow- able build out contemplated for the project is as follows: • 56,000 square feet specialty retail/restaurants • 575 to 635 parking spaces The analysis in this SEIR shall be based on a maximum allowable build out, as fttailed above, based on the project applicant's proposal plus provi- sions in the Development Agreement and Disposition and Development Agreement, allowing minor variations in project build out. This Supplemental EIR (SEIR) is based on previously certified EIR 82-2 completed for the Downtown Specific Plan, which documented environmental impacts for a maximum development of 75,000 square feet at this site, in addition to the square footage contained in the structure housing Maxwell 's Restaurant. The property is currently developed with a 10,000 square foot full ser- vice restaurant (Maxwell 's Restaurant) , a parking lot, a lifeguard headquar- ters, a small pizza concession, a 2,500 square foot stand alone beach level concession stand housing a takeout food vendor and a video arcade, and approxi- mately 7,000 square feet of retail uses on the beach level of the restaurant building. All existing uses currently on the site except the lifeguard head- quarters (which will be undisturbed), are proposed to be either removed or relocated to new space within the proposed project. 3.1 Project Location The precise location and boundaries of the proposed project are shown in Figure 3.1. The regional location of the proposed project is shown in Figure 3.2. Figure 3.3 shows project location and surrounding zoning. 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.DOC) 8 Los Angeles Co. San Bernardino Co. 90 57 r s� Riverside Co. e e e e 5 55 e son s 22 �e u ; Cleveland National usme Forest • . 39 El Toro �.--•--e 73 e • •'t •••�0.008 . •��• � o�• 133 � `e • .�;,• V Ole. PROJECT SITE • • 47 c . • • . ' . • ' . . •.• San Diego Co. F FIGURE 3.1 0 t z 9 s 5 e 7ndt°a REGIONAL LOCATION ®7119/90:AS -O �eRFIFLnLu - ' � r �r PROJECT SITE / r �f y FIGURE 3.2 SCALE IN FEET 0 2640 5280 PROJECT SITE Lsa 13 7/19/90:AS �-G�1.I l ji +; / •,.•. 'V .SPECIFIC�PLDIST AIfJ- r" � s LL RI `f CO3 r r. X. - •,t. z DE TROIT 1VE-- Ez S IW I" c=i s3 42 1, r lC J = a R2-PO-CZ-FP2 ! wm E� T �q, '� .o <�a�L,•° a °:' r•R2'PD-CZJ' �ul � •� �1 .a BALT•MORE li -FP2 ° � r �. _. K a;;Rz-raa•FP2 i i-n2•vo-cz-vaz -:..J - �, _ Oi�S ►� �S i �`4 °yt�"to �r. [WIZ:: y R2-PD•CZ-FP2 vct R2-PD-CZ-FP2: DOWNTOWN SJFIC �� 4y � e`�'•� C!. R2-PD-CZ FP2 m Q•} 015T ICTNBa l ;P Ts... .. 1. , 21 //� R�DCZfP2'; R2-PD^CZ=FP7 / --'. -,."v, ,.:;'T._ O° p OAST S,pf,C,,}.'° b"' $ \V +�rW- .._�h, vpK•y71�'._'..q'•`. C +./.QS� R�CT ✓ �� R2 PDT tFP2 R2 PD CrFP2 v 1 ET *r O�ti'•> u MH-CZ FP2 -'-•.�.,'u'.ntrr' PROJECT SIT y,, a. *sQ Ri-PD-crFa2"0jo0I 4• �Y \ .' b UDf-� DOWNTOWN"SPECIFIC PLAN-0 DIST 0 8b-FP2 a j NOTE: ,\ ,00; ,o�`lIJ1� I aIN[xs:aNa .Rc re[Ax T ACT*t x �mx:r• nww 0,r Ltt. �s• !Qx`iio ooi'i::.c ro E cEN*iR �''.,•r(. G 9 4 LEGEND: ~�i Q //. wr�x•ago zw•.Pz - `r -Z -Q ff#! ��ww:tT I.CUTtSIR[CR[•'Kx410STRC• �= CO•STY-zONE so... �I, �•- 'L� f:XFIJx?ISTNa;T �A W.S'- ,C Pw00a CCNx.RCi•: O:STR ET—m-, ,v\ �(,}] xlOxrL'I COxx[RCILI. 01STRICT - <:VNxtO R.TM O.�.coal:.SON T� asaNans Rccnc a-•x o.s+Rc[T:ucx.rcxT "4, .?7jJ x[p-v:[v9TY:fSO{.:••. :}TRCT A �•NNEJ=EVELr>x[x!.13TT - - PR—E STa[ET fTTa� uOaN[-Ox[OSTRKf - FIGURE 3.3 SCALE IN FEET 0 400 800 PROJECT"SITE/ZONING�' lsa E37/19/90:AS 3.2 Description of Proposed Project The site plan/parking facilities are shown on Figures 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6. Representative elevations are included in Section 4.3, Aesthetics. Representa- tive building outlines of the proposed project are shown on Figure 3.7. The heavy black building outlines are shown from the ocean side and PCH side of the project. Existing buildings (i .e. , Pierside Pavilion, existing Maxwell 's Restaurant, Lifeguard Headquarters, and Huntington Pier Colony) are shown to scale on the drawing for comparison. The construction of the proposed project, except for the lifeguard head- quarters, will necessitate the removal of all existing structures currently at the site. The project footprint does not encroach on either the beach, the bicycle path or beach access road, the pier, the footprint of the proposed pier plaza or the PCH right-of-way. Replacement of the existing public parking will be provided in the new parking structure to be built on the site. 3.3 Project Objectives The proposed development is being contemplated as a private development in conjunction with the support of the City's Redevelopment Agency. A Disposi- tion and Development Agreement (DDA) and ground lease is being considered by the Agency to carry out its objectives within the scope of the Downtown Redev- elopment Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. The entire project is within both planning areas. Primary goals of these plans are to redevelop the area in and around Downtown Huntington Beach from Beach Boulevard to the eastern edge of Downtown. The northwesterly boundary of the Downtown Specific Plan area is Goldenwest Avenue. Additionally, a development agreement is being proposed to the City to set zoning and ensure adherence to mitigation measures included in this SEIR. The developer will receive assurances from the City that he will be able to construct the project according to the plans attached to the agreement. The project is in accordance with the City's approved Local Coastal Pro- gram (LCP) for the site. As a coastal amenity, the restaurants, plazas, prome- nades and public parking facilities will enhance visitor serving opportunities and local coastal objectives included in the LCP. pr ome- nades, development 1s proposed to consistof restaurants, plazas, prome nades, public parking, beach related retail and food services. The overall design, amenity package and architectural style of the restaurant complex is consistent with local community serving facilities and will serve as a downtown 07/24/90CPiR001\MASTER.DO0 12 all. 'M) on. ';Mw' Mull ,�' M. Am, awl' . 'WK m) AM; im 40. jMft. mal 1 - . 0 FrFT b g_� 'nyp7� 1! Q [ • b d O � W i a m Q. P o Q• z o W • 1 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY L.iK�II•• L♦•OKYi•� lei K.l!•0 Y. niL.L•' '� 1 • 1 v I I• ; - • 1 - ♦C _r-G I i BWLGINGIA 1 / ( 0�i BWLpNO B �,` _ ♦ BWLpN�CI r' ... fill •.1 Awl •O SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3.4 M" 0 so 100 Lsa 07/19'/90:ASPLAZA LEVEL M go, to , �: ilrir: �; �. I'- f�, '40 ads note, �,. �' i .� az=l~�— c I1 LEASE SPACE LEASE I I 1 i I r 1 r uµaMlD nulol I 1 1 1 I ♦ SPACE - / • // "all. • ' 'w +an a.. SIIAI RESiAW1ANi it 1 .r' - �• nu a.. RETAM 1 I - _ r.w mn Ilo.o I 1 1 1 1 + 1 w.al 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 I 1 I I I • 1 � SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 15 0 50 100 LSa 107/19/90:AS BEACH ACCESS LEVEL -7 kl jlt U. u u 0 .r r FrF I.w0i0 2 c� Mi.0 ry I I I I I I I I I I 1 -.1 11 - LEH, i I r uu.. SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3.6 0 50 100 Lsa 07/,./90:AS LOWER PARKING LEVEL t sl �I �I LIFEGUARD HEADQUARTERS DWIGHTS --i-----.T.d --- --- -- ---- MAXWELLS -- - �r.N EXISTING ELEVATION FROM P.C.H. EXISTING PIERSIDE PAVILION EXISTING HUNTINGTON PIER COLONY I _ _ al — - - i..u- - -t o e I o e •� �.. -� — � 1 , I ii G i �. r ! - . m PIER MAXWELL'S PARKING LOT DWICHT'S PARKING LOT LIFEGUARD HEADQUARTERS HEADQUARTERS it r EXISTING ELEVATION FROM BEACH i' SCALEAPPROX IINAFEET TE FIGURE 3.7 L s. a o sa se PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPES 1� i 1 business- generating attraction. See Figures 4,, 5 and 6 for site plan/design scheme. Specific project objectives include the following: 1. To implement the Downtown Specific Plan and Local Coastal Plan, as they apply to the site., 2. To .provide a footprint for the City's proposed Plaza at the foot of the Huntington Beach Pier. 3. To provide restaurants and commercial facilities appropriate for the beach going public. t4. To provide additional sales tax revenue to the City of Huntington Beach. 5. To provide improved access to . the beach through the site- for the public. 6. To preserve existing public parking opportunities currently located on-site: - 3.4 Use of the EIR The City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency are requiring a Certified EIR prior to approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement and ground lease (Agency), and a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit (City) . This EIR is intended to be used for the entire project, contemplated to be built out in one phase. This EIR is. a Supplemental EIR intended to provide information necessary to update the previous EIR prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan, EIR 82-2. Because the proposed uses, and scope. of development for the subject property are consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and covered by EIR 82-2, focused impact assessments for potentially historic resources, an aesthetic. impact assessment and a circulation and parking assessment are included to supplement the information and analysis in EIR 82-2 to make the previous EIR adequate according to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15163, Supplement . to an EIR) . This supplemental analysis is provided to give. project specific detailed analysis to focused .areas of potential impact presented by the proposed project. 07/24/9001 ROMMASTER.D00 1 3.4.1 Responsible Agencies Use of EIR and Discretionary Actions ' Responsible Agencies, according to CEQA Guidelines, are agencies that will give discretionary approval to the project at any time during the life of , the project. This EIR will be used by the Responsible Agency in its review or approval of the project, and to adopt corresponding mitigation as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15096. The Pierside Restaurant development will require review and/or approvals from the City of Huntington Beach Community Redevelopment Agency and the City Planning Commission and, if appealed, from the Huntington Beach City Council and the California Coastal Commission. The SEIR will be used by the City and the Redevelopment Agency for con- sideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit by the City, and a Disposition and Development Agreement (ODA) and ground lease by the Redevelopment Agency (CRA) . 3.4.2 Agencies Consulted The following Agencies were consulted through the Notice of Preparation procedure, by Notice of Preparation, questionnaire or by direct contact. Air Resources Board California Coastal Commission California Highway Patrol City of Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department Department of Boating and Waterways Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game Department of Health Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Transportation Department of Water Resources Huntington Beach - Fountain Valley Board of Realtors Huntington Beach Historical Society Orange County Sanitation District Orange County Transit District Rainbow Disposal Company Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Southern California Association of Governments Southern California Edison Southern California Gas Company 07/24/9001 R001\MASTER.D00 18 State Lands-. Commission State of'California Office of Historic Preservation A Notice. of Preparation (NOP) was circulated by the City. The NOP and- initial Study checklist are included in Appendix A. Responses to the NOP are included in Appendix B. Issues brought up in the NOP process are addressed in this document. 3.4.3 Incorporation By Reference EIR 82-2 prepared by the City of Huntington Beach for the Downtown Speci- fic Plan is' incorporated, in whole, by reference, into this EIR. This previous EIR covers the Downtown Redevelopment Area contemplated by the Downtown Speci- f'ic. Plan and covers the subject--property in the project description, setting, impact and- mitigation sections. Also incorporated by reference are the City's_ Local Coastal Program, General- Plan. (including Coastal. Element and Housing Element, 1989) , Zoning.Code and EIR Number 89-8 for the Huntington Beach Pier Reconstruction prepared by the City of" Huntington Beach, 1990. The documents cited above are public �. record and are on file with the City of .Huntington Beach Community Development Department and/or City Clerk's Office and are hereby incorporated by reference according to provisions of Section 15150, CEQA Guidelines. 07/24190(P1R001\MASTER.DO0 19 . 4.0 EXISTING SETTING. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4,1 Historic Resources The following discussion is a summary of the Historic Resource Evaluation of Maxwell 's Restaurant by LSA Associates, Inc. , 1990. 4,1.1 Existing Setting t In the late 193Os the City of Huntington Beach, with the help of the Works .Progress Administration, built a large public building adjacent to the pier. Originally named the Pavilion (later changed to "Pavalon") , this facil- ity was one of a series of major municipal structures which formed part of the waterfront recreation and commercial district surrounding the landmark Hunting- ton Beach Pier. Although it has experienced changes in use and appearance in the past 52 years, particularly since the mid-196Os, the structure has remained a major feature of the oceanfront recreation area for which Huntington Beach is famous. Huntington Beach, like many other Southern California coastal communities, recognized the beachfront as one of its most valuable natural assets. The City capitalized on this attribute by embarking on a program of developing i-ts waterfront for recreation, tourism, and commerce. At the- center of this development was the formidable concrete municipal pier built in 1914. Around 1935, the city government decided that the pier area be further enhanced by the addition of an ocean front civic hall suitable for dances and other events. The availability of Public Works Administration funding, part of the federal government's efforts to facilitate recovery from the economic depression of the 193Os, made possible the realization of this objective. The City of Huntington Beach solicited designs for the building, and in 1937 the noted Los Angeles based architectural firm of Walker and Eisen was selected for their "modernistic" design. The Huntington Beach Pavilion, as the structure was officially named, was dedicated amid a well advertised and ex- travagant three day celebration beginning on Saturday, May 28, 1938. In 1941, the name of the dance hall was changed from the Pavilion to the Pavilon. The Pavilion was located in the heart of the City's center of commercial , social , and civic life. This area, centered at the junction of Main Street and Ocean Avenue, included virtually all of the major. landmarks of Huntington Beach. Among these were the old City Hall and Memorial Hall on the southeast , (inland) side of Ocean Avenue (Pacific Coast Highway) ; on the seaward side were O7/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.DOC) 20 i the, M the, Munici al Pier extending unicipal Plunge-. on.. the north side: of Main, p g _ from the- foot of Main Street 1,000 feet into- the Pacific, and' the Pavilion on : the-south side of the pier. The Pacific Electric.'s interurban, rai,lway ran down- the. center of Ocean Avenue, bringing visitors. from- as far away as Los Angeles to`the* Huntington Beach waterfront. The Pacific Electric. operated its famous "Big Red Cars" in Huntington. Beach until 1950, and. maintained a depot right in front of the Pavilion. In the 196Os the Pavillon• was used as a skating rink and teen club; until . the structure was gutted by a fire in 1966. . Since that time it has been used as a. restaurant. In- 1977, it was .leased to Maxwell 's Restaurant, and soon after the change in tenancy it underwent various episodes of interior and exterior remodeling. In 1982, Maxie's Pizza was added to the north side of the building... Despite the changes in -use and appearance, the Pavilion building- is con- sidered significant for its important role in the social history of Huntington Beach, and as one of the last. remaining landmark -civic structures from the period 1930-1960. 4'.1.2 Impacts The historical assessment concluded that the structure housing Maxwell 's Restaurant, despite its physical modifications, is considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. This assessment was made following the National Park Service "Guidelines for Applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluation" (National Register Bulletin 15, .1982) . It was determined that the building has retained a sufficient degree of location, setting, materials, workmanship, and association, and that its design appeared to be largely intact:. but obscured beneath various added- on elements. The building can be seen as embodying historical significance at the local. level within At least two perti- nent historical contexts: 1) "Monumental and symbolic landmarks. of the City of Huntington Beach, 1930-1965 " and 2) "Centers of entertainment and social life of the City of-Huntington � - Beach, 1930-1965." The implementation of this project will have a significant impact in that it .will involve the demolition of the Pavilion building, and consequently, will destroy a historical resource of the City of Huntington Beach. 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.D00 21 4.1.3 Mitigation Measures The preferred alternative in terms of preserving the historic resource value of the structure would be accomplished by: • Avoidance, i .e., leaving the structure in place rather than demolition. • The building has potential for restoration to its former appear- ance, and the feasibility of rehabilitation of the structure should be investigated. A qualified historic architect would be required , to provide such an assessment. A list of qualified historic archi- tects is maintained by the California Office of Historic Preserva- tion. This could be accomplished by' redesign of the project, and incorporation of the rehabilitated Pavilion building into the re- vised project. Guidelines for rehabilitation are found in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guide- lines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1983), and Standards for Historic Preservation Projects with Guidelines for Applying the Standards (1985) . If demolition is unavoidable, then it is recommended that the his- tory and architecture of the building be fully recorded to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey (NABS) . Guide lines and format specifications for HABS are available from the National Park Service, Western Regional Office, in San Francisco. HABS documentation includes the preparation of-a detailed histori- cal narrative, and complete graphic documentation of the building �. through large format photography. Historic photographs and build- ing plans are also reproduced for the HABS record, which ultimately is curated at the Library of Congress. Since the significance of the building is historical rather than architectural , emphasis would be placed on the historical narrative, and would require oral history in addition to archival records to capture the historical significance of the Pavilion to the social history of the City of Huntington Beach. In addition to documentation to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey, it is recommended that if the structure i is demolished, its historical role be recognized by appropriate means of memorialization. Memorialization could include such mea- sures as placement of a commemorative plaque on or near the site, development of an exhibit either on or off site (e.g. , at a local O7/24/9001R001\MASTER.D00 22 i .historical. museum, public library, or City Hall) , and/or develop- ment of a publication(s)• interpreting the role of the Pavil'ion- in the- history oU the City, prepared by a qualified historian. r4.1.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation Although both documentation and memorialization are recommended if the demol i t.i on of the Pavilion building is unavoidable, these measures would not fully mitigate the significant adverse impact to the level• of insignificance. 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.DOC) 23 4.2 Traffic and Parking A traffic study was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. to examine the circulation and parking implications of the proposed Pierside Restaurant Devel- opment project. The analysis focuses on the potential parking demand generated by both the existing public uses and the proposed development, and compares this demand to the proposed project's parking supply. The report is summarized below and contained in its entirety in Appendix D. 4.2.1 Existing Setting Site Access and Internal Circulation The proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project is located along Pacific Coast Highway, between Lake Street and Main Street, south of the exist- ing Huntington Beach Pier (refer to Figure 3.4) . Removal of on-street parking along Pacific Coast Highway and restriping the roadway to accommodate three , lanes of travel in each direction is currently being pursued by Cal trans and the City of Huntington Beach. Ingress access to the proposed project site is located along Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Third Street and the intersection of Lake Street and Coast Highway. The Coast Highway access between Main and Third Streets provides for right-in only traffic. A 150 foot right turn deceleration lane is proposed prior to the access driveway to remove ingress traffic from the southbound Pacific Coast Highway through traffic lanes. Northbound traffic along Pacific Coast Highway is required to either turn left at Lake Street, or to make a U-turn at the Fifth Street intersection to gain access to the proposed driveway between Main and Third Streets. Egress from the proposed project site is located opposite the Second Street intersec- tion along 'Pacific Coast Highway, approximately 360 feet south of the proposed ingress location and at Lake Street. The Coast Highway egress provides for right-out only traffic movement. A right turn acceleration lane is also pro- posed at this driveway to accommodate egress traffic from the project site onto the mainline flow of traffic along southbound. Pacific Coast Highway. The Lake Street exit is via a fully signalized intersection. Pedestrian access to and from the proposed project site is facilitated along signalized crosswalks at the Main Street and Lake Street intersections along Pacific Coast Highway. Currently, access from Pacific Coast Highway to Maxwell 's Restaurant and the beach promenade is accommodated along two stair- ways. The first is located adjacent to the Huntington Beach Pier, north of the project site, and the second is located at the Lake Street intersection adja- cent to the lifeguard station. A third staircase is located approximately one hundred feet north of Second Street. 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.DOC) 24 Transit service along southbound- Pac:ific Coast Highway adjacent to the. . project site is currently provided by the Orange County Transit District -(OCTD) . Existing bus stops are located approximately, 80 feet north of Main Street and approximately 100 feet north of Second Street.- In a letter of response to the NOP,' OCTD outlined the following measures to be incorporated into the project: • Bus turnouts, if determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on roadway cross section, travel volumes or speeds, should be .provided at each existing bus stop location. • The area adjacent to each stop should include a paved passenger waiting area complete with a.bus shelter and bench'. • A paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway. should be provided between each stop and the project buildings. • A concrete. bus pad sufficient to support the weight of a bus (see OCTD's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities) should be provided at each transit stop. This would be necessary assumi:ng the material used to construct Pacific Coast Highway would be insufficient to support continued transit use of the bus stops. Existing Public Parking Utilization Public parking data for the existing public parking lot at Lake Street and Pacific Coast Highway (adjacent to lifeguard station) were identified based on revenue data collected by the lifeguard station for the year 1989. The lot currently accommodates approximately . 240 parking spaces. Based on the total monthly revenue for 1989, an average monthly .revenue,was identified by summing the .totals for each month and dividing by 12' The upper graphic i.n Figure 4.2.1 shows the Lake Street Lot monthly parking variation. As the figure indicates, monthly variations are .identified as-.:,a percentage of the average month. As expected, the summer months of June, July, and August represent a. significant increase- in parking activity above..average annual conditions. The average annual monthly parking- activity -is most closely represented during the months of March and May. Review of the parking data identified four periods of distinct parking variations as follows: summer weekday, summer weekend, non-summer weekday and non-summer weekend. The lower graphic in Figure 4.2.1 presents the seasonal 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.D00 2 5< 300% 2807. 260% 240% zz 22C7. 0 200R f La 180R a X 160R , a 140% O t20% Z u took a 80R 607. 401 20R 0% JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 400% i _ 350R - i 300% o. w 250% a y y a 200% i z u150% rc W � a 1 100 50% i CR WEEKDAY WEEKEND WEEKDAY WEEKEND NON-SUMMER _ SUMMER- ' 100% Represent Annual Averages FIGURE 4.2.1 LAKE STREET PARKING LOT 7/19/90:AS and daily parking variation for the Lake Street parking lot for non-summer and summer weekday and weekend. During the non-summer weekday, parking activity is less than 50% of the average daily parking activity. However, during the non- ' summer weekend and summer weekday, the parking activity is approximately 150% greater than the average annual daily parking activity. _ The peak parking activity is during the summer weekend, when the parking activity is approxi- mately 300% greater than the annual average daily parking activity. Hourly parking accumulation curves and parking supply lines are presented in Figure 4.2.2. Parking accumulation curves differ for each seasonal and daily parking variation identified previously. It should be noted that the parking supply line for weekdays and weekends differs. The current Maxwell 's parking lot contains approximately 80 spaces and is separated from the adjacent public parking lot by chains. Based on discussions with the controller at Maxwell 's Restaurant, parking for the restaurant is increased by relocating the chains to allow for an additional 47 parking spaces to be reassigned from the public parking lot to Maxwell 's parking during the weekends. The public park- , ing supply at the Lake Street lot has been identified as 240 parking spaces during the summer and non-summer weekdays, while, with the reassignment of 47 parking spaces to Maxwell 's Restaurant during the weekend, the public parking supply of 193 parking spaces was used. During the non-summer weekday, the peak parking accumulation was identi- fied at less than 50% of the parking supply. During the summer weekday, 100% accumulation results between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. A similar scenario results for the weekend conditions, with less than 100% accumulation during the non-summer weekend and a three-hour maximum accumulation period between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. As this section of Figure 4.2.2 illustrates, however, park- ing accumulation could not exceed 193 parking spaces (240 spaces minus 47 spaces reassigned to Maxwell 's Restaurant) . Demand for parking would be signi- ficantly greater if additional parking was provided. , Existing Maxwell 's Restaurant Parking Utilization The parking characteristics during the four parking periods described above were identified based on an interview with the controller of the Maxwell 's Restaurant parking lot. . Parking utilization curves were generated for Maxwell 's Restaurant similar to the hourly parking accumulation data gathered for the Lake Street public parking lot. Figure 4.2.3 presents the existing parking accumulation curves for Maxwell 's Restaurant parking lot. As the curves indicate, parking supply during the weekdays is 80 spaces: However, with the reassignment of 47 parking spaces from the public parking lot, the parking supply during the weekend is 127 spaces. 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.DOC) 27 ii. rr r r r r r Will rr tr r r r NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND 240 240 SUPPLY = 240 SPACES 220 220 . 200 200 . 180 180 SUPPLY = 193 SPACES 160 y 160 . J j 140 x� 140 . 120 U 120 , rc r0 100 m foo . y m 80 Z 80 7 2 60 60 40 40 20 20 O 0 6.'00 AM '9:00 AM NOON 3.100 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MO WINT 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 2:00 PM• MIDNIGHT 101E OF DAY TIME OF DAY SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND 240 SUPPLY 240 SPACES 240 220 220 200 200 feo fao SUPPLY= 193 SPACES i bo W 160 j x u 140 140 x 120 120 4 � C 100 m 1o0 W � 80 x 80 _ 60 • 60 . 40 40 v 20 20 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9.00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME OF[MY TIME OF OAT FIGURE 4.2.2. LAKE STREET PUBLIC LOT F EXISTING PARKING ACCUMULATION 7/1s/10:As � � r ■r rr r r r r � r r i• r r �■r r � �r FFF NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND SUPPLY'='80 SPACES 130 SUPPLY = 127 SPACES' 120 7p no , 60 too N N 90 W W u 50 O 60 76 0 40 0 .60 W W 3 ,0 3 50 z Z Z 40 20 30 20 10 10 p 0 6:00 AN 9:00 AN NOON 3:00 PN 6:00 PM 9:00 PN MIDNIGHT .6:00 AN 9:00 Alt NOON .J:00 PN 6:00 Pat 9:00 PN MIDNIGHT TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY SUMMER WEEKDAY „ , SUMMER WEEKEND so SUPPLY =80 SPACES 130 SUPPLY 12_ 7 SPACES uo ,. 70 110, 100 60 90 50 90 J J I Z 70 0 00 o 60 . W ]0 60 Z 2 40 20 30 20 10 10 O 0 6:00 AN 9:00 AN NOON ]:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT 6:00 AN 9:00 AN NOON �7:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PN MIDNIGHT TIME OF DAY TIME Of DAY .. FIGURE 4.2.3 MAXWELLS RESTAURANT LOT EXISTING PARKING ACCUMULATION . 7119t90:AS Characteristic of restaurant type land uses, the peak parking accumula- tion curves throughout the day show two distinct peaks. These peaks occur during the noon and evening hours to reflect the peak parking attraction to the restaurant during the lunch and dinner periods. As the figure indicates, park- , ing accumulation during the non-summer and summer months is below the parking supply. During the non-summer and summer weekdays, parking accumulation is less than 70% of the parking supply of 80 parking spaces. However, during the summer and non-summer weekends, parking accumulation increases to approximately 125% of the weekday parking supply, or approximately 100 parking spaces. However, due to the reassignment of additional parking, the parking accumula- tion for Maxwell 's Restaurant is still below the weekend parking supply of 127 ' parking spaces. It should also be noted that the peak parking accumulation of 100 parking spaces for the 10,000 square foot Maxwell 's Restaurant results in a peak parking generation rate of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. This , is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach parking ordinance for restau- rant land uses. 4.2.2 Impacts , Forecast Parking Demand Analysis The forecast parking demand analysis for the Pierside Restaurant Develop- , ment has been examined for the four seasonal variations identified previously. Analysis of the Pierside Restaurant Development parking is made up of two components. The first component is the existing public parking demand, which has been identified to range between 98 and 193 parking spaces on non-summer weekdays and summer weekends, respectively. The second component includes the expansion of the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet, and the addition of 11,000 square feet, and 14,000 square feet of quality restaurant land uses, and a 6,000 square foot cafe. For fore- casting purposes, the utilization curves for the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant ' were applied to all future parking restaurant developments. The forecast parking demand analysis tables for the public parking lot and the restaurant land uses are presented in Figure 4.2.4. The forecast parking demand for the proposed restaurant land uses is generated based on the 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet rate identified- previously in this report. As shown in Figure 4.2.4, the maximum parking accumulation ranges between 311 and 635 parking spaces on non-summer weekdays and summer weekends respectively. 07/24/90(PIROMMASTER MC) 30 , NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND Q: t. Room 15,000 31,000. Ft./ 15,000 31,000 HB Code --- 10/1000 10/1000 HB Code 10/1000 10/1000 Total Total Parking per Parking Parking per Parking HB Code 240 150 310 Demand HB Code 193 150 310 Demand Weekdays Weekdays 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 1 0 0 1 7:00 AM- 2 0 0 2 8:00 AM 6 0 0 6 8:00 A14 3. 0 0 3 9:00 AN 13 0 0 13 9:00 AM 9" 0 0 9. 10:00 AM 17 8 16 40 " 10:00 AM 54 38 78, 169 11:00'AM 58 15 31 104 11:00 AM 96 83 171- 349 NOON 81 15 31'. 127 NOON 122 113 233 467 1:00 PM 98. 60 124 282 1:00 PM 142 150 310 602 2:00 PM 81. 75- 155 311 2:00 PM 133 150 310: 593 3:00 PM 69 56 " 115. 239 3:00 PM 119 128 264 510 4:00 PM 48 38 78 163 4:00 PM' 105 75 155 "335: 5:00 PM 35 15 31 81 5:00 PM 65 45 93 203 6:00 PM 35 15' - 31 81" 6:00 PM 46 75. 155 276 7:00 PM 12 38 78 127 7:00 PM 15 113 233 360 8:00 PM 12 60 124 196 8:00 PM 15 150 310 475 9:00 PM 9 75 155 239 9:00 PM 8 150 310 468 10:00-PH 3 60. 124 187 10:00 PM 5 150 310. 465 11:00 PM 0 45 93 138 11:00 PM 2 135 279 416 MIDNIGHT 0 0 0 0 MIDNIGHT 2 45 93 140 -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Parking Accumulation 311 Maximum Parking Accumulation 602 SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND QRoom --- 15,000 31,000 QRoom --- 15,000 31,000 HB.Code --- 10/1006 10/1000 HB"Code --- 10/1600 10/1000 ' Total Total Parking per Parking Parking per Parking HB Code 240 150 310 Demand HB Code 193 150 310 Demand Weekdays Weekdays 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 12 0 0 12 7:00 AM 39 0 0 39 8:00 AM 36 0 0 36 8:00.AM 87 0 0 87 9:00 AM 72 0 0 72 9:00 AM 164 0 0. 164 10:00 AM 108 8 16 131 10:00 AM 193 38 78 308 11:00 AM 156 8 16 179 11:00 AM 193 83 171 446 NOON 216 38 78, 331 NOON 193 113 233 538 1:00 PM 240 60 124 424 1:00 PM 193 144 298 635 2:00 PM 240 113 233 585 2:00 PM 174 144 298. 615 3:00 PM 204 98 202 503 3:00 PM 164 98 202 463 4:00 PM 192 38 78 307 4:00 PM 164 75 155 394 5:00 PM 180 15 31 226 5:00 PM 116 - 45 93 254 6:00 PM 192 23 47 261 6:00 PM 58 60 124 242 7:00 PM 156 45 93 294 7:00 PM 58 113 233 403 8:00 PM 120 75 155 350 8:00 PM 39 150 310 499 9:00 PM 96 98 202 395 9:00 PM- 19 150 310 479 10:00 PM 48 68 140 255 10:00 PM 10 150 310 470 �. 11:00 PM 12 38 78 127 _ 11:00 PM 10 135 279 424 MIDNIGHT 12 0 0 12 MIDNIGHT 0 45 93 138 -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Parking Accumulation 585 Maximum Parking Accumulation 635 15,0007 Maxwells Restaurant FIGURE 4.2.4 31,000 - Other Restaurants 1 _ FORECAST PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS. L7119190:AS 1 Figure 4.2.5 illustrates the parking demand analysis with the proposed parking supply. The Figure identifies two parking supply lines: the proposed parking supply of 575 parking spaces, and a maximum parking supply of 635 park- ing spaces. The 575 parking supply is based on the total number of striped spaces. With valet parking, additional parking can accommodate up to 635 parking spaces. As shown in Figure 4.2.5, the forecast peak parking accumulation occurs t at 2:00 p.m. on weekdays and 1:00 p.m. on weekends, when the peak utilization of the public parking lot and the restaurant lot coincide. The maximum fore- cast parking accumulation during the non-summer weekday is less than the pro- ' posed parking supply of 575 parking spaces. During the other three seasonal periods, however, the peak forecast parking accumulation exceeds the proposed parking supply of 575 parking spaces, which would require valet parking. The ' maximum parking supply of 635 parking spaces would adequately accommodate the maximum parking accumulation during the non-summer weekend and summer weekday periods. However, during the summer weekends, the maximum parking supply is , forecast to equal the maximum parking accumulation of 635 parking spaces. It should be noted that the peak public parking demand analysis during the summer weekend assumed a peak parking accumulation of 193 parking spaces, due to the reassignment of 47 parking .spaces to Maxwell 's' Restaurant parking lot. However, experience indicates that the public parking demand for beach parking is a function of parking supply. In other words, if the 47 parking spaces were not reassigned for restaurant use, the peak public parking accumu- lation during the summer weekend would have been 100% of 240 parking spaces. Trip Generation Comparison With Previously Proposed Development In July, 1987, Greer & Company prepared a traffic impact analysis for the previously proposed Pierside Village Development, which involved development of , 40,000 square feet of specialty retail , 30,000 square feet of quality restaurants, and 30,000 square feet of fast-food services. The study identi- fied daily and p.m. peak hour trip generation as follows: PH PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT TOTAL Pierside Village Development 8,810 500 280 780 ' 1 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.D00 32 , r r� r r r� rr rr rr rr �r r� r� rr rr rr rI rr rr r� . NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND 700 lw 600 MAXIMUM SUPPLY OF 635 SPACES 600 MAXIMUM PPLY, s< 635 SPACES PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 575 SPACES PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 570 SPACES Soo 500 iJ1 W J U U I 400 = 400 s SU O O 300 W 300 m m � Z a 200 200 100 100 0 0 6:OO AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM .MIDNIGHT 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 Phi 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME OF OAY TIME OF DAY Q]PUBLIC: ®MAXWELLS ®RESTS. PUBLIC m MAXWELLS '®RESTS. SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND 700 700 600 MAXIMUM SUPPLY OF 635 SPACES 600 MAXIMUM SUPPLY OF 635 SPACES PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 575 SPACES PROPOSED SUP P F 575 SPACES Soo 500 14 u w I 400 400 O O 300 W 300 j Z 200 200 too 100 0 0 6:00 AM 9:03 AM NOON 3.00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT 6.00 AM 2:00 AY NOON 3:00 PM 6;00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME Of DAY TIME Of DAY CS�__]PUBLIC ®'"WELLS ®RESTS. PUBLIC ®MAXWELLS ®RESTS. FIGURE 4.2.5 FORECAST PARKING DEMAND Lsa7/19/90:AS A reduced development, as described in this Supplemental EIR, is current- ly proposed. The estimated trip generation for the currently proposed project is identified below. , WPM HOUR DAILY IN OUT TOTAL 40,000 SF (3 Quality Restaurants) 2,995 150 95 245 ' 6,000 SF Sit-Down Restaurant 985 60 25 85 Pierside Restaurant Development 3,980 210 120 330 , Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual , 4th edition. ' The proposed project would generate approximately 4,830 fewer daily trips, and 450 fewer p.m. peak hour trips than the previous Pierside Village , .proposal described above. As a result of the reduction in the number of daily and p.m. peak hour trips generated, no significant project related impacts to the arterial street system in the vicinity of the project site are forecast. This conclusion is substantiated by the results of a Greer & Co. study enti- tled, Downtown Specific Plan - Traffic Analysis for Proposed Density Reduction in the Downtown Core Area, April 4, 1989, in which the effects of down zoning the Downtown Specific Plan reduced the volume of traffic in the Downtown Core Area. Lake Street Intersection Analysis To determine the potenttia'1 impacts associated with the development of the Pierside Restaurant at the intersection of Lake Street/Coast Highway, an Inter- section Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was conducted at that intersection. , The ICU methodology and assumptions regarding peak hour traffic volumes are described in Appendix D. The results of the average weekday ICU analysis are presented as follows. ' The ICU analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D. 07/24/90(PIROMMASTER.D00 34 i 1 1 . 1 Lake Street/Coast •Highway. Average-Weekday ICU Analysis AM Peak Hour PM Peak. Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Without Project 0.56 A 0.77 C With Project 0.59 A 0.78 C As shown above, the intersection would operate acceptably, below the 0.90 threshold, during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the proposed project. The effects of summer traffic volumes were assessed by increasing the eastbound : and westbound through volumes according to historical seasonal ' variations observed on Coast Highway (LSA Associates, Inc. , 1988) . To present a conservative estimate. of the seasonal variation in traffic volumes, an increase equivalent to nine percent in p.m. peak hour through traffic was assumed in the ICU analysis. In addition, the increase in beach parking acti- vity is represented. According to the parking counts collected from the. City of Huntington Beach, the average a.m. peak hour summer arrivals are approxi- mately 123 vehicles. The p.m. peak hour summer arrivals total 30 vehicles. Therefore, the inbound movements to the Lake Street parking area were added to the summer period ICU analysis. The results of this analysis are. presented below. Lake Street/Coast Highway Average Weekend ICU Analysis AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Without Project._ 0.58 A 0.80 C With Project 0.61 B 0.81 D As shown, the intersection would operate acceptably, below the, 0.90 ' threshold, during both- a.m. and- p.m-: peak hours during the average_ summer period with the proposed- project- Internal Circulation The Pierside Restaurant Development project proposes to create additional access to the beach promenade from Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street, via two plaza locations at the ingress and egress driveways. 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.000) 35 In addition, walkways are proposed between restaurant pads providing adequate ' pedestrian circulation through the project site, thus reducing the number of pedestrian movements along the southbound Pacific Coast Highway sidewalk be- ' tween Main Street and Lake Street. The sidewalk along the southerly side of Coast Highway is proposed to be eliminated between the project right in and right out locations to further reinforce pedestrian use of the Pierside Restau- rants promenade and eliminate the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along Coast , Highway. A pedestrian boardwalk, separated by planters; walls or railings from the bicycle trail , would be provided along the strand to minimize pedestri- an/bicycle conflicts. No impacts related to internal circulation or proposed ' project access are identified. The proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project design can accommo- date the existing bus stops and future OCTD plans for bus turnouts. ' Pierside Restaurant Parking Queue Analysis A queuing analysis was conducted to identify the probable storage lengths , at the Pierside Restaurant's parking garage entrances. The purpose of this analysis was to ensure that queues do not develop at the parking garage entrances that will create conflicts with arterial street traffic flow. The ' potential for a queue, or vehicle back up, arises at the garage entrances due to the relationship between the arrival of vehicles and the ability of parking control equipment to handle these vehicles. Gated access controls are proposed ' at the ingress locations at Lake Street and the midblock location on Coast Highway. The methodology for determining desirable parking gate storage requirements is discussed in Appendix D. Based on peak hour inbound beach traffic and trip distribution by access location, the Coast Highway access to the parking garages is forecast to in- clude 34 a.m, and 74 p.m. inbound trips (Table 4.2.A) . The Lake Street access ' would have 75 a.m. and 156 p.m. peak hour inbound trips. Therefore, the p.m. peak hour inbound volumes are used as the arrival rate in the calculation of storage requirements for the gated access to the parking garage. The discharge rate for the project gated facilities was assumed to be 305 ' vehicles per hour (refer to Appendix D) . This value assumes an average headway of 9.5 seconds per vehicle. Assuming an inbound volume of 74 at the Coast Highway access and 156 at the Lake Street access, and a design capacity of 305 vehicles per hour, the , intensity factor for the Coast Highway and Lake Street access locations is 0.24 07/24/90M R001WASTER.D00 36 1 i 1 1 1 - TABLE 4.2.A PARKING GARAGEOUEUING ANALYSIS , Trip Generation AN Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use In Out In Out Qual . Restaurant 34 18 152 94 Sit-down Restaurant 62 21 59 24 ' SUBTOTAL 96 39 211 118 Inbound`Beach Traffic* 13 19 1 Coast -Hwy Access % Distribution 35% 35% . Volume 34 74 Lake Street Access % Distribution 65% 65% Volume 75 156 . * Average Weekday Traffic Volumes Note: Per ITE definition, quality restaurants have a turnover rate of one hoar or longer, whereas sit down restaurants have a higher turnover less than one hour. i 1 1 07/24/90(PIR001\MASTER.DOC) 37 • 1 and 0.50, respectively. Assuming a 99% confidence level , or the probability 1 that the potential queue would not be exceeded one in 100 times, a reservoir requirement of 44 feet, or two vehicles, at Coast Highway and 66 feet, or three vehicles, at Lake Street is required. As the storage length available. is ' approximately 200 feet at both the Lake Street and Coast Highway accesses, all storage requirements can be accommodated within the driveways to the parking garage. It should be pointed out that this queuing analysis assumes average weekday inbound traffic volumes. Due to the location of the proposed project and the proximity to the beach, summer parking activity is a consideration in , this queuing analysis. Due to the available storage length of 200 feet, approximately nine vehicles- could queue without impacting.the arterial street system which would result from an inbound volume of 253 vehicles per hour 1 (refer to Appendix 0) . The total inbound traffic volume identified at Lake Street during the average weekday is 156 vehicles per hour. Therefore, an increase of approximately 60% over the current average weekday inbound volumes ' could be accommodated by the proposed gated access plan.. 4.2.3 Mitigation Measures None required. 4.2.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation The project's effects to traffic and parking are below a level of signi- ficance. 1 . i i ' . . 1 1 07/24/90(PIROOI\MASTER.DOC) 38 ' 4.3- Aesthetics/Visual Resources 4.3.1 Existing Setting _ 1 The project site is located southeast.,of the existing Huntington Beach Municipal Pier and is bordered by the Huntington City Beach and boardwalk' to the southwest, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the northeast, and the City Lifeguard Station to the southeast. Currently, the north westerly portion of the site is developed, with two structures, each containing a restaurant or food service area, while the entire remainder of the site is improved as. a parking lot. Existing and future land uses in the vicinity of the project include: beach oriented commercial and residential along Main Street and the northern side of PCH, between Main and Second Streets. The City Beach and the ' Municipal Pier are the most predominant visual resources in this area. Scenic Resources. Two elements in the- City of Huntington Beach General Plan discuss the visual .resources in the vicinity of the project as well as their importance. These elements are the Scenic Highways Element and the Coastal' Element, each of which is described below. Scenic Highways Element. According..to the Scenic .Highway Element of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, PCH is under consideration by the State as a Scenic Highway, and the City of Huntington Beach has developed an implementing plan to qualify PCH for official State Scenic Highway status. ' This plan includes: developing a zoning ordinance to govern development within the corridor along PCH designed to protect and enhance scenic values, constr- ucting new utilities and relocating existing utilities underground, enforcing maintenance codes, and utilizing conservation and planning legislation, which- ever applicable, to enhance and protect aesthetic and scenic va)ues. Also designated in the Element are "Landscape Corridors," which .are local ' roadways which provide regional access to the beach. The City has recognized the view potential of- these roadways, but it was not felt that these roads should be, proposed as scenic routes, since they do not possess the. unique scenic characteristics--.- associated with this designation.. Lake Street from Yorktown Avenue to PCH has� been-'designated. as a "Landscape Corridor." The - Scenic Highways Element outlines land use and development controls in Section- 3.2.3.3 of the General Plan, which includes requiring landscape plans of all ., private developments. ' 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) 39 Coastal Element. The Element, which was approved by the California ' Coastal Commission in 1985, designates PCH from Goldenwest to Beach Boulevard as a scenic resource within the coastal zone. Four types of strategies to improve and protect scenic resources are outlined: 1) restrictions on the kind ' and intensity of development permitted near visually important resources; 2) controls on siting, design and orientation of allowable uses; 3) sign controls; and 4) screening, landscaping and other improvement of existing visual blight. ' Existing Viewshed. To illustrate the existing viewshed, five vantage points were selected to photographically illustrate representative views (Fig- ure 4.3.1) . Figures 4.3.2 to 4.3.6 show the visual impacts from these vantage points. 4.3.2 Impacts The proposed development consists of three 2-story buildings intended for restaurant, food service and beach-oriented retail uses.. The height limitation for these structures is 25 feet for two stories, plus 10 additional feet for ' roofline and other architectural elements. This development is of a higher density than currently occurs on-site. The following discussion analyzes the visual impacts of the project on three visually sensitive areas: PCH, the City , Beach and view corridors perpendicular to PCH (primarily Main, Second and Lake Streets) . PCH. As illustrated in Figure 4.3-7 existing views of the project site ' from PCH consist primarily of the Municipal Pier, existing Maxwell 's Restau- rant, west of the pier, and the vegetation screening the parking lot adjacent to Maxwell 's. Views from the northbound lane of PCH are also visually ob- structed by median landscaping along PCH. This landscaping is discontinuous in some areas and allows views directly into the parking lot at Maxwell 's. Views of the beach or white water areas are limited; however, the ocean horizon can be seen from PCH travel lanes. Figure 4.3.7 illustrates the comparison between the location and height of the proposed project and the existing structures. The solid line denotes , the outline of the proposed project, while the dashed line denotes the maximum allowable development on the site under the Downtown Specific Plan. As shown, the three proposed buildings will obstruct direct views of the ocean horizon ' and the pier from PCH in some locations. However, the design of the project allows for viewing areas or corridors between each of the buildings and stag- gered building silhouettes and limited second story profiles provide visual ' access to the ocean and pier through the project. Persons travelling along PCH 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECU-3.EIR) 40 , 77p_;; es —� o a o Z• �^• I ` -r'"\ �,'_y /(^`.°° o ' ell:i•I�j 1pi a .•.•'ii •�"' o , G> ° ' —•W � I ��� °ca I \\ } � I ^ �� ° _ o. o •ova t�• I� � -� ��-. �� I .:fir is- 36 f '•.. ,� `_' V ;,, •1� � � o i o_°. o'UO H0 0 6 ° k %It DO u� oa .�.�• 0- •� ILTIF.t c in 0 0 ° _° o o• I \ ,�/�""-_"11 i .. a ;�;"''I. ` o cr- -6 7�ntr �o e�•° o =�' of • ° i 0 °�,- • o o.. o• i I - ----�__- ,�j��o"�,� •? o°��-c \\h r ��i. ark ° -� ,`_Il� � - 14. 23 ci ° '/•� 1 B -- 9M'2.` ? o 0 m5Trailer •= — 2 iI a�I 1 �G7 dl te I - rradenl , Packll EW 7 bstat ion Source: USGS:7:5' Quad - New ort Beach/Seal Beach CA h FIGURE .4.3.1 SCALE IN FEET ' 0 1000 2000 VANTAGEc'POINT LOCATION MAP 1C36126790:AS " La r 4 � J FIGURE 4.3.2 �sa 7/10/90:AS VANTAGE POINT 1 'j. y FIGURE 4.3.3 Lsa > sons VA GE P �>o T IT 2� NA ON �1 ri �► ii MW Jim w- o lm sm M I" m MIAPT, �. J r ".,p�fµp�y r } :N _ .,w r - - FIGURE 4.3.4 �sa 7,,o/so:ns VANTAGE POINT 3 } r ` r FFF ....� of F+"'•My",+'"�'"'' :t '�"afi c' + '� 4 i Flra a �._.. � 9 �f -c" V", I— lk C', '.:.....� 1..').'da..-.fdi... ....' "r 'f ... ..+..a.......�..s..v..+w..+....; .:3'.sw.... ...'�N'aa ...... ...... FIGURE 4.3.5 sa > >o ./90.AS VANTAGE POINT 4 / , rF x� '. t J •>t 4d of { J {.'.�s .fir "„y a ��"k{Y.+rt�i$�u� '�J FrF t N:, �Y � J t t��'ij♦+�r�q@, aM "sEsa^`Hyv nr .„G M 'trY� '•i � rx- R G '" y "• t 5 t t � 4 t, ±-arr F r is +... wi' ' �.:. ...�_.�.�6i�•w..d...wi ,. .. ..d.,,._:�_x tlka . ..,..�.......,,..i.�...y 1�...'?k FIGURE 4.3.6 �sa 7/,O/9o:As VANTAGE POINT 5 e� s J f 'I 'I - ----- , ----------- - ---�,1 r' -------- -----^-------- LIFEGUARD HEADQUARTERS DWIGHTS J MAXWELLS0, EXISTING ELEVATION FROM P.C.H. EXISTING PIERSIDE PAVILION EXISTING HUNTINGTON PIER COLONY e 1121111111 61111 r I i� - _: �. - PIER MAXWELL'S PARKING LOT DWIGHT'S PARKING LOT LIFEGUARD HEADQUARTERS '4 EXISTING ELEVATION FROM BEACH t I Source: C.R. Carney Architects, Inc. ' 1 E IN APPROXIMATE SCALE FIGURE 4.3.7 MODIFICATION OF EXISTING VIEWS - LLsa 0 35 70 7/9190:GD CITY BEACH AND PCH l� !J in both directions will continue-to. have indirect views of. the beach/ocean and: pier along the entire length of the project. Also, the design chosen for the development complements the City , beach facilities- and the Downtown Specific. Plan area by providing an updated Mediterranean architectural style which blends` with the surrounding architecture..of existing, new .and proposed pro- jects. The project architecture is consistent with the Downtown Architectural t Design Guidelines on file in the City's Community Development Department. The design of the project provides increased viewing opportunities. to pedestrians travelling on the ocean side of PCH. Provision of plazas and two levels of promenade (one at the height of the adjacent pier and a second board- walk level just above the beach access road) in the project design, introduces additional areas for pedestrians to experience the natural visual amenities of the area- (Figure 4.3.8) . These -plazas and terraces will .be reached via eleva yl tors and walkways provided by the proposed project which provide increased access by elderly and handicapped persons. Currently, it is difficult for persons with physical disabilities to easily access the project area to experi- ence the beach area, especially with closure of the. pier to pedestrian traffic. Views of the ocean and pier from the view corridors will be retained through the project's two open air plazas. The project's architectural design incorporates staggered terraces which reduce blockage of ocean and pier views and provide elevated viewing decks from which enhanced view opportunities are available. Replacement of the existing Maxwell 's restaurant with proposed Building A will also result in the creation of a clear footprint for the cons- truction of the City Council approved Pier Plaza and improved views of the pier from PCH by expanding the field of vision at the PCH/Main Street intersection. This will be accomplished by removing the existing buildings which currently obstruct views of the pier from viewers travelling on PCH. City Beach. Existing views inland from the beach (on the sand) are dominated by the pier to the west, the Pierside Pavilion, Huntington Pier Colony and beach-oriented. retail to the north, existing on-site structures, such as Maxwell 's and Dwight's, and parking areas and landscaped slopes adja.-- cent to the parking areas- (Figure 4.3.8) . Figure 4._3-.7- illustrates_ the..com- parison between the location and height of the proposed project and the exist- ing -structures. The sol-id line outlines the proposed project and the dashed line outlines the maximum allowable development under the Downtown Specific Plan. As shown in Figure 4.3..7, implementation of the proposed project will not substantially alter the amount of area to the north which is currently visible from the City Beach. This is due to two factors: the project's height and the architectural design of the project. The height of all three proposed buildings in the project is approximately the same, as Maxwell 's restaurant, 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) 48- I�. IMP -mm" mi-W MI'M) AIMW 1*01-V *K 110- 1 *01, mv# I h ¢_. a d 0 O L y ` 0r a W z li_a..aa�_.a_a_a.d O O a "' < i C) PACIFIC COAST MGMWAY lurOK./g0 IMrC"Y --j 1�•LAi KYmO 0-- 11111111111111U ng .0 I 1 I r r I - - -� euaolHGr A I � I' WOM4 maple � ewLarlG a % a:. ew� NGc� � 1 ' rnmw r wmro IT SCALE I.N FEET mum■oi Plaza Level View Opportunities FIGURE 4.3.8 00000 Beach Level'View Opportunities 0 50 100 PEDESTRIAN VIEW OPPORTUNITIES Lsa 116/29/90:K 11 F 1 r" i I thus maintaining the existing building height on-site but multiplying the bulk. Also, the architectural design of the buildings incorporates wide view plazas or corridors between each building and staggered terraces, plazas and retail areas within each structure that provide views to the north. f� Implementation of the project will not encroach on existing views of the .pier from the beach. Building A is separated from the Pier by a 150 foot wide beach level Pier Plaza, and utilizes a stepped back profile. The other struc- tures are primarily single story with limited second story elements which are J within the approved height limits of the site. From the beach these buildings are dominated by the four-story Pierside Pavilion and Colony, which are located across PCH. The promenade is equal to the height of the Pier and blends with the total viewscape in this area. View Corridors. Lake Street is designated a "Landscape Corridor" ; in the City's General Plan and is considered an important downtown street, providing visual connection to the shoreline. However, Lake Street's potential as a "Landscape Corridor" has been reduced by termination of Orange and Atlanta Avenues, thus limiting the continuity of Lake Street between Pecan and Orange Avenues. The Lake Street View Corridor, identified in Figure 4.3.9, will not be affected by the proposed project, due to its location east of the project. The landscape plan for the proposed project will reduce any potential visual impacts at Lake Street due to the project. Figure 4.3.9 also illustrates other view corridors in the vicinity of the proposed project. These corridors provide the public opportunities to see the i- City Beach/Municipal Pier area. Although Lake Street is the only view corridor required on this site, the proposed plan provides view corridors from Second, Third and Main Street as well . The shaded triangles designated in Figure 4.3.9 illustrate the only areas where views of the pier and beach will be totally ob- structed. Persons standing outside the area of these triangles will have views of the ocean and beach between the buildings. As shown in Figure 4.3.9, the Main Street and Second Street View Corridors are currently dominated by Maxwell 's and Dwight's restaurants, respectively. With implementation of the project, visibility within these Corridors will be enhanced through removal of the obstructing structures and placement of proposed structures outside these corridors. Light and Glare. An increase in the amounts of light and glare will be . experienced by adjacent land uses and roadways resulting from the project. This is due to the addition of on-site safety lighting and reflecting building 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) so i i 1 0 IL v { o a _ �P. ICI i. I i • I 4 e n G P v t7 d tl _� - Pacut.c Coast t•lway r C . 1 r arm,n was C-� r—• wm w went .!-1 { f .... ... i �r w r w r.+w c I .at' tr'A/M Existing Max ell's .. . ..... • . II i . Exlstln Owlpht..4 . ... ................... .........._.................. ...... 1 1 I SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 4.3.9 0 50 100 ® 6/26/90:AS VIEW ^ORRI®GP3 windows. Existing residential units within the Huntington- Pier Colony Commun- ity may be particularly affected by the addition of these on-site light sourc- es. Implementation of measures such as shielded lighting fixtures, use of nonreflective building materials and placement of reflective materials in re- cessed or shaded areas will reduce impact to below the level of significance. Shade and Shadow. Shade/shadow impacts are assessed by evaluating the shadow limits during the summer and winter solstices. This evaluation presents the best and worst case shadows cast during these periods. The winter solstice is generally associated with worst case shadows. Sun angle during the winter solstice is responsible for casting the longest shadows of the year, with peak shadows occurring shortly after sunrise and before sunset. In the project vicinity, existing and proposed uses considered sensitive to the effects of shade and shadow include beach users (i .e. , sun bathers) and1, future residents in the Huntington Pier Colony residential development, located on the north side of PCH across from the project. Development of the proposed project would result in buildings up to a maximum of two stories above the level of the pier. The . site design. proposed for the buildings would result in a staggered placement of buildings across the site which would reduce any contained shadow effects among the buildings. Architectural features proposed for the buildings would break up the building mass to further reduce shadow effects. Shadows during the winter solstice would be limited to areas to the north of the site, away from the beach area. Due to the heights of proposed build- ings, these shadows are not anticipated to significantly affect the Huntington Pier Colony development. Shadows during the summer-i solsticewould likely affect portions of the beach adjacent to the project, but the longest shadows would be in the early morning and late afternoon, thus reducing impacts to sunbathers. In summary, no significant effects related to shade and shadow are iden- tified for the proposed project due to the heights, design, and location of the proposed buildings in relation to sensitive receptors. 4.3.3 Mitigation Measures The following measures shall be included into the project design to mini- mize the aesthetic impact of the project. It should be noted that the chosen project design and architectural style currently incorporates measures to reduce impacts on viewshed quality. 07/24/90(P1R0001\SECT4-3.E1R) 52 y�, • Prior to issuance of---a building -permit-, a lighting plan shall be, submitted to the .Director, Planning Division or his designee for his approval by the project- proponent. In order to reduce. light and glare impacts on the Huntington Pier Colony residential commun- ity to the north, the plan shall incorporate the use of lighting fixtures which shield extraneous light from adjacent land- uses by directing light upon the activity they are associated with, and shall promote the use of nonreflective building materials and. re- cession or shading of areas where reflective materials are to be used. • Prior to issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Director, Planning Division, or' his designee for his approval by the project proponent. The plan shall incorporate . appropriate landscape materials that enhance the visual quality of the area and meet the State and City standards for developments adjacent to State. Scenic Highways and City "landscape-corridors". 4.3.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation The obstruction of direct views of the. Ocean/Pier viewshed from certain 1_ocations along PCH by the . new buildings cannot be mitigated. However,. the Project design reduces this obstruction to a minimum through the use of view corridors at Second, Third .and Main Streets and the utilization of reduced . bui-lding'sil'houettes. Pedestrian views, however, are enhanced by the creation of substantial new view opportunities along the ocean side of the project and from within the new :buildings. Roof terrace and second story dining areas would create elevated ocean view panoramas for the first time on this s-ite. The boardwalk and promenade would provide a new beach level vantage -point for pedestrians away from parked automobiles and users of the bicycle path/beach access road. Direct views from the. traffic lanes on PCH would be negatively impacted. Pedestrian views from. within the project would be significantly enhanced. �f S 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECU-3.EIR) 53 5.0 ALTERNATIVES �. Pursuant to CEQA, the SEIR must assess a reasonable range of alternatives to the project action or location (Section 15126(d)]. The discussion must focus" on opportunities for eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects, or reducing them to a level of insignificance . . .even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objec- tives, or would be more costly. . . ." (Section 15126(d)(3)] . The EIR must iden- tify an environmentally superior alternative among other alternatives. As with cumulative impacts, the discussion of alternatives is governed by the "rule of -� reason". The EIR need not consider an alternative that is not reasonable, or does not contribute to an informed decision making process. The purpose of this section is to describe and evaluate a range of rea- sonable and feasible alternatives to the proposed project, and to determine 1� whether any alternative may eliminate or reduce to a level of insignificance adverse impacts associated with the proposed site development. This SEIR uses as its base EIR 82-2, certified as adequate by the City � Council , as addressing environmental effects of the Downtown Specific Plan. The SEIR addressed the full range of environmental concerns for redevelopment of the pier area, PCH corridor adjacent to downtown and the downtown core itself. EIR 82-2 contemplated the impacts of up to 75,000 square feet of development on the proposed project •site. As submitted to the City, the Pier- side Restaurants proposal currently consists of three restaurants and auxiliary uses comprising a total of 56,000 square feet. Land use, housing, population_ " and other environmental concerns associated with selection of land uses and build out of redeveloped parcels in the Downtown area, and on the project site, have been addressed previously in EIR 82-2 and Downtown Specific Plan delibera- tions. The decision to allow 75,000 square feet of commercial uses on the subject property was the first step in the entitlement process. The specific proposal for 56,000 square feet of restaurant uses for the site is consistent , with the earlier decisions of the Council for ultimate use of the property. i Off-site alternatives are not considered since this is a Supplemental EIR. Only on-site alternatives are considered. The alternatives analysis considers a reasonable range of alternatives consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and Local Coastal Plan which have previously been approved. The analysis of alternatives in this SEIR reflects the CEQA process of tiering, in order to allow agencies to focus on specific effects of a project previously analyzed in broader EIRs. This approach is appropriate when pro- gressing from an EIR on a specific action at an early stage (FEIR No. 82-2) to 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) 54 ^ a:suppl ement to an EIR at.. a l ater-stage (SEIR° No. 90-2) . In this'manner; the Lead, Agency can focus' on the issues which are ripe for discussion .and exclude from consideration issues already decided.: (CEQA.Section 15385), FEIR" No. 82-2 was certified by the .City_ as-: adequate, and provides analy- sis of project alternatives. FEIR No. 82-2 met CEQA requirements for alterna- tives analysis. Described below are three alternatives to the currently proposed project; one is the No Project Alternative .as required by CEQA, and the other two are design alternatives. As described above, other alternatives have been ade- quately addressed. Summary of Alternatives Three alternative projects have. been developed to provide the decision makers with a range of alternatives to, the- proposed project. These alterna- tives include: 1. No Project; 1 2. Conversion of the site to open space uses; 3. Preservation of Maxwell 's Restaurant structure plus addition of two restaurants. The following section compares the impacts of each of the project alter- natives to those of the J ro project. proposed P 5.1 No Project The No Project Alternative envisions the continuation of present uses on the- site. The existing Maxwell 's. Restaurant, parking lot and lifeguard . j headquarters would all remain. Comparison of Impacts. The following section compares. the impacts of the No Project. Alternative to those of the proposed project. Traffic. Traffic generation for the no .project would remain the same as under current conditions. Increases in localized traffic due to the larger Pierside Restaurants project would not occur. Historical Resources. Under the No Project Alternative, the im- pacts of the proposed project to Maxwell 's Restaurant would not occur. The potentially historic building would be preserved in place. Note that selection 07/24/9001 R0001\SECT4-3.EIR) 55 of this alternative would require commitment to a long-range rehabilitation �. plan for the building, given its current condition. No source of funding has been identified for this rehabilitation. Visual Impacts. Existing views from the site and from PCH would remain unchanged with the No Project Alternative; however, the widening of the view corridor at the Main Street/PCH intersection would not be achieved, nor would the new pedestrian vantage points on the roof decks, promenades and boardwalk be provided. On the other hand, negative impacts to direct views caused by the new construction would be avoided. Compatibility With City Objectives. The No Project Alternative is incom- patible with the following City objectives for the project: 1. The No Project Alternative does not maximize the approved Downtown Specific Plan and Local Coastal Plan as they apply to the site. 2 The No Project Alternative would not provide a footprint for the City's proposed Plaza at the foot of the Huntington Beach Pier. 3. The No Project Alternative would not provide additional restaurant and commercial facilities appropriate for the beach going public. 4. The No Project Alternative would not provide additional sales tax revenue to the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The No Project Alternative would not provide improved access to the beach and bicycle path, as the proposed project would. The No Project Alternative would achieve the City's objective of pre- serving the existing public parking opportunities and would avoid the impacts to the viewshed caused by the construction of the new buildings. Summary. The No Project Alternative reduces impacts to parking, traffic and viewsheds, from those identified for the proposed project. While it does not enhance existing view opportunities, it does preserve an historic structure and is in sum, therefore, an environmentally superior alternative and should remain under consideration. 1 ` 5.2 Open Space and Recreation Alternative This alternative envisions removal of all existing uses on the site, including Maxwell 's Restaurant, the parking lot and the lifeguard station, and 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.E1R) 56 grading. the site- into an.. open space condition with minor public recreation amenities including: passive grass lawn-areas for picnics, benches, and -tables; a- boardwalk for pedestrian access across the site; and- small children's play area Comparison of Impacts. The following section compares the impacts of the open space alternative to those of the proposed project. Traffic and Parking. The open space alternative would result in the reduction in localized traffic generation due to removal of the restaurant and parking uses from the site. However, . this alternative would create a demand for additional parking spaces in the vicinity of the site to accommodate vehicles that formerly parked on the site for beach usage-. The Open Space Alternative would require additional parking to be identified to offset loss of public. parking. Historic Resources. The open space . alternative would have the same impacts to .Maxwell 's Restaurant, a potentially historic structure and �) community historic resource, as the preferred alternative (i .e.., the. potential- ly historic structure would be demolished).. Visual Impacts. The open space alternative, through the removal of existin structures located on the coast side of Pacific Coast Highway, would 9 9 Y� increase direct .views from PCH to the beach and ocean. Like the No Project Alternative, however, no new pedestrian vantage points would be created. Furthermore, removal of all. structures would increase the visual presence of traffic on PCH to visitors on the beach, but would allow views from the ocean and sand into other sections of the City.'s downtown development area, princi- pally the four story- Pier.side Pavilion and Colony. Compatibility With Protect Objectives . The following section compares the open space alternative to the project objectives identified by the City: 1. The Open Space -Alternative is incompatible with the objective of implementing ahe Downtown Specific Plan and Local--Coastal - Plan, as they 'apply to the site. 2. The Open Space Alternative could provide a cleared footprint for the City's proposed Plaza at the foot of Huntington Beach Pier. 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) 57 3. The Open Space Alternative would reduce current sales tax revenues generated to the City of Huntington Beach. 4. Depending upon how the Alternative was refined, it could provide improved access to the beach. 5. The Alternative would result in the removal of existing public parking spaces on the site, and is therefore incompatible with the goal of preserving -those spaces and- expanding parking availability in the downtown/pier area. Feasibility. It should be noted that the Open Space Alternative raises serious questions of feasibility. Currently, Maxwell 's Restaurant retains a 35 year lease from the City for the restaurant site. In order to implement this alternative, the City would have to buy out Maxwell 's lease. Given the appar- ent success of Maxwell 's as a restaurant, such a lease termination could result - in significant expense to the City. Additionally, there is no financing mech- anism in place to fund site clearing and open space improvements. The actual amount has not been calculated. Summary. The Open Space and Recreation Alternative would displace the existing parking and increase the parking demand in the area surrounding the site. While this alternative would remove obstructions to the viewshed on PCH, it would not accomplish the new view opportunities or preserve existing ones. Finally, it would require the removal of an historic structure. Therefore, it is not environmentally superior to the proposed project and need not remain under consideration. 5.3 Preservation of Maxwell 's Restaurant Alternative This alternative was developed in order to preserve the structure in which Maxwell 's Restaurant is currently located. Because of the structure's potential historical importance, preservation and historic rehabilitation of the structure may be a desirable alternative to some segments of the Community. This modification to the proposed project is accomplished by removing building A from the proposed project site plan, and maintaining the structure in which Maxwell 's restaurant is currently located. The plaza between buildings "A" and "B" on the proposed site plan would be expanded into the area previously occupied by building A. The total square feet and potential uses of the site , would remain approximately the same as those shown for the proposed project. 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECU-3.EIR) 58 Cgmparison. of.. Impacts Traffic. This, alternative- would -have- approximately the same, traf-' fic. impacts as the_proposed project.. However; access to.. the site_. and the. configuration of the entry at the head of the pier would have to be analyzed. Parking requirements would remain approximately the same. However, construc- tion of the parking facility would be greatly complicated by the need to avoid ' and shore up the foundation footings of the existing structure. Parking capac- ity and circulation woul.d be impacted and would have to be redesigned.. ✓� Historic Resources. This alternative would result in the preserva- tion of the Maxwell 's Restaurant,. a potentially historic structure, .on the site. In the long term, this alternative would require a major rehabilitation of the Maxwell 's structure according to historic rehabilitation guidelines'. Due to the current condition of the building, potentially expensive rehabilita- tion is required. Additionally, such rehabilitation would require the coopera- tion of the tenant and would--interfere with the existing operation. Reimburse- ment for business interruption would be an expense the amount of which is not . currently known. Visual - Impacts.' This alternative` would have different visual impacts from that of the proposed project. While approximately the same amount of partial views from Pacific Coast Highway to the beach would be available, the nature of those views would change. First, given its present location, Maxwel.l 's Restaurant would preclude creation of the currently approved pier plaza concept because it is located within the footprint of the pier plaza. However, other plaza designs could be investigated. In any event, preservation of the Maxwell 's building would result in a restriction of potential views at the foot of the Huntington Beach- Pier. This would constrict views to and from the Main Street - PCH intersection. Visual connection desired for downtown would be limited without the open plaza. In addition, the proposed project is architecturally compatible with the balance of the downtown redevelopment pro-- ject.: Unless the exterior of Maxwell 's is , extensively changed, Maxwell 's would. remain architecturally incompatible with the: balance of. the Downtown Redevelopment Project and the balance of the proposed : Pierside.- Restaurant project. , If Maxwell's is , rehabilitated according to the Department of the Interior's Historic Rehabilitation Guidelines, the structure would be compatible with the existing pier, and proposed new pier design. Compatibility With Project Objectives The following section compares the compatibility of the preservation alternative with the City objectives for the project: 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) 59 1. The preservation alternative is compatible with the Downtown Speci- fic Plan and the Local Coastal Plan, as they apply to the site. _ 2. The preservation alternative would not provide a cleared footprint t for the City's proposed plaza at the foot of Huntington Beach Pier. The preservation alternative would not create the public promenade across the ocean side of the Maxwell 's. 3. The preservation alternative would provide restaurants and commer- cial facilities appropriate for the beach going public. 4. The preservation alternative would provide sales tax revenue to the City of Huntington Beach, similar to the proposed project. 5. The preservation alternative would provide the same improved access ' to the beach by the public as is offered by the proposed project. 6. The preservation alternative would subject to some design costs and capacity impacts preserve existing public parking opportunities in the same manner as the proposed project. Summary. The Preservation of Maxwell 's Restaurant Alternative would be incompatible with three key City objectives: 1) creation of the currently proposed pier plaza at the foot of the pier, 2) development and expansion of pedestrian view opportunities along the front of the existing Maxwell 's loca- tion, and 3) creation of an architecturally cohesive project on the pierside site. However, this alternative has reduced impacts to an historical structure while maintaining traffic and parking impacts similar to the proposed project, and, therefore, should remain under consideration. I 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) 60 ' 6:0' GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS_- " The City ofAyntington-Beach is providing development incentives for the economic growth of""the- Community. Through the activities of the City'-s Rede- velopment Agency, and with the normal market factors at play in the community. and Orange County as a whole, the coastal/downtown sectors of Huntington 'Beach are expected to attract new development. The Redevelopment Agency's Five Year Plan, circulated September 25, 1987, identifies its redevelopment goals, objec- tives, and activities for the next five ears. As the report indicates, the Y City/Agency is responsible for providing 344 new units of affordable" housing, and over 1,200,000 square feet of new commercial/retail space accounting for an estimated 3,800 new jobs over the past five years citywide (Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, 1987) . For the Main-Pier Redevelopment area (336 acres), the City and Redevelopment Agency have approved or have proposals for a number of significant projects, as noted in Section 7.0, Cumulative Impacts. Completion of the.•-proposed Piersi de; Restaurants will accomplish the objectives that the Redevelopment Agency has for the property. The project will also accomplishl provision of additional parking for downtown, and beach access and provide a footprint. for the completion of the City Council approved Pier Plaza. The project will' provide inducements to growth in three areas. First, the project will promote further development of .the Main Pier Redevelopment Project area. However,- this area will continue to grow due to the existence of the Downtown Specific Plan and other land use planning approvals which provide the blue print for development. in the area. As can be seen from the discussion of the Five Year Plan above and, the approved/proposed developments, the City will be accommodating a growth pattern aimed at substantially increasing devel- opment opportunities in downtown. Second, the project will be accomplishing City objectives and policies of the Downtown Specific Plan- by: provision of additional parking for downtown _ retail and beach "access. Development of the Main-Pier Redevelopment area, and the subject." property, will . cause pressure . on these adjacent properties to redevelop to higher-and better uses or upgrade the existing uses. The overall effect of these changes- is well documented in EIR 82-2 and subsequent -planning and redevelopment documents for -the downtown area. The Downtown Specific Plan and subsequent redevelopment plans adopted by the City and Redevelopment Agency best characterize this development trend, and are herewith incorporated in this discussion. The cumulative effects of this development trend will be to increase traffic, increase demands .for services and demands for water, electri- cal , sewerage and phone provision. All of these increases, expected incre- 07j24/90(P1R0001\SECT4-3.E1R) 61 i �i mental over the next decade and beyond, are anticipated' in the City's General Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, the Circulation plans for the City and ser- vice provider's plans. This cumulative level of development is anticipated by the City and other responsible agencies, and is reflected in the Southern California Association of Governments SCAG forecasts and projections. � ) P J I 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) 62 I 70 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS`; The Pierside: Restaurants.project is..a part of a larger effort to rehabil- itate and revitalize Downtown Hunting.ton. Beach. In November, 1987, the City Council recommended a Master Plan for devel- oping the beach area north of the City pier. Subsequent to th.is action, the State Department of Recreation adopted a general. plan for the area which includes a tiered parking structure, a. passive park and beach related conces- �, sions. In 1986, the City approved a tourist oriented shopping plaza at the south side of the City pier. Subsequent to the granting of those approvals, the Developer and-Agency agreed to shift redevelopment towards a village orien- tation and reduce the density, or intensity of development on the site. The currently proposed plan is reflective of that effort and change in direction. In late 1986 the CitY adopted. the Main Pier Redevelopment Master Plan.. . P The.'plan is a .schematic land use plan. which plots new projects in a redevelop ment. scenario. The plan specifies development for individual lots, implement- ing most of the Downtown Specific Plan, and making some. shifts of development intensity from one subarea to another. The Master Plan and proposed projects below account- for the - cumulative.. project's considered. Each project's size, location, and relationship to the project i-s discussed below. Pierside Restaurants. The proposed project consists of 56,000 square feet with 575 to 635 parking spaces. Main Pier Phase I. A 90,000 square foot entertainment complex is being constructed north of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Second - !� Street. This mixed use project will include &.,-six-plex movie theater, 6,000 square foot nightclub, commercial and office space, and 130 condominium units. The project will provide 300 parking spaces in two subterranean levels. The parking will partially accommodate the theaters, offices-, and retail uses. The. remainder of needed parking will be provided by the 200 .block parking structure. . Parking. for the residential units will be provided in a separate subterranean structure. The residential parking will be: separated from- the commercial parking. Resident and guest -parking-will be provided- on-site. Town Square. This approved mixed-use complex is currently under constru- ction. It is bounded by Orange Avenue, Sixth Street, and Main Street. The proposed project. will have 10,000 square feet of commercial space and 80 resi- dential units: 73 stacked, flats and 16 townhomes. On-site parking will be 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECU-3.EIR) 63- provided for all residential units in subterranean parking structures. Commer- cial parking will be available on Main Street and south of Orange Avenue in a proposed municipal parking lot. Demonstration Bock. The J ro proposed project would allow for the rehabili- tation P tation or new construction of all existing structures on the block bound by Olive Avenue, Fifth Street, Walnut Avenue, and Main Street. The intent of the project is to ensure all buildings are seismically safe and to upgrade existing architectural facades into conformance with related projects being developed in the downtown area. The project will also implement lighting, landscaping, and signage consistent with adjacent proposed projects. The maximum square footage on the block would be approximately 124,000 square feet of mixed retail/office. Currently, there are approximately $3,000 existing square feet of mixed retail/ office. North of Pier Parking Structure. This approved, project consists of a_ proposed subterranean parking structure on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway, adjacent to the municipal pier. It will include restroom facilities, community facility (surf museum) and beach accessway. It will contain approxi- mately 800 parking spaces. Third Block West. Tentative -plans for the proposed project call for a mix of parking and commercial uses. One objective of the project is to provide additional spaces far the downtown area. The project is located on the block bound by Olive Avenue, Orange Avenue, Main Street and 5th Street. RFPs have been distributed. Preliminary plans call for a 27,000 square foot overall retail office including market, 30,000 to 35,000 square foot mixed retail/ office, a 200 space parking structure, and 68 residential units. Parking StructurelRetail 200 Block Main Street. This approved project, currently under construction, is located on the east side of Main Street bounded by Olive Avenue, 3rd Street and Walnut Avenue. It will consist of 32,073 square feet of commercial and office uses and approximately 838 parking spaces in a five-level parking structure. The structure will provide addition- al parking spaces for the downtown area. Heritage Square. Heritage Square is a tentatively proposed project by the City that may not be implemented for five. to ten years. The intent of the project is to preserve existing historic buildings and allow for the relocation of other historically significant buildings in the City to the 300 block. The project site is bounded by Olive Avenue, Main Street, Orange Avenue, and Third Street. The project will include the rehabilitation of the Post Office located on the northeast corner of Main Street and Olive Avenue. 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) 64 , 1 Huntington-Bayshore. Huntington, Rayshorcis a 159"unit residential condo- 'min.ium project. Construction started in- November, 1987, and the project is completed.- The project is located in the northern downtown district. bound by. Alabama Street, Lake Street, Orange Avenue, Atlanta Avenue and Frankfurt. , Art CenteriLibrary Rehabilitation. The council has authorized acquisi- tion of this .site for use as an art center. This- site is located at. the south- east corner of Main Street and Acacia .Avenue. The project.' also includes the -rehabilitation of the existing library on the. adjacent block southwest of the proposed art center. Main Pier Phase II. Main Pier Phase TI 'encompasses two blocks bounded by Main Street, Pacific Coast Highway., 6th -Street and Walnut Avenue. The commer- cial block bounded by Main Street, Pacific Coast Highway, 5th -Street and. Walnut Avenue will contain approximate.ly. 140,000 .square feet of mixed retail/office and parking. The residential block, bounded by 6th Street, Walnut Avenue, 5th Street and Pacific Coast Highway, will contain 103 condominiums and residential parking. Approval is expected 1991. 100 Block East (Main Pier Phase I Annexj. Main and Walnut property owners may rehabilitate with added square footage or demolish and rebuild, pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan. Total maximum build out is approxi- mately 50,000 square feet of mixed commercial/office. Processing is' concurrent with Main-Pier Phase II. These figures include all districts within the Downtown Specific Plan area, including the proposed project site, and are considered maximum allowable ` I densities. These figures are consistent with 'the provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan and the environmental analysis done in EIR-82-2. There have been some shifts between categories since adoption of the Specific Plan which do not affect overall intensity or environmental effects. EIR 82-2 addresses the overall impacts. of the Downtown Specific Plan, and determined that increased. intensity of development and the number of increased residences would not overburden the infrastructure or land carrying. capacity. It is clear that land development of"the intensity and scope of the proposed project are intended by the-Downtown Specific Plan and Local ,Coastal Plan for this area., and that City plans fully anticipate this level of development. Areawide development, in line with redevelopment trends contemplated, are in accordance with the City's T ' General Plan and regional growth projections of SCAG (based on City and County projections) . 07/24/90(P1R0001\SECT4-3.E1R) 6 5 Traffic and parking capacity (with the proposed additional on-site park- , ing and circulation improvements), the Pierside Restaurants development and other nearby projects in the Downtown Specific Plan show no significant cumula- tive effects on the local parking and circulation system. Visual and aesthetic impacts are project specific and tied to the subject property and immediate environments. Other development along PCH and in the balance of the Downtown Specific Plan area is along a linear area and will not cumulatively affect properties to the north or the beach area. With the addi- tion of the restrictive covenant in place on the City Beach and property on the ocean side of PCH, the beach atmosphere and open space qualities of the beach will not be affected by development outside District 10 in the Downtown- Specif- ic Plan, or cumulative loss of visual/aesthetic .resources beyond project ef- fects already described. 07/24/90(P1R0001\SECU-3.E1R) 66 t, 8e0 IRREVERSIBLE:,AND`_-IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTAF RESOURCES The environmental changes produced by the implementation of the project: would-occur mainly as a result of the: intensification of the project area. Implementation of the proposed project would entail the commitment of material. resources; energy resources and human resources. This commitment of energy, personnel and building materials would be commensurate with that of other projects of similar magnitude. Ongoing- maintenance of the project site by the occupants would entail further commitment of energy resources in the form of natural gas and electricity generated by coal , hydro-electric power or nuclear energy. This commitment would continue to be a long-term obligation in view- of -the fact that it is generally infeasible to 'return the land to its original condition once it has been developed. 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) 6 7 r 9.0 RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY CEQA requires that an EIR describe the cumulative and long-term effects +� of the proposed project which adversely affect the environment. Special atten- tion should be given to impacts which narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long-term risks (Section 15126 CEQA Guidelines). The project has cumulative effects as described in the Cumulative Impacts Section of this report. Other long-term effects are discussed in EIR 82-2. There are no other long-term effects which pose risks to human health that are not fully mitigated.. The aesthetic and visual impacts of the project may continue to affect enjoyment of the beach area by some, but will also enhance use of the area by adding new parking and view opportunities, and by providing additional visitor and community services and facilities. Long-term enhancement of opportunities to use the beach/ocean and general coastal amenities will result, due to in- creased access to the beach area through the addition of elevators and full landings access, and the expansion of the size and number of stair and other accessways over the existing conditions. . Through the improved public spaces, plaza and promenades, the project will provide for increased opportunities for visitors to use visitor the oriented facilities of the project. 1 1 1 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-L EIR) 68 i, 100 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION:MEASURES Thee-following;mitigation measures_have' been identified to.reduce.project impacts. Historic Resources.' The preferred alternative in terms of preserving the historic resource value of the structure would be accomplished by: Avoidance i .e. leaving the structure ' in lace rather than ° � 9 P demolition. The building has potential for restoration to its former appear- ance, and the. feasibility of rehabilitation of the structure should be. investigated. A qualified historic architect would be required to provide such an assessment. A list of qualified historic archi tects is maintained by the California Office of Historic Preserva-. tion. This could be accomplished by redesign of the project, and_ incorporation of the rehabilitated Pavilion building into the re- vised project. Guidelines for rehabilitation are found in ..the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guide- lines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1983), and Standards for Historic Preservation Projects with Guidelines for Applying the Standards (1985) . • If demolition is unavoidable, then it is recommended that the his- tory and architecture of the building be fully recorded to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) . Guide- lines and format, specifications for .HABS are available from the National Park. Service,!.-..Western Regional Office, in San Francisco. HABS documentation includes the preparation of a detailed histori- cal narrative, and 'complete graphic documentation of the building through large format photography. Historic photographs and build- ing plans are also reproduced for the HABS record, which ultimately is curated at the Library of Congress. S.ince the.. significance of the building is historical rather than architectural , emphasis ' would be placed-on the historical narrative; and"would require oral history in addition to archival records to capture the historical significance of the Pavilion to the social history of the City of Huntington Beach. • In addition to documentation. to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey, it .is recommended that if the structure is demolished, its historical role be recognized by appropriate 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) 6 9 I • I means of memorialization. Memorialization could include such mea- sures as placement of a commemorative plaque on or near the site, development of an exhibit either on or off site (e.g. , at a local historical museum, public library, or City Hall), and/or develop- ment of a publication(s) interpreting the role of the Pavilion in the history of the City, prepared by a qualified historian. Traffic and Parking. None required. AestheticsfVisual Resources. The following measures shall be included into the project design to minimize the aesthetic impact of the project. It should be noted that the chosen project design and architectural style current- ly incorporates measures to reduce impacts on viewshed quality. • Prior to issuance of a building permit, a lighting plan shall be submitted to the Director, Planning Division or his designee for his approval by the project proponent. In order to reduce light and glare impacts on the Huntington Pier Colony residential commun- ity to the north, the plan shall incorporate the use of lighting fixtures which shield extraneous light from adjacent land uses by directing light upon the activity they are associated with, and shall promote the use of nonreflective building materials and re- cession or .shading of areas where reflective materials are to be used. • Prior to issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Director, Planning Division, or his designee for his approval by the project proponent. The plan shall incorporate appropriate landscape materials that enhance the visual quality of the area and meet the State and City standards for developments adjacent to State Scenic Highways and City "landscape corridors". 1 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECU-3.E1R) 70 , 1-1:0 'SIGNIFICANT'UNAVOIDABLE -ADVERSE'IMPACTS` Implementation of the proposed project would require mitigation. of im- pacts as described in the individual EIR sections and in Chapter 10-, In all cases, environmental impacts directly related to the project can be mitigated. to a level of insignificance at the project level . Section 15065 of .the CEQA Guidelines states that the Lead Agency (City of Huntington Beach) shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment whereby certain conditions are thought to occur. In the case of this project, this condition focuses on cumulative impacts where "the project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively: considerable." Two cumulative impacts have been identified as being significant and unmitigatable to below a level of significance. These impacts are as follows: • Loss of- a historical resource (structure housing Maxwell 's- Restau-- rant) . • Partial obstruction of direct views of the Ocean/Pier viewshed. The historical assessment concluded that the structure housing Maxwell 's Restaurant, despite previous physical modifications, is' considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. If demolition is- unavoidable., par- tial mitigation would be accomplished by recordation of the history and archi- tecture of building to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey and memorialization in the form of a plaque or exhibit. However, this would not mitigate impacts to below a level of significance. The obstruction of direct views of the Ocean/Pier viewshed from certain . # locations along PCH by proposed new buildings is minimized by the site design which 1) provides view Corridors at Second, Third, and Main Streets, and 2) utilizes reduced building silhouettes. In addition, pedestrian views would be enhanced by the project. However, visual impacts associated with obstruction of Ocean/Pier views from PCH cannot be mitigated to- below a level of* signifi- cance. ' 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3:EIR) 71 12.0 REFERENCES City of Huntington Beach. 1981. Final EIR 81-1 - Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue Office Commercial complex. City of Huntington Beach. 1982. Final EIR 82-2 - Downtown Specific Plan. City of Huntington Beach General Plan. 1984. !` City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Five Year Plan. 1987. City of Huntington Beach. 1989. Final EIR 89-8 - Huntington Beach Pier Reconstruction. LSA Associates, Inc. 1988. Seasonal Variations in Pacific Coast Highway r Traffic Volumes. April 6. Greer and Company. 1987. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Pierside Develop- r ment Project. 07/24/90(PIR0001\SEC74-3.EIR) 72 APPENDIX A-: . NOTICE_ OF�-PREPARATI.ON-AND INITIAL STUDY ■ 07/24/90MR0001\SECT4-3 EIR) City of Huntingt , 2000 MAIN STREET IA 2�8 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DE OPM `� 119gU 9 80� 1 Building Division 536-5241 36 Planning Division 536-5271 'May 21, . 1990 .p. cr SUBJECT.: NOTI.CE 'OF PREPARATION- OF A- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' REPORT Dear Interested Parties : The City of Huntington Beach will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. rdb _ o know- the views of your agency as to the scope and . conterit. of the environmental information which is germane to your agency' s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project-. The project description, location, and probable- environmental effects- are contained in the attached materials . A copy of the Initial Study is attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at- the earliest possible. date but not later than 3-0 days after receipt of this notice. - Please send your response to Laura Phillips, Associate Planner, at the address shown above: We will need the name of a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Pierside Restaurant Development - Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2. Project Description: The project includes the demolition of .one building (Maxwell ' s restaurant) and construction of a total of 56, 000 square feet of commercial buildings . The plaza level. will include three (3) new restaurant buildings . One . of these buildings- will house. a relocated Maxwell ' s restaurant, while the other two buildings will house 2 to 3 new restaurants . These structures. total 40, 000 square feet. An additional 16, 000 square feet will be added on the lower level and will include a casual restaurant and beach related concessions . Two levels of subterranean parking will be provided in addition . to surface parking' for a total of` 575 spaces . Notice of Preparation Page Two Project Description: There will be no building encroachment onto (con' t) the existing bike trail or sand areas . The proposal will also allow for sale of alcoholic beverages and live entertainment at the major restaurants . P.roject Location: The approximately 3 . 5 acre project site is located southeast of the intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway, on the existing Maxwell ' s restaurant site and the adjacent parking lot, in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California. Project Applicant : Jonathan P. Chodos/Pierside Restaurant Development, 306 Third Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14 , - Sections 15082(a) , 15103 , 15375 . Sincerely, . Laura Phillips Associate Planner LP:kj 1 (5801d) '� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 1. Name of Proponent Jonathan- P. Chodos/Pierside Restaurant Development Address 306 Third Street - Hunt ington Beach, CA 92648 Phone Number (714) 960-9366 2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review May 16.• 1990 _ 3. Concurrent Entitlement(s) CUP.NO. 90-17, CDP NO.90-18, ORB NO. 90-12 4. Project Location Southeast of Pacific Coast Highway and the Huntington Beach Pier 5. Project Description. 56,000 square feet restaurant development including re located Maxwells and 2-3 new restaurants. Includes beach oriented food and concessions on boardwalk level . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.) Back round The project site is within the Downtown Specific Plan District 10. The Downtown Specific Plan along with EIR 82-2 was adopted in 1983. The EIR analysed the potential buildout of the Downtown area consistent with the plan, and analysed potential impacts in the areas of Geology, Soils, Seismicity, Biotic Resources, Land Use, Population, Circulation, Climate, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Archaeology, Public Health and Safety, Energy, Aesthetics, and Public Services and Utilities. The City will rely on.this document for a description'-of the environmental setting in each impact area, and. a general description of impacts associated with development of commercial uses in this District. EIR 82-2 is available for review by the public at the .Department. of Community Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. The. initial study will analyze the potential impacts of this.-specific project, as a higher degree of detail allows. Yes Maybe No 1•. Earth. Will the proposal result in: �. a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ x b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?- X C. Change in topographyround surface relief features? X 9 or 9 — — Yes Maybe No .� d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ _ X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ X _ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet. or lake? _ _ _X — g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, — — — — mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X Discussion: The proposal will result in displacement of soil as a result of construction of the subterranean parking structure. There will be no change, however, to the existing topographic feautres of the site. Wind erosion may increase slightly during the construction period. However, with mitigation measures requiring dust control, no significant impacts are anticipated. The proposal will not impact beach/sand areas because all construction will occur on the existing Maxwell Is site and the adjacent parking lot. The site is not located in a Special Earthquake Hazard Zone (Alquist—Priolo Special Study Zone), and therefore, no significant seismic impacts are anticipated. All buildings will be constructed to state and local standards for seismic safety. A soils report will be required prior to construction to assure that proper soils exist and proper soil preparation techniques are followed for development. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ _X— _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ _ X , C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ X Discussion: Ambient air quality may be slightly impacted by construction equipment emissions during construction. , However, with mitigation measures to require proper engine tuning, and given the prevailing winds which will quickly dissipate any emissions, no significant impacts are anticipated. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? _ _ X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? _ _ X C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ _ X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ _ X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ _ X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ X Environmental Checklist —2— (5835d) Yew Maybe No h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water i supplies? X i . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ X Discuss.ion: The project will_ not impact any surface water body. - Surface runoff will not be significantly•altered . ' because the site is already developed and paved. The site•is within the FP-3 Flood Hazard Zone. All development will be constructed in compliance with..the Standards of Construction for FP=3 zones as outl-ined in.Article 940 of •the. Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. No signigicant impacts- are anticipated. 4.. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any-species of. plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?- _ _ X ' b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature, unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ _ X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area; or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ _ X d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? _ _ X Discussion: The site is presently developed and paved, with landscaped areas. No native vegetation remains. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? _ _ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any.unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ _ X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ _ X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ _ X ' Discussion: The site is presently developed and paved, and does not represent habitat area for .any threatened or endangered species. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases• in existing noise levels? _ X.— b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ X Discussion: The proposal may somewhat increase day and night time noise levels due to increased numbers of restaurant patrons and cars on the site. There are no sensitive receptors (residences) within 100 feet of the site. Since most parking is located underground in subterranean parking stuctures, and the ambient noise level on the site is fairly high due to-Pacific Coast Highway and surrounding commercial uses, noise impacts in the surrounding area should not be perceived as significant'. The project should be conditioned so that live entertainment takes place inside the.buildings. Environmental Checklist —3— (5835d) YU Maybe No� 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ ` X 1 Discussion: The proposal may increase the amount of night lighting from that which currently exists on the site. However, the existing parking lot and restaurant incorporate night lighting, and a lighting plan will be required for the new development to assure that no light spillage occurs onto adjacent properties and rights—of—way. Therefore, any increase is not expected to be signigicant. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? _ _ X Discussion: The present land use includes a restaurant and parking area, as well as beach concessions. The planned land use for the area is pier—related commercial (Downtown Specific' Plan District 10) and the site is designated Visitor Serving Commercial on the General Plan Land Use Map. The proposal is consitent with the uses and standards of development currently allowed by the Downtown SpecificPlan. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? — _ X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ _ X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ _ X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ _ X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new off—site parking? — X _ •� C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ _ X . � e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ _ X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ X _ Discussion: Circulation on Pacific Coast Highway in the pier vicinity may be impacted by ingress and egress of vehicles from the project. Pedestrian circulation and parking demand should be assessed in conjunction with vehicle circulation. Further study is needed in order to determine the degree of significance and possible mitigation measures. Environmental Checklist —4— (5835d) YU Maybe _NQ' 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ _ X b. Police protection? _ _ X C. Schools? _ _ X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ _ X e. _ Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ _ X f: Other-governmental services? _ _ X Discussion: City Fire, Police and Public Works Departments have not indicated that increased services will be required as a result of the project. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy, or require the — development of sources of energy? X 16.. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ _ X b. Communication systems? _ X C. Water? _ _ X ,. d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ _ X e. Storm water drainage? _ _ X f. Solid waste and disposal? _ X Discussion: Utilities are available or can be made available to the site. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding-mental health)? _ _ X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site — — open to public view? X Environmental Checklist —5— (5835d) Yes Maybe No� Discussion: The proposal will result in the construction of two new buildings• (in addition to the one building to replace the existing Maxwell 's).. The buildings will block some public vistas from Pacific Coast Highway. View corridors will be provided through the buildings, however, and public access will be provided to the ocean side of the structures. Further study is needed to determine the significance of impacts. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? _ _ X Discussion: The proposal will not infringe on any existing recreational area. The sand area and bike trail will not be affected. ' 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ _ X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric — or historic building, structure, or object? X _ C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _ _ X Discussion: Maxwell 's Restaurant (319 Pacific Coast Highway) is located within an historic structure in Huntington Beach, which would be demolished as a result of the project. The 1988 Johnson—Heumann study prepared for the City assessed the building in terms of its potential National Register eligibility. The study rated the structure a 116", denoting that it does not appear to be individually eligible or-to b2 a contributor to a District, nor is it an outstanding example of an architectural style. However, the study notes that , additional research as to the local historic significance of the building may modify this rating. It is known that the structure is one of the few remaining commercial buildings from early Huntington Beach. Further assessment is needed to determine its significance. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub— stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history.or prehistory? X _ See discussion for No. 20 above. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—term, environmental goals? (A short—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long—term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ _ X Environmental Checklist —6— (5835d) ,� C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but•.cumulatively consid— erable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of.the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ _ X DETERMINATION , On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a _ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there _ will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant- effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL X IMPACT REPORT is required. . Date Signature For: City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department r Environmental Checklist —7— (5835d) L N E COUNTY . OS A G L ES C '. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY a Riverside Fwy• r �a � RIVERSIDE COUNTY Sd' rd U- fAnaheim I \, Garden Grove Fwy• Orange I , Santa Tustin Ana A% a a►Q°` �1: �6 d4 c San o National \ Die .. Costa 90 pw I c Huntington Mesa i Beach Newport Irvine Beach °d = Project Site PACIFIC OCEAN Laguna a Beach o<ze9 j San Juan I I Capistrano rSAN DIEGO COUNTY San Clemente i REGIONAL LOCATION i i i � I S �O t C-% V S ..rrf C 1� i1 CITY OF 2 HUNTING-TON BEACH "'� Y-•-- ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA Protect Site . r••ry n �h���NrYM1(M ,DLANNiNG ZONING DM 16 o S 'ECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 14-6-1I ---- NOTE: CITY OF aDOP,[D MARC'1,ISSC- OF C+.;Q.T 0 ARE ix/[[t r0.0 DMl"'El . a.T Or w.T ORDIx.xCe xt ! ENDeo+o Cs,exD r0,.[CE.,CR OF�wc.a+p.* or..,. ME.K Z.1-1C o•-+� .."OEO 2-1 Ono No LEGEND °S)a2 2!) .11 i x f-tO�aS fN W w..' `:OOD ZONE -rP2 S:a-a) .51. �JO. N 1 .EPA..•+•0Ex971 aC90E.i�.l pSTRtT I�UNTINGTON BEACH 9P �1.-U 129 CO.. +rgUU,[SNECP[A'ax.L+DiS)nE• J.al ol.�. �]!. '� CO'STA,ZONE S� .. 6�)O PP),D^.J ��d, ® ISpWRM.-T+cT q-19.10 pp a 4 WC-80a.COD CC..ERU.: DiSTa KT , e.srls zr>9 PPn.rc.a 2Jao icl_l ISO [��] .ID.R.)Co..ER—L Dls:a¢I w S' 79 a 22SJ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA a'a °;'' =s 6. L� Cp.a��ED.TTx Da P+DDnD+iDN CO.Si.,ZONE 6-0— ORANGE 2�9RJ R 2 155J 1:21 I)- :.'rEJO.- 2— ® DES%ix.TtJ PRCT�SE P:ex OF S+aECI.LIpxuC,IT i2).05 Paia56-i 2.. (_]r] .EOr 3-BD PPSeaa•I 29p1 0..%NED DEVELCPVE-%-D�STR- .Dell(•p.[DIJ+N;t AVE < _ I 1 zLi 117, -22 bL--<I, %'C), l OLDT /NIJ R �H SPECIFIC,PLAN- �/ — r? �, -:, �-' �• LL I (DISTRiCT9 NE) AVE MH FP2 Z (/') CE-N'.T If1I—'�-----II II 1 uYCFit•. r'f'' Q• C I— ac I, C. co—o--�.E _ —J - u• I R 2-PD•CZ-FP20 4=0? iRe w < z I cs� N ;:Gti7rJ:. i Pt �,s < e. a�svEi:..d.n LL r R2 PD CZ aEFP2 W aj R2-AD•CZ•FP2 �O ,ri R2 PO CZ FP2 :°+aii'cz;e - 'GG:'..:a •; ....... N �— R2-PO-CZ-FP2 DOWNTOWN SP FIC PLWW. I o+az•P�u' _ ' I _ JJ�-••'�y su,!!"'---'-'-•.a AIOIST ICT�kBDJ ��� g n��e'� R2-PO-CZ-FP2 m 1 / �I,R2-PD-CZ.aR ''....tOIi�R.D_::-...__ 3 104 �OK,ti p N '.I• +` -Oy' � ' Y '-_PD-±_• (..;';........R2-PD-CZFP2 4yvoo R2�D�Z'fP2: �4C/o 00/Y OAST SpFC/ "o IT� 3b-11.':::::.4�: v�"41±::: •� �\ /• /C STR�O,t,�/ �^'�,/ -Da °Ps* �.���Y R2-PD-CZ-FP2 ,11._.. R2fA -PD•CI._Fpz MH-CZ--FP2 4.pCGo,C k�F�s /a •R2-PD-CZ-FPZ".ri�±+gcto a -O DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN O !!\ O ,'�• Y DIST MBb=FP2 O kkl 1 o,STR Project Site .: .. , �* T C�i -0 L6b �.11..a. O W � U r , I , PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY uAAAc•vao \AAA[i.VYO-->) •AAONA/IAO--r 00 - IINYNo I � n I ref i I S P �•. ; I BUILDING:A BUILDINGB . ewLarwl t I °�� s, I IIEA � I IL.._,..rra J' PLAZA LEVEL APPLICANT M ILALD[A[[r,WAANT o[v[LOrErr ATTEAnoA:loAAT11M OAaW [[[nAAo STREEY. w nAoroA::.at.C.[[[A[ V LEGALL DESCRIPTION LEGAL [EE ATTAORo IAACU rAft NORTH AND oa[ Anck F[IDL0.MAN• PIER ISIDEl RESTJURJNT DEVELOPMENT m ' C.0..CAW*Y .A..AN.a:A:... �.. ILIfi ---r • tea i :�� I r_ LEASE SPACE -+ 11 u - A U U 9 U U V IND �� ' I I � ♦� V.wcMO � 11,I.a,O fi•11Er, • I 1♦ SPACE - ' _ I%�......ry// 1 DWui SUAL RESTAURANT / 1 1 •w�.i an••r. _ w•r. _ RETNL, I I � trww NS1S7■u,D _ f"� I 1 I lo y NI[1.E1 UAW I I 1 I I ' 1 - 1 BEACH ACCESS LEVEL . N,• .. u• �•• Not 111 F[LIXRMAN PIERSIDE RESTJUR ,INT DEVELOPMENT m CR.GRNEY t y t . wMYq ; O IYI�Yq , L . ti w LJ ltff I /lllgq 1 - / - - L0IVER PJRKING LEVEL u a• .. �.. �.. hoof" Ffl[1ERM.W PIERSIDE RES T,I UR ,INT DEVELOPMENT iAPPENDIX B NOP RESPONSESICORRESPONDENCE 1 ' M24/90(PIR0001\SECT4=3.EIR) STATE OF CAUFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govamw OFFICE. OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH : 1A00 TENTH STREET of - SACRAMENTO, CA 9381A i ' DATE:- TO.: Reviewing agencies RE: The City Huntington Beach's NOP for ' Pierside Restaurant Development SCH# 9 0 0 1 05 33 Attached-for your comment.is the City of Huntington Beach' Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for-the Pierside Restaurant Development ' Responsible agencies must transmit their-doncerns and comments on the- scope and content of the EIR, focusing on specific information related to their own ' statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt. of this notice. We encourage commenting agencies to respond to this notice and eipress their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct, your comments to: Laura Phillips City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street/P:O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 , i with a copy to the Office of. Planning and Research.. Please refer- to the SCR number noted above in all correspondence concerning- this project. If you have any questions about,- the review- process, call. Garrett Ashley at (916) 445-0613. Sincerely, David C. NunenkamD ' Deputy Director, Permit Assistance Attachments - ' cc: SCH/: !•. 1 Sgt.Jim Weddell Department of Transportation rlsh and Game-ReplonalOAlces fiepfonal Water Ouatffy Co~Board California I lighway Patrol District Contacts lama R.rrge Ileming Section Gary Stacey,Regional Manager NORTH COAST REGION(1) :S':Sent by L.rnrl 'X:Sent by S(al Ilumlug nd Analyst.V1,61 err Michael l.w.9 Depot-of of Irish-1(1.- 1440Oornnville Rd. 25551'4nl Avenue Caltrans,District 1 W Locust Sama Ross.CA 9S401 Bob Fletcher Socrsncrrin,G 95918 1656 Union Strmt Redding CA96MI 7M/576.2220(8.590) A ItRe.00arcea Bo.rd 916/445.1941 D P.ureks,G 95501 916f22S-2300(8-442) 1102 Q Street 707/445-66J1(S.538) SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION(1) S■mnentoK ,CA 95914 William A.Johnson Jim Menerstn on llh,Regional Manager I I I I Jacks Street,Room 60t10 91 rd172 8267 915 Capitol k1.11.Roan 288 Coltrane,District 2 Native Armrlan lkrit■8e CamOL Michelle Goliagher Department of Fieb tit Gone 415/4 4- 25 (8-56 ❑ 1701 Nimbus Road Suite A 15/46d.CA 946M) IGrenCsgle K--f Ssrnmcm%CA95814 1657111-tseleDrive RimehoCoedovs,CA 95670 DcpL ofDoathig It W.err■ys 916/3 22-7791 Redd'trq,G 96001 9161355-OM(8.439) CENTRA L COAST REGION(» 1629 S Street 91fi M-3259(8.442) I102-A laurel lame S■oaamento,G 95814 floorKreuteherg B.11unler,RegkmdMwger San Luis Obispo.G 93401 IN445.6281 Off+a of I liste.k lleservatim Jeannie Raker Departrneot of Fish and Game 805/549-7147(8-629) P.O.Box 9.12896 Caltruts,DuMce J P.O.Box 47 Socnin,rto,G 91296.0 Gary L Ilnllnway �J *1 703 B G L Sheet Yoonwille, 94599 LOS ANGE REGION(4) California Coastal Commission 916/322 9621 a Marysville.CA 95901 701#944-3518 101 Order Plays Drive 631 I lowerd Street,4th Herr 916/741.4498(8.457) ❑ Monterey Park,G 91754 Son Francisco,CA 94105 Atlke Doyle G.Nokek Regional Manager 213/621)4460(8.640) 415/543-9555 Dept.of Parks and Reacatirn Wade Green Deparusem of Fish and Gone P.O.Fins 942896 Caloms,District 4 1234 Cast Shaw Avenue CENTRAL VALLEY REGION(5) Terry him doing Sui■me roo,CA 94296-0001 P.O.Box 7310 Fresno,C1 93710 3443 Routier Reed Suite A California E rrgy Canrnissirm 916/324-643 San Francisco,CA 94120 209/222-3761(6-421) Sacramento,G 95827-3098 1516 Ninth Street.Rim.200 415/557.9162(8-597) 916/361.5600 Sacramento,CA 9S814 George Hersh ed A.Wotlhlty lr.,Reg.Manages 916024.3227 Public Utilities Commission Jerry Latimer cpartners of Fish and Oartre Fresno Branch Office 505 Van Ness Avenue Caltnns,District 5 30 Golden$ban,Suite 50 3374 Bast Shklds Avenue,Room 18 San Franciar o,CA 94102 P.O.Box Of 14Buck G 90602 O Freano,CA 93726 Sandy 1lesmardK,,r,- aCaltrams•Division of Aeronautics 415/557.1375(8-597) Sm Lub Obispo,CA 93403.8114 13/590-5113(8-635) 2M/445.5116(8.421) P.O.Box 942874 805/549-3161(8-629) Samnerno,CA 9 4 214-00 01 Anne Leens Bronson RoTL Man Redding Branch Office 916/324.1833 Redsmat'ron Beard lawn Fairchild Mslm Rese.trtns Region 415 Knollcrcst Drive F1 1416 Ninth Street Room706 Caltows,District 6 330 Golden Shoe,Suite 50 O Redding,CA 960If2 George Smith Secruncnto,G 95814 P.O.BOX f 2616 Lang Desch,G 90602 916/22S-2045(8.442) Caltrw.Planning 91 fl/322.3740 Presoq G 93TIS 213/590.5I55(8-635) P.O.Box 942874 209/276-5989(6-422) LAIIONTAN REGION(6) Sarametrto,C1 94274-000I Norris Mllllken Stab Water nesources Control Board 2092 Lake Tdne noukiard 91N445.5570 S.P.Bay Ccnscrvatlon R Dev'L Coma. Gary McSweeney P.O.Boa 9428 30 Van Ness Avenue,Room 2011 Camara,District Allan Patton South Lake Thee,CA 95731 DennbO'Brianl Son Francisco.CA 94102 120SoutltSpringStwet Stara Wake Resomoes Control Board 916/544.3481 DepLo(Cvrservatkm 415/557-36R6 Los Angeles,CA 90012 ❑ DlvblonefLoono&Grarb 1416 Ninth Street,Room 1326-2 213/62D-2376(8-640) P.O.Box 944212 Victor vCle Branch Office Sacramento.CA 95814 Jeannie Blakeslee Sacramcato,G 94244-2120 O 15429 Civic Drive,Suite 100 9161322.5873 r� G if.Wonn Management Bead Ilarvey Sawyer 916M9•M14 V iclorvOk,CA 92392.2359 f��YJ` 1020 Ninli+Svoet,Rana 300 ❑ Caltrus,Duerkr 8 619441.6587 Div.of Mhes and Geology Sou.mcnln,CG 95814 247 West Third Street EdAnloo 916/327-0454 Sam Bermardmo,G92403 ❑ State WaserRetomoes Consul Board COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION(7) Div.of Or'1 and Ou 714/3834806(8.610) Division o[Wetrr Quality 73-211 Ilighwoy 111.Suite 21 Ted Fukushlms P.O.BOX f00 State Lands Commission And Zeeman Sacramento,G 95801 Palm Descr9 CA 92260 Livid Reaearw Protect.Unity 619/316-7491 IBM-13de Street Caltrans,District 9 916A45-9552 Vashek Cervinks Suanento•G 95814 500 South Main Street SANTA ANA REGION(e) ❑ ".of Fond and Agriculture 914/322-7813 Bishop,G 94514 Dote Beringer 8M Indiana Avenue.Safi 200 1220 N Street,Reran 104 6191972-00](8-627) Stab Water Removes 6mmol Board Riverside,CA92506 Socramemo,CA 95814 NodeOGayoo F] Delta Unit t4f824130(8.6)A 916/322.5227 Dept.of Water Resources At Johnson P.O.Box 2DW 1416 Ninth Street,Room 213-4 Caltsanx,District 10 Sarxoncnto,G 95810 SAN DIEGO REGION(9) Douglas SYkklur Sarnvento,G 95814 P.O.Box 2048 916/J22.9870 ❑ 9771 Ciakmontt Mesa Blvd,Suits B D'.ofForestry 916/41S•7416 209194xyG 9SZ23 SanDkgo,G 92124 1331 1416 Ninth Street,Room 1516.2 209/948-7838(8 42J) Mike Fas.Res In 519/M-5114(8-636) Saesanrnto,G 95811 Reed IInlAerman Sub Weer Resoaoxw Canoed Board 9ocersi ciao, State Coastal Conservancy Jim Cbeshlre Division of WaterRiglb APCD/AQMD: 1330 Broadway,SuiteI0 aColosimo.District 11 PSeed Oakland.CA 91612 P.O.Box85406 Sacramento. G 95814 RoberlSleppy 415/464-ICIS 2829hueStreet 9161324.5636R General Strwicea ' of Sm Dkgo,CA 92138-5406 400 P Sboct•Suit.3460 - Sacramento.CA95814 ❑ DIIS/1'SCD: 619/1T7.6755(8-671) OT1lFn• -- 916/324.0214 Robert Joseph Arkne Chonce Caterers.District 12 of I kalth 2501 Pullman SL Dept' --- seas Area CA 92705 al P Sbo .Rom 757 Sacramento.Ca 958814 714/174-2061(8-655) 91IV323.6111 , rr rr , �r r� rr r rr rr . rr rr rr rr rr r� rr rr rr r rr 2AaG Mailing Address: Archaeological Information Center Institute of Archaeology California Regional 'S� versityofCalifornia Archaeological Orange; �nio2'�,Cla'1:on � � Lds�nge!'es,CA90024-1510 Los Angeles C e (213)825-1980 . Inventory '�_:;>;;.. Ventura e�^,+ r ' UCLA Archaeological Information`'6enter Cultural Resources Records Search Lead Agency: C,iL.. -ot . 4Un+-,a4zVL Beach - ' Permit/Project #: Date: : Case Planner: "uro_ Ph;ll;os A_ ttached USGS Quad: Ncweori Beach . ' Brief Project DescriptioTn: �;ere,;dP_ Res+auran+. �ovo_leannerxf dcruol;-Lon cT nNe. bU,1d;,na nn,d Chhs+'rt4cfiorN of S oon SQ. Fez-f o cony rHerUa l 100;18 ,\cC,s . ' UCLA ARCHAEOLOGICAL INFORMATION CENTER INITIAL. .RECORDS SEARCH* The project area has been surveyed by a professional archaeologist and no cultural resources were found. The project area has been surveyed by a professional archaeologist and cultural resources were found. /. / The project area has not been surveyed by a professional archaeologist but cultural resources are likely to beiin the,. area.. The project area has not been surveyed by a professional archaeologist and cultural resources are not likely to be in the area. ' RECOMMENDATIONS A Phase I ** archaeological survey should be done by a professional archaeologist prior to approval of project plans.. A professional archaeologist should be retained to monitor ' any earth ' moving operations. No archaeological work is needed prior to approval of the project ` plans but a halt-work condition should be in place in the event .of cultural ' resources being discovered during construction. COMMENTS * The initial records search does not cover cultural heritage sites, either . listed or pending, such as historic buildings or points of interest. ** A Phase I survey includes a complete records search, a field inspection, and_ a final report with results and recommendations. Date completed: 5 a5 `10 Signature: LG, Lun UCLA Staff Archaeologist ' Letter attached / / (213 ) 825-1980 17 STATE-QF CALIFORNIA GEORGE 06VKM9JIAN.Ovwrnw ' STATE LANDS COMMISSION EXECUTIVI!OFFICE 1807.13th Street LEO T.MoCARTHY,LWIttione Governor Saoramarrto,Collternie 88814 GRAY DAVIS, Coftfroller '� �'`' `. CHARLES WARREN JESSE R. HUPF,Director of Finance '!�a��SExecutive Officer July 1 Z'# 11090 Ms. Laura Phillips ' City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street P.` 0 Box 190 ' Huntington Beachr CA 92648 bear. Ms. Phillipst Staff of the State Lands Commission (5LC) has reviewed the- Cit - of Huntington Beach' s Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a draft Env ronmental impact Report (DEIR). for the Pierside. Restaurant ' Development, SCH No. 90010533, and offer the following comments. Initially it should be stated that the project proposed by the ' City is - related to a recent lawsuit to which the State of California -was a party defendant. That lawsuit, Re eve:lo2M21Lt AggMey of Huntington Beach v, HuntiWton Beach com eny. e a . r Case No. 498713r which gained considerable notoriety as evidenced ' by the attached newspaper articles as well as public interest (the State Lands Commission received over 1000 signatures on letters and petitions opposing the Pierside Development) was disposed of ' between -the City and State pursuant' to a stipulated judgment (attached) . Additionally, it should be noted that the issue of the ' permitted usles involving the dedication of this area as a public beach by the 1932 settlement of litigation between the City and the Huntington Beach Co. , as .well, as additional- implied dedication of the entire-area by nature of historic public use- ( see gion -y. City Q „fin Cruz (1970) 2, Cal. 3d 29) , was not resolved by the lawsuit. Our, concerns regarding the appropriateness. and legality of . the, proposed project have not been resest'olved. The State, based upon the advice of the Office of the Attorney General, Continues to assert that the entire area. is a dedicated ' public access and beach recreational area. The 1932 publio. beach recreation easement held by the City as trustee for the public, which is the beneficiary, is not a proprietary interest that the 1 07---2-90 05: 2 PO -2- City is capable of divestiture by condemnation or merger of title. , To even attempt to divest the publio of this easement appears to breach the City's fiduciary duties as a trustee. Acquisition of the remainder of the title to the property does not authorize the , City to use the. property for commercial, non-public, non-beach related uses. As 'to the environmental impacts designated on the Environmental Checklist for the project, we take special exception to page 4, item 8, LAND USE. The indication that there is 1114011 potential impact is seriously flawed. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21083 as implemented by CEQA Guidelines section , 15064 (c) , provides that if a substantial body of public opinion considers the project to have adverse effecter "the Lead Agency shall regard the effect as adverse Additionally, section 1$064 (e) provides examples which include, as significant effects, thoe9 which (b) have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect and (w) Conflict with established recreational, educational., ' religious or scientific uses of the area. The State Lands Commission, in exercising its duty to manage and protect the public's property rights along the entire , Huntington Be+aoh waterfront, has juriadiction, authority, and the responsibility of a trustee, as delegated by the Legislature, to ensure that public property easements which are appurtenant and , provide access and use of the adjoining tidelands are not used inconsistent with the public rights therein. if you have any questions, please contact Curtis Possum at ' (916) 322-2277. Sincerely, J1GxT E�. sANDsrts Chief ' Division of Research and Planning cc: Curtis Possum ' OPR • Directors „� _ _ Officers \ LA))RENC6 P.KRAEMER JR. PHILIP L.ANTHONY `s% _ _._President KATHRYN L.BARR y `" Z KATHRYN L.BARR la JOHN V.FONLEY —A , �0 `',first Vice President JOHN GARTHE 9 ' DONN HALL �O • J� LANGDON W.OWEN LAWRENCE P.KRAEMER JR. ��j 9 Second Vice President AUGUSTF.LENAIN ON OF �N� WILLIAM R.MILLS JR. GEORGE OSBORNE General Manager ' OB EJ.WAITTE E" ORANGE COUNTY WATER-DISTRICT Mosaic S°Hraa°" ' May 29, 1990 ' Ms. Laura Phillips Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach ' 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' SUBJECT:.. Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR for Pier Side.Restaurant Development Dear Ms. Philips: This is in response to your letter.dated May 21, 1990 requesting the-views-of our agency as to the'scope and content that should be included in the EIR. The project is within the Orange County Water District, and the overall plans of.the District include water facilities to supply the water needs of this development. However, since the development is replacing an existing development, there may not be any increase in water usage. The Environmental ' Impact Report should compare the existing water use to the expected water use in the new project. . It is recommended that the project include as many water conservation devices within the facilities as is possible. Very truly yours, Nereus Richardson . Assistant Manager/District.Engineer NR:rd 1 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 8300 10500 ELLIS AVENUE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92728-8300 TELEPHONE(714)963-5661 FAX(714)963-7472 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY-12 Civic Center Plaza, Rm. 238,Santa Ana California 92702-4 '048 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, California 92702-404 Phone: (714) 834-5311 i U IN ; 1990 Fax: (714) 834-6132 Laura Phillips' ' City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation for DEIR 90-2 Dear Ms. Phillips: ' Airport Land Use Commission staff has reviewed the above referenced NOP for a ' proposal to demolish one building (Maxwell's Restaurant) and construct a total of 56,000 square feet of commercial buildings. The project is located southeast of the intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach. , It appears that the proposed project falls outside the planning boundaries adopted by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). Therefore, we have no ' comment at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review this NOP. Very truly yours, George itton Executive Officer ' I 1 MA:tk 0052511364614 ' ' MICHAEL M. RUANE DIRECTOR, EMA 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 4 U NTY C F SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 2 1 t"� Yj..: MAILING ADDRESS: _ '° P.O. BOX 4048 5 3 RAN G E SANTA ANA, CA 82702-4048 TELEPHONE: (714)834-2308 ENVIRONMENTAL[tlt;AtFfi OMERY,4PNCY FAX 0$34.2395 NITY ' JUL ;1 + olvls ply FILE ' Laura Phillips, Associate Planner NCL' 90-85 City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development ' 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: NOP for the Pierside Restaurant Development Dear Ms. Phillips: The-above referenced item is a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a draft Environmental ' Impact Report (EIR) for the City of' Huntington Beach. The proposed project includes- the demolition of one building (Maxwells Restaurant) and construction- of a total of 56,000 square feet of Commercial buildings. The.site is approximately 3.5 acres located southeast of the intersection of Main Street and Pacific- Coast- Highway. The County of Orange has reviewed the-NOP resulting in� the following:.comments: ° Pacific Coas-t Highway is a County-designated Scenic Highway through this area. A ' Scenic Preservation Easement of. a minimum 30-foot width-should be- included as a, mitigation measure. We also recommend that the Aesthetics Section of the Draft EIR address the overall shape, texture, and coloration of the development. in order that the project blend with surrounding buildings and topography. This will afford the public an integrated and cohesive vista from points along the coastline, on boats_, and on the pier. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOP. We. apologize for the tardiness of our comments but hope they will be of help. Please send four (4) copies of the draft EIR to Kari Rigoni when it becomes. available. If you have questions, please call Ms. Rigoni at (714) 834-2109. ' Very- truly yours, Joan S. Golding,. Program Manager Regional Coordination Office A p By: ' r A.—Rigoni? Sr. _P1151r CH:tk 0070913382411 uo-4,-;1 !.,I P 0 21 Environmental Board i f C'TY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINCTON 814CN Post Off-Ce Box 190 H-nti-,gton Beach, Caiiforn;a 92c=8 Department of Community Development April 16, 1990 , Environmental Resources Section City of Huntington Beach ' 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attni Ms. Laura Phillips ' I. Subjects Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR No. 90-2 Project Rpuestt The demolition of one building (Maxwell's) and construction of a total of 56,000 square ' feet of Commercial Buildings. The plaza level will include three new restaurant buildings, and would include a Maximum of seven (7) restaurants totalling 40,000 square feet. An additional 16,000 square feet is to be added to the lower level to include a casual restaurant, and beach related concessions. Two levels of subterranean parking will be provided in the addition to surface parking for a total of 575 , spaces. Locations An approximate 3.5 Acre site located southeast of the intersection of Main Street and PCH. II. Findinasi The Environmental Board has completed it review of the Planning Department's ' Environmental Check list for the referenced project and believes that the Staffs Check 'ist does not accurately address a number of issues, specifically the impacts with regard to parking arking struet•..^e and increased traffic conjestiont ' Sections 3f. Construction of the subterranean parking structure may require some form of dewaterimo within the excavation. Site dewatering can influence the direction of groundwater flow in the ' surrounding area. On to the proximity of an apparent soil/groundwater resediation project as well as other underground storage tanks in the vicinity, a potential exists to influence ground water contaminant plumes should they exist. Section i3a,b,d. The proposed project will generate substantial vehicular movement due to a significant , increase in development of the property compared to what currently exists compounded with the increase in available parking. There will also be an increased impact on the present circulation or movement of people using the bike/foot path adjacent to the project. ' Camwtss In addition to those findings listed above, the ad hoc committee's report contains several additional concerns an the attached page. The project also entails demolition of existing old structure, regulations concerning safe removal and disposal of any asbestos on site must be strictly ' adhered to. Close proximity of the beach area makes airborne contamination by friable asbestos particles a particular danger. III. EXI Recg=datione It is the Environmental Board's opinion that the referenced project will have , significant adverse effect on the surrounding environment and agrees with the staff recommendation that an i mental ac ep be required. R . Richardson Ad hoc Committee ' Chairman Chris Dhaliwal, Chair Irene Alfieri cc: Mayor Thomas Mays Catherine Stip , Councilman Peter Orson Bill Linehan Planning Commissioner Victor Liepzig Jeffery Edens Daniel Torres , ' ��• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BIRACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ' HUNTINGTON BEACH To: LAURA PHILLIPS, From: JIM MOORE, ' Associate Planner Department Analyst Sr. Subject: Impact on Police Service Date: June 6.",. 1990 ' for Pierside Restaurants We have developed formulas for estimating additional manpower requirements for various types of projects. They were ' derived by measuring actual calls for service for each of these types (e.g. commercial, high, medium and low density residential, etc. ) . Using this data, we have estimated that' ' there will be one police call for service per 2745 square feet of commercial space per year. Based upon a desired annual number of calls per police officer of 356, constructing a 56, 000 square foot commercial complex will result in approximately ' twenty calls per. year, on average. It will not be necessary to hire additional personnel. or purchase other resources for this project. ' (56, 000 sq. ft. / 2745) - 20 calls per year. 20 calls / 356 desired number of calls- annually = 0. 057 officers. ' At the current time, the salary cost for police service to a call is averaging $31.40. The salary cost for police service ' this year at this development is expected to reach $628. 00. $31.40. x 20 calls = $628.00 ' As a note to Planning, we are receiving large numbers of requests for the construction of these smaller projects that when viewed individually, do not require additional manpower. ' But if you vieww these projects collectively, we will, reach levels where additional manpower will be required. Tracking these projects and the accumulated effect on public safety requirements should be initiated and a plan- developed that will . address this issue. i, 'g Historic Resources Board CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' KWTINCTON OWN Post Office Box 190 • Huntington Beach, .Ca!ifolnia. 92648 June 19., 1990 RECEIVED Laura Phillips, Associate Planner City of- Huntington Beach DEPARTME,4r UF 2000 Main St:: COMMUNITY DEV:RUFN,E�rT Huntington- Beach, CA . 92648 PLANNING DIMION Re: Pierside Restaurant Development EIR #90-2 ' Dear Laura: ' Members of the Board appreciate your concern about the historical significance of Maxwell ' s Restaurant. This structure, while it is apparently the original, PWA structure, has been altered significantly. To meet the Secretary' s standards for architectural ' significance; the alterations- would have to be reversed. It. is significant, nevertheless, for its cultural association with Huntington Beach. The entire site of the proposed development has, in addition, historical significance for several reasons.: ' 1. The long gone railroad. station, placed between the present location of Maxwell's and Pacific Coast Highway was the terminus of the first line of the Pacific Electric Railway in Orange County. Passengers disembarked on the ocean side and ' strolled along the unobstructed bluff top to admire the open stretch of beach. 2 . At the end of the. 1930s, a public convention center, the Pavalon, was erected at this location; it's foundation ' supports the present restaurant. A sheltered public- picnic area was constructed under the Pavalon on the beach, as part of its foundation. Later it was remodeled to snack stands. ' 3 . A -public stadium- seating area..was. built below the bluff, immediately south of the Pavalon: This-- was used for ocean viewing and for participation in the many public events ' that were organized' at the beach. It-was replaced by parking lots in_. the late 1960s. In addition to obscuring the site' s historic importance, the proposed project of several restaurants will have significant impact on the National Register Pier and the historic buildings placed there. Even if the pier is replaced by a new structure, the project' s profile will destroy the view corridor of the traditional pier. In light of these potential aesthetic and cultural losses, we ' recommend: 1. that you conduct additional research to confirm the , original structure as the modern Maxwells, amplify its cultural significance to the pierside environment and seek ways to restore the structure to its historic appearance and include it in the , project.. 2 . that you explore alternative sites for the entire project or those portion beyond Maxwells. The EIR should contain a complete economic analysis of the proposed project and ALL ' reasonable alternatives so that the alternatives can be evaluated by the public and council. 3 that any proposed development include a significant ' memorial to commemorate the arrival of the Pacific Electric Railroad in Orange County. sincerely, , )erry Per/son, Chairman ' .JP:bhm i 1 1 e Ji COMMUNITY SE7? VICES 411WINCTOW NIACH Departmental Memorandum JIM B. ENGLE- RE(- . 1 FROM AE MUDD .)l l�� 1 }4 1990 JUNE 14, 1990 ` (� DEPAR'TtAMNi; _ oxr�c. ,. �N susixc7 COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT � HaNPJ►NG oIvlsiOri PIERSIDE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT #90-2, PARAGRAPH 2OA-D ' CULTURAL RESOURCES Pursuant. to your request,_ the following comments are provided: ' Paragraph A. Concur ' Paragraph.B. The. demolition of Maxwell ' s could. have a significant impaction the. cultural history of Huntington Beach. As with many culturally significant places, Maxwell ' s is probably best known for the activities that it hosted rather. th.in its architectural design. During its hayday, the club hosted a long list of well-known entertainers and musical groups, including some of the best known big bands. While the architectural significance may be rated less than significant, its cultural and social significance, like the Golden Bear, is rated very high. ' There is a considerable amount of information on Maxwell ' s, both written and oral . Because of its location in relationship to the red car, the pier, the beach and the downtown retail , the facility served as a hub for ' a variety of summer concerts, festivals and .travelinq �fairs. These activities are fairly well documented. I"f a pi ao-11de restaurant deg el*opment 'proceeds and .the structure is demolished, I..would recommend that the remaining historical elements be reviewed, removed and..safeguarded.. These elements coul-d be included into a new .project such as the Golden Bear artifacts have with Pepper' s Night , Club. Additional Information is available through the Historic Resources Board and the Huntington Beach Historical Society. ' MM:bs 4829e 1 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P O. BOX 3334. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 928033334 ' i.ay 25, 1990Qo U City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. .. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Laura Phillips ' Subject: EIR - No. 90-2 ' This letter is not to be interpreted as a. contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the ' area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be served by an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with ' the company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public. Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based ' upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions ' of gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an , individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial-Industrial Market Services Staff by calling (714)634-3180. We have developed several programs which are available upon request to provide ' assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. ' Sincerely, i Bill Glines , Technical Supervisor DB:du attachment ' 1 Southern California Edison Company - P. O. BOX 2069 - 7333 BOLSA AVENUE WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683.1269 _ ' 1 May 29 , 1990 _ City of Huntington Beach P.U. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA -92648 Attention: Laura Phillips Subject: E.I .R. - Pierside Restaurant Development Gentlemen: This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the: project are within the parameters of the overall projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand .for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates, and provided that there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical 'supply, we expect to meet our electrical requirements for the next several years. Edison has developed several programs which may prove extremely helpful to customers in increasing the efficiency of their operations and holding down energy costs.. Included among these are a new constr Ction program and off-peak cooling. For more information, call the local Energy Services Department at (714) 755-7367. Very truly y urs Chuck. McKimmey Service Planner (714) 895-0210 CEM:da DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING: CORONA DEL MAR-COSTA MESA•FOUNTAIN VALLEY•-HUNTINGTON BEACH MIDWAY CITY•NEWPORT BEACH•-ROSSMOOR•SEAL BEACH-•SUNSET BEACH•WESTMINSTER GTE California Incorporated 6774\iles-mmns—r Boulevaro .C -12683-3788 LS 7!-41 373-2622 U In Pe,o:v Ren-- June S . 1990 3680C V20 PLAINNH,N:L� D!V'�:i'ON LAURA PHILLIPS ASSOCIATE PLANNER. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach. CA 92648 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUBJECT TITLE : PIERSIDE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT — E . I . R. NO . 90-2 Dear Ms . Phillips : Expansion of the existinv,� telephone facilities will be required. Until project plans are received we cannot know what the alterations would be for the present or future structures . There will be no adverse impacts or environmental concerns on telephone service in the area. A coordination of plans for this development and any reconstruction of the Huntington Beach Pier and environs would be appreciated. If there are any further questions concerning the E. I.R. Please contact Ms . Jan Orme—Driscoll at ( 714) 373-2601 or Mr . Joe Packi at ( 714) 373-2623 , Outside Plant Engineers . Sincerely yours , F. I . ILLSLEY OPERATIONS SU7EERVISOR DIVISION OUTSIDE PLANT ENGINEERING A part of GTE Corporation ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (M, t,..y �,, s-�a t J --a Board Memters S� " �✓ -�!9 V' E,D ROgerR.Stanton June 19, 1990 Cnerman Richard S.Edgar. .990 William E.Ferris .. D;�ErP.rtT:,"eN,- OF Doll R.Roth D�roCf�!. CUn� John Erskine Ms. Laura Phillips James a�RarChert ' De .a tment of Comnunity Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Laura: SUBJECT: NOP.DEIR #90-2 - PIERSIDE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT t We have reviewed this project as described it the ?SOP and have the following comments-: r.' OCTD presently provides transit service on Pacific Coast* Highway as. indicated on the attached route maps and schedules.. There are existing stops located at: Southbound Pacific Coast-Highway/Opposite Main Street - Sbuthbound Pacific Coast"Highway/Opposite Second Street. • In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for employees, . visitors and patrons of this area, the following transit amenities should be incorporated into this project: Bus turnouts, if determined by the- City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on roadway cross section, travel volumes or speeds, should be provided at each bus stop location. The are& adjacent to each stop should include a paved passenger waiting areacom late-with a bus shelter and bench. p A paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway . should be provided-between, each stop :and .the project-'buildings, - A concrete bus pad sufficient to support the weight of a bus (see OCTD's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities) should be provided at each transit stop. This would be necessary assuming the material used'.to construct Pacific Coast Highway would be insufficient to support continued transit -use of the bus stops. r} ' 11222 Acacia ParkwayiP.0, 6cx 3005/Garden,Grove/California 9264t-3_)5/(714)639.9000 Ms. Laura Phillips ,r June 19, 1990 Page 2 f� We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to this DEIR and would :ike to ` receive a copy of the DEIR when it is released for public circulation. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me or Frank Jussenhoven at (714) 638-9000, extension 3406. Sincerely, ei^nZ'Miller Environmental Coordinator Attachments: Route Map and Schedule for OCTD line 1. I i I'� Xuntin �Beach omorrow Huntington Heath CA 92M8 `: A E 1 r, 1990 DCPAr?T N r OF �! June 1.59 1990 COMMUNITY ,F.VFI,ORMI:NT PLANNIM; DIVIIJ-JN �i Laura Phillips Associate Planner Department of Community Development . City of Huntington teach 2000 Main Street. Huntington Leach, CA 9264a SUHJECTi Preparation of a -Draft E. I. R. for Pierside 'Vi llage Dear Ms. Phillips, Our organization has,: great' anxiety concerning any development on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway. We have always opposed any form of. commercialization or development in that "Piers.i.de" area and we will continue to do so. Our concerns generate mainly from the public easement which the city originally sued the landholders for in 1912. The easement states clearly that the land is to remain for public recreation. We fail to see how the city can rationalize a development, such as Pierside, and call it recreation. Restaurants, snack bars, and beach-serving commercial is not recreation! According to the initial study, dated May 219 1.9909 the traffic circulation on PCH near the pier may be impacted by this project. 'We have serious doubts as to how these impacts will be mitigated and to what degree. , The State of California) lane- to widen P'CH. Instead of - traffic, P is wiT'1 this new) added% lane. . increasing th® flaw of traff , y become gridlocked because of ingress andegress problems due primarily to Pierside Village? How will this' be addressed? Nothing has been mentioned in the initial study that mitigates the traffic hazards on the pedestrian. All other areas that turn into the parking areas of the city beach have a signal which controls both the motor vehicles, bicycles . and pedestrians. No such signal is shown in the current Pierside plan that ti G'_ J i could alleviate these problems. The study states that this project will have a major impact upon scenic vistas and open public views. We do not consider view corridors provided "through the buildings" as an acceptable trade off for the present open _ and panoramic ocean vistas afforded the public. Although it states that this project will not encroach upor, the sand or the existing bike trail, there does appear to be some taking of the service road adjacent to the lifeguard headquarters building. Due to the scale of the rendering provided in the study and the lack of inclusion of present elevations, further details must be provided so that we may accurately make comments on this matter. We thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this project and we welcome future information when it becomes available. Sincerely, Bob Biddle (� President, Huntington Beach Tomorrow BB.jj OCR City Council Planning Commission City Administrator Local Media Representatives '�r APPENDIX C. HISTORIC RESOURCES. REPORT, 07/24/90(PIR0009\SECT4-3:EIR) Ls TECHNICAL REPORT: HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION OF' MAXWELL'S RESTAURANT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED. FOR THE' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH• PLANNING DEPARTMENT PREPARED BY JASON MARMOR,. M.A. AND . REBECCA CONARD, PH.D LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 . (714) 553-0666 LSA PROJECT #PIR001 June 25:, 1990 lsa ABSTRACT Maxwell 's Restaurant, located at 317. Pacific..Coast Highway in Huntington Beach (Figure 1) , will be affected .by the-proposed Pierside Restaurant Develop- ment and Pier Plaza. This report presents an.assessment of-the historical and architectural significance, of Maxwell 's Restaurant. It begins with a discussion of the building's history and describes its role as one of Huntington Beach's important municipal public edifices from the period 1930-1965. Originally constructed as the Huntington Beach Pavilion and located directly adjacent to another seaside attraction, the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, it helped promote the beach town's identity -and served as a well-known community recreation facility for many years. Even. after undergoing several changes in use -'and a moderate amount of cosmetic alteration, the struc- ture remains a major landmark and focal point of the Huntington - Beach oceanfront recreation and commercial district. After the historical overview, the report presents an assessment of the i �r physical integrity of the building, followed by an analysis of its- historical • and architectural significance. The study concludes with the finding that the structure housing Maxwell 's Restaurant, despite its .physical modifications, is considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A. Therefore, an adverse effect from the proposed project upon the structure is anticipated, and mitigation measures would be. required. INTRODUCTION In 1986 the City of Huntington Beach conducted a survey to identify and rate the city's historical resources, including buildings, structures, objects, and sites. The resultant inventory assigned a combined letter/number score of "B/2" to the address of Maxwell 's Restaurant (Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 1986:np) . The "B" rating was used to classify buildings which were "somewhat less unusual or distinctive in terms of age or architecture", but which "research may prove to have a relationship. to important events or persons in history" (Ibid, p.12) . Such "B" rated, structures were perceived as- being likely to have local significance such that .they. could -potentially qualify for the National Register of Historic Places pending the: results of further research. The Thirtieth Street Architects survey considered the degree of alteration to the Maxwell 's building as "minor" (Ibid:np) . The 1986 survey also assigned a numerical designation to denote the rela- tion of the resource to listing in the National Register of Historic Places. ��. As explained in the report by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. , the numeric 07/02/90(PIR001\MAXHELL.RPT) Fr a. View from Pacific Coast Highway, showing front least and north elevations MAN c. View from parking. lot, showing^east and south elevations. iRLCM C '0 1 t b. View from beach, showing west and north elevations. FIGURE 1 6/21/90:KF MAXWELL'S RESTAURANT lsa system was employed in- a second and more detailed review limited:.to the commer- cial redevelopment area.- This area of greater concern was "between 3rd and 5th . Streets extending to and including the Pier" (Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 1986: 13) . The structure occupied by Maxwell's Restaurant was given a ratting of "2"; this category referred to,those structures which appeared to be "possi- ble contributors to a (National Register] district" (Ibid:13) . This dual rating system proved to be a- cause of confusion for City plan- ners. In order to make the data easier to interpret and utilize, the City of Huntington Beach authorized a re survey of its historic resources by Johnson- Heumann Research in 1988. f� The Johnson-Heumann inventory included the Maxwell 's Restaurant building, and while finding it to be not architecturally distinctive, was inconclusive in its rating of historical significance without the performance. of further research. This report addresses the need to review archival documentation,. a.s well as the need to determine the original age, form and degree of modification of the building by detailed inspection. The information provided from these avenues. of research enabled an assessment of architectural and historical significance to be made.. The results of these 'I-nvestigations are provided in the following sections. HISTORY OF THE BUILDING In the late 1930s the City of Hunti"ngton Beach built another in a series of major municipal structures which both served. the needs of its citizens and, presented a tangible expression of civic pride. This facility, the Huntington Beach Pavilion, formed part. of the waterfront recreation and commercial dis- trict, surrounding the landmark Huntington Beach Pier. Although it has exper- ienced some changes in use and appearance in the- past 52 years, the structure has remained a major feature of the oceanfront recreation area for which Huntington Beach is famous. Like many other Southern California coastal communities, the beachfront of Huntington Beach. was early on recognized as one of' its most valuable natural assets: And, like many other communities. on the. coast, Huntington Beach capi- tal i zed on thi s attri bute by embarki ng on a program of devel opi ng-A is water- front for recreation, tourism, and commerce. At the center of this development was the formidable concrete municipal pier built in 1914. Testimonial to the importance of the pier to the community was the amount of media attention and funds expended in 1930-31 to repair the structure after the devastating storms of 1929 (Conard 1990:9) . 07/02/90(PIR001\MAXUELL.RPT) 3: i LSa In the 1920s and 1930s Huntington Beach built a number of major civic structures which both enhanced the town's identity as a lively and contemporary community, and reflected its civic pride. Among the edifices which joined the rebuilt pier as urban landmarks were its City Hall (1926) and Memorial Hall (1931) . Sometime around 1935, it was decided that the pier area be further .enhanced by the addition of a large hall suitable for dances and other events. The availability of Public Works Administration assistance, part of the federal government's efforts to facilitate the nation's recovery from the economic depression of the 1930s, made possible the realization of this objective. In 1937, the City of Huntington Beach solicited designs for an oceanfront civic hall to be erected at the foot of the pier. The Los Angeles based archi- tectural firm of Albert R. Walker and [Percy A. Eisen submitted the winning design, which was described as follows: "The edifice will be built along modernistic lines. It is a two story structure with the upper floor visible from Ocean Avenue (now Pacific Coast Highway] and on a level with the municipal pier. A promenade will be constructed on the ocean side of the south end. The top floor, to be known as Recreation Hall , has a. floor space of 97 x 55 feet. Spaces are also provided for concessions, check rooms, dressing rooms, stage, smok- ing room, etc. The lower floor at the beach level , will be used for indoor picnics, large beach parties and conventions. It has a floor space of 77 x 51 feet. The entire beach building measures 128 x 74 feet." (Huntington Beach News, August 5, 1937) . The United States Government offered to provide 45% of the projected t� $50,000 cost of the project through the Public Works Administration. In October of 1937, the Huntington Beach City Council unanimously endorsed a resolution to accept the government grant of $23,456 (Huntington Beach News, October 14, 1937) . Two. weeks later, it was announced that bids were advertised for construction of the "palatial beach casino" (Ibid, October 28, 1937) . The bids were opened at the November 15 City Council meeting, and the contract was awarded to the Los Angeles general contracting company of Brunzell and Jacobsen for the amount of $48,882 -(Ibid, November 18, 1937) . Work on the building commenced in December of 1937, and it was finished on schedule five months later, although at a higher final cost of $70,000 (Huntington Beach News, May 26, 1938). . The Huntington Beach Pavilion, as it was officially named, was dedicated amid a well advertised and extravagant three day celebration beginning on Saturday, May 28. A full page ad in the Huntington Beach News pictured the new civic structure along with the City Hall and Memorial Hall , proclaiming it to be the latest "Monument of Good Will" 07/02/90(PIR001\MAXWELL.RPT) 4 Lsa (Huntington Beach News, December, 3O, 1937) . A crowd of over 1,000 people enjoyed what was to be-. the first of many dances, to music. provided by Ben Pollack and his orchestra (Ibid, ,June 2, 1938) .. Located on the south side of the. pier, opposite the municipal _ plunge, the Pavilion continued to be a .popular dance and convention center for -over 20 years. In its heyday, numerous big bands and popular entertainers played to crowds at the pierside dance hall . The list of major entertainers included such eminent names as Les Brown and His Orchestra; others names would be found in advertisements in the Huntington Beach News (Milkovich, personal communica- tion 6/20/90) . In 1941, the.name of the dance hall was changed from the -Pavil.- ion to the Pavalon (Person, personal communication 6/19/90) . Reportedly, the name change was due to a sign painter's mistake, and the local citizenry ap- proved. of the new name, likening its sound to that of another popular seaside destination, Avalon, on Santa Catalina Island (Ibid) . The Pavalon was located in the heart of the C ity's center of commercial , social , and civic life. This area, centered at the junction of Main Street and Ocean Avenue, included- virtually all of the major landmarks of- Huntington Beach. Among these were the old City Hall and Memorial Hall on the southeast (inland) side of Ocean and Main; on the seaward side were the Municipal Plunge on the north side of Main, the Municipal Pier extending from the foot of Main Street 1,000 feet into the Pacific, and the Pavalon on the south -side of the pier, The Pacific Electric's interurban railway ran down the center of Ocean 1 Avenue (Pacific Coast Highway) , bringing visitors from as far away as Los Angeles to the Huntington Beach waterfront. The Pacific Electric operated its famous "Big Red Cars" in Huntington Beach until 1950, and maintained a depot right in front of the Pavalon. - During World. War II, the U.S Army took over the Huntington Beach Pier (Monnett, et al . 1945; U.S. Army History 1945), and occupied the Pavalon until the danger from Japanese attack had passed. Soon after the Army vacated the. Huntington. Beach pierfront area- in January of 1944 (Ibid), the Pavalon .reopened and continued to host dances and other events for the duration of the ware (Pierson, personal communication 6/19/90, from information provided by Eileen Arnold) . The precise chronology of the later uses of the Pavalon building is unclear without further detailed research. It has remained a municipally owned building, but in the postwar period' it has been leased to various operators who put it to different commercial uses. In the 195Os, it was operated as a. roller, skating rink known as Carnaby Street (Marsh 1986; Person, personal communica- tion 6/19/90) . This use reportedly came to an end when the interior of the 07/02/90(PIR001\MAXNELLAPT) 5 f� Ls building was gutted by a fire in 1966 (Orange County Register 1987). In 1961, it was converted to a restaurant named'The Fisherman operated by Howard A. Lutz of Santa Ana (Building Permits and Certificate of Occupancy , 1967-1969) . In 1977, it became Maxwell 's Restaurant (Marsh 1986), and soon after the change in tenancy it underwent various episodes of interior and exterior remodeling. In 1982, Maxie's Pizza was added to the north side of the building (Building Permit A44499, 3/1/82) . The structure remains in use as a restaurant, and the pizza parlor also remains open. EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE 1. Criteria for Significance The National Register of Historic Places provides criteria for signifi- cance by which properties can be assessed. The National Register specifies that: "The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeo- logy, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant con- tribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. " 2. Evaluation of Integrity On June 13, 1990, the building housing Maxwell 's Restaurant was inspected to determine the nature and extent of alterations to its original form, design, and materials. The assessment of integrity was made possible by a review of building permits for the address on file at the City of Huntington Beach Build- 07/02/90(PIR001\MAXWELL.RPT) 6 �' is ing Department, and by comparison-of the.modern-appearance of the building with historical photographs. These-early photographs include-several which appeared- in the Huntington-Beach News= around the time of its. dedication, as well as a panoramic view of the pier and "Fun . Zone" taken in 1947 found in the local history file of the. Huntington Beach. Public Library. A framed copy of the. latter photograph is presently on display in the -lobby area of Maxwell 's Restaurant, along with other historic photographs of early Huntington Beach. Changes to the structure noted -in this examination were documented with photo--.. graphy. The evaluation of integrity is limited to the building's exterior. The limited archival research revealed that the structure remained in its original configuration from its time of construction in 1938 until at least the 1960s when it was gutted by fire and underwent remodeling to serve a new func- tional role as a restaurant. The majority of the exterior alterations appear to have been made since 1977, when Maxwell 's Restaurant took over operation of . .the building. The specific exterior alterations observed are described below: The most prominent and substantial alteration to the structure is a massive canopy which has been added to the upper portion of the roof and which wraps around three sides of the building (Figure 2a) . The canopy extends from the northern two-thirds of the front (east) facade, covering the entrance, and wraps around the entire north elevation, and continues around the northern four-fifths of the seaward (west) elevation. As part of the canopy addition, the wall above the canopy has been added to, presumably as part of the means of supporting the canopy as well as to give it a more modern appearance. Unlike the original vertical surface of the parapet wall , the portion added above the canopy recedes with height. The canopy is finished in stucco, clad with roof- ing shingles, and is supported from below by massive symmetrically spaced wood beams. 07/02/90(P1R001\MAXYELL.RPT) 7 ,•;,,a w.s.-,�tl _ 4a �f���`�k�a .f't4���55�'+.�:^�.'S _ 3� ��•r� i�f A-A�VL 'zt [ f �Lrsr k` �•ri�`` 1 j Z..w �.� f.� �.,ri � y-4_ *� r�''y..-y`i �y��CL' MEN ON 100-0-M-11-M� B^E]1(iAS= •�At-- .411L 'mot MNt� �.F si-.•�' mot_ n II •�,- �44 F r e sY f l too IVy' L FLZ -' v � _ .� Fie �� �=• ����F' i � 1�1 ', 4� t :'•� y- _ _ - __ } m J'�� �� l _ -_ _ - -=L � q.{f �,?-'y_3:,i Atli -y - ---1 r1.� - .s:`-.`_e�o. - �-y -i;, �>_ - _ '�„a•r°�T'i1:.7-. ,. i ii 551,� 1�1�� 1�t {-3�1 �� � 1�1 "� , ( i rs'41 - - -t --;_•:._. , t f:;•,i ` :�{��Y'a j i t,.�taN y U r r�:.•V i r yi�lt�.� �`�•� A lsa Visual inspection of the• building's exterior was insufficient.to determine . with certainty how the canopy addition affected portions of the. original walls of. the Pavalon. The means of attachment, and the extent to which the original historic fabric of the building have been altered or removed was impossible to verify without the examination of the original building plans and plans for the addition of the canopy. The task may also require further inspection of the structure (including on its roof) by a qualified restoration architect. The other modifications are listed as they are found on each of the building's four elevations, and are presented as if observed in a walk clock- wise around the structure: Front (East) Elevation The front entrance has been modified by the addition of rectangular cinder block rooms on either side of the doorway (approximately two feet deep) , mask- ing the original curved Streamline Moderne aperture (Figure 2b) . These projec- tions have large integral panels of glass block. The one occupying the south side of the entrance is used as a valet's office-. The one on the .north side is used for storage of janitorial equipment. Doors access these rooms' at their far ends-. . A decorative wood moulding belt course and vertical mouldings lead to the massive decorative wood beam brackets affixed to the underside of the canopy. r Where the canopy ends a'short distance south of the front entrance, plywood has ben used to raise the wall height in line with the wall height of the section bearing the canopy. At the far southern end of the front facade, near its southeast corner, a roofless L-shaped cinder block trash enclosure (approxi- mately seven feet high) has been attached to the front wall of the building (Figure 2c) . `+ South Elevation A plywood, enclosure has been added to. the eastern half of the; exterior walkway (inside railing) to screen the kitchen and for extra storage space (Figure 2d) . This enclosure has. no roof, but reveals .timbers connecting.- it. to the original wall . For-continuity of design, the plywood wall height extension added to the front wall has been continued on this elevation. Two large rectangular single pane windows appear to have been installed in the western half of the south facade for the benefit of the dining area (Figure 3a) . It is not clear whether or not the exterior veranda is original . 07/02/900IROMMAXWELL.RPT) 9 �3 yam`- n-'��• Ll RV .a, f ,Trk ! � '� �'�"`� �"� /�1'. t�- �— �• ' .� 3 Ley—��� � �'& Lsa West Elevation The veranda present_ on the south elevation. continues along the, entire length of the. west elevation. It is supported from below by large- dimension beam brackets which are evenly spaced (Figure 3b) . A glass enclosed dining area has been built over the majority of this veranda .(Figure 3c), except for approximately 15-18' at either end. Large single pane rectangular windows have been installed in the exposed lengths of original wall where not obscured by the glassed in dining area. The wrap-around canopy forms the roof of this glassed in dining area (Figure 3d) ; presumably these features were all added in the same episode of modification. North Elevation Maxie's- Pizza parlor occupies the eastern one-third of this side of the building (Figure 4a) . The canopy, which extends over the entire length of the wall , partially shades ,.the outdoor dining area of the pizza concession; a glassed in enclosure projects out from the awning .to enlarge this space. The construction of Maxie's involved creating a new opening where the counter was installed, and brick facing was applied to approximately the lower three feet of the original exterior wall of the pizza restaurant. At the extreme west end of the north elevation- is a ticket booth equipped with an entry door and a small arched ticket window and ledge (Figure 4b) . The ticket booth appears to have been added to the original structure since there is a seam in the exterior wall surface, and the impressed Streamline Moderne horizontal banding on the original wall is not continued across the wall of the ticket booth. Beach Level Concessions on the West Elevation Several concessions now occupy the lower level of the building, facing the bike path and beach (Figures 4c and 4d) . Originally, this- area provided a sheltered space for public picnicking. These concessions include, from south. to north, "The Green Burrito" (restaurant) , "Huntington Eyes" (beach gear) , "Paradise Hawaiian Shave Ice" (confection parlor), "Paradise Beach" (beach gear), and "The Game. Room"- (arcade) . It- appears-that as concessions have, come and gone, modifications have been made to the lower level of the building. However, insufficient evidence was found to document the nature and extent of physical changes to this portion of the building. Nevertheless, the signifi- cance of the structure is attributed primarily to its role in local _social history rather than its architecture. 07/02/90(PIR001\MAXNELL.RPT) 11 �2 • ' - t r E•- F.fURGE RS�O -- � , 1 . - M Y' _7/►r. � 1� I � r,7�wy -- 'p; tY 1 ; dfif�2 � � -�` . � • _ - d,/�ty �`_ '-��l�r �I�1�:* � ar- �1 1:1,e�..' 7�i "f,���j 't`, ' SJ � ' r ��ur�—='•¢'^�� .L�{���t - .03� ���!`�a•,�,�y Mr`i�"`��.�t�f,�.tf. _ is Finding Despite the changes wrought on the building, it has retained much of its original form (Figure 5) . "Form" is defined as. the,.basic volumetric shape. of a structure. Its vaulted roof and main entry aperture still exist, as do sig- nificant portions of the original parapet walls (Figure 6a) and much of the horizontal banding impressed in the stuccoed exterior walls. Most of the modifications are added-on elements, which could possibly be .removed. It therefore appears reasonable to conclude that the building has sufficient integrity of design, materials and workmanship to meet the integrity require- ment of the National Register. The building also possesses integrity of location and setting. Its proxi- mal relationship with the -pier and the beachfront area (Figure. 6b) remain visually the same as when the building was erected, over 50 years ago. 3.. Evaluation of Historical Significance Context In- order for a property to qualify for the National Register, it must be evaluated within a valid historical context. As explained in the National Park Service guidelines for the assessment of historic properties, "decisions about whether a property is significant can reliably be made only within the context of the area's history" (National Park Service 1982:9) . More explicitly, "the property must be representative of significant themes or patterns in the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture of the relevant geographical area and must possess characteristics that make it a good representative of those themes or patterns" (Ibid:2) . The Pavalon can be seen as embodying historical significance at the local level within at least two pertinent historic contexts: 1) "Monument-al and symbolic civic landmarks of' the City of. Huntington ' Beach, 1930-1965 and 2) "Centers of entertainment and social life of the City of Huntington Beach, 1930-1965." 07/02/901PIR001\MAX11111 RPT) 13 x x_ rf "1 �� •'�,.� ,��f� � �! •�~� "' Vf ac :a,w=_s'rsi �.'by�„S�L,st__ -����, �"� .. ,_ ram, _. s�•4 ~4� �• �f i THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PAVALON, CA. 1947 FIGURE 5 �sa 7/2/90:AS j ......,..z� « '�-.tea:•:�� `y '�'S t: ; � E Y,4}y�rt,,��k�,:• i •{ j�-��2,�rc ��Vi �'.�+' I� A "m olmolu• •. • • nrf.7 - �...5 - f f`�r r �`e 4 ! r 3'p,�f+7 ..? i ,✓;vt ti6il 1 . 1 • lsa How the Maxwell 's Restaurant building is illustrative of each of these themes is discussed below. 1. The Huntington Beach Pavilion was originally conceived'as a build- ing which would serve a worthy public need for a large dance, re- creation, and picnic hall . It was to join the popular municipal pier as a major attraction for the benefit of the local populace as well as to add to the city's trade in tourism and commerce. Because of the public nature of the Pavilion, assistance (in the form of funding) was sought from the federal government. Appar- ently,the concept was well received, since the Public Works Admin- istration agreed to provide almost half of the total cost of the project. Even before the building was completed, its place in the community was broadcasted in full page advertisements issued by the City of Huntington Beach and published in the local newspaper, the Hunting- ton Beach News. It was proclaimed as the next "Monument of Good Will , "joining other community structures, the Municipal Pier, the old City Hall , and the Memorial Hall , all of which were located in a core area near the waterfront. Today, only the Pavilion building and the Pier remain from this group of civic landmarks of early Huntington Beach, and the Pier may soon be demolished as well . , The Pavilion continued for over two decades to be one of the key landmarks and its high public visibility made it an important con- tributor to the built environment of Huntington Beach which helped promote the City's identity: Despite changes to its physical appearance and functional role, the building remains a popular city landmark whose location and setting convey its former role. 2. The Pavilion was, until the late 1960s, a locus of the social life and a center for entertainment in the City of Huntington Beach. It was one of the Southern California coast's premier dance and music halls, drawing numerous top name bands and entertainers. It catered to crowds from the local communi.ty as well as from the greater Los Angeles area; the latter was made possible by the prox- imity of the Pacific Electric rail line which stopped at a depot placed directly in front of the establishment. Even after the decline of the big band era in the post-World War II period, the building continued to play a major role as a social and entertainment center in the roles of skating rink (taking advantage 07/02/9001 ROMMAXWELL.RPT) 16 Lsa of the ' original wood floors), teen: club, and more recently as a restaurant. Perhaps the only other place in Huntington Beach which could compare with the old Pavalon in terms of being a center of social activity would be the famous Golden Bear Club, and this cultural landmark has been recently razed. Relation to the National Register Criteria Based on the way in which the resource reflects significance within- the historical contexts given above, it appears that the Maxwell 's Restaurant building meets National Register Criterion A. The contexts presented are themes or important aspects of the "broad patterns" of the history of the community of Huntington Beach, in which the building played a major role. 4. Evaluation of Architectural Significance The Maxwell 's Restaurant building has been altered from its original as- built configuration to a moderate degree by the changes described in the "Eval- uation of Integrity" section, above. A "moderate" degree of alteration is defined here to include changes - either subtractive or additive - which change a structure's appearance . but do not destroy its fundamental form. In its present condition, the structure does not exhibit a high level of- architectural significance. However, most of the modifications appear to be reversible; that is,. the building could theoretically be returned to its original appearance. The reversibility of the alterations could be verified through consultation with a qualified historic architect. As noted in the historical overview, the Huntington Beach Pavilion building was designed by the architectural partnership of Albert R. Walker and Percy A: Eisen. A prolific and well respected firm, Walker and Eisen designed a large number of major commercial and public buildings in- the Los Angeles area (Gebhard and Winter 1985: 524-525) . Their more important works in the Los Angeles area, aside from the Pavilion, include: Bay City Guaranty Building and Loan -Association Building (1929-30) . Beverly Wilshire Hotel (1926) Fine Arts Building (1925) National Bank of Commerce Building (1929-30) Oviatt Building (1927-28) San Gabriel City Hall and Municipal Building (1923) SunKisf" Building (1935) Taft Building (1923) Temple Hall (1919-23) 07/02/90(PIROMMAXWELL.RPT) 17 lSB Texaco/United Artists Building (1927) Title Insurance and Trust Company Building.(1928) Torrance City Hall and Municipal Auditorium (1936-37) Torrance Public Library (1936) Their design for the Huntington Beach Pavilion almost immediately followed their work on the complex of civic structures for the community of Torrance. The Torrance municipal project was made possible by funding from the Public Works Administration, and in the designs for those buildings the architects , employed the "PWA Moderne" style which characterized the genre of federally funded Depression-era civic structures (Gebhard and Winter 1985:92, 490) . In the architectural legacy of Walker and Eisen, the Huntington Beach Pavilion project can be seen as a natural progression from the Torrance project. In its original form, the Pavilion was a classic example of the Moderne style of architecture. It featured the hallmarks of the style, including a recessed entry with streamlined rounded corners, horizontal banding, and an emphasis on symmetry and horizontality (Gebhard and Winter 1985: 489-490) . The survival of many of the original architectural characteristics of the building are described in the Integrity section above. Its architectural- significance has been diminished by the various modifi- cations made to the structure in the 1960s and 1970s; however, it appears possible to restore the building to its original configuration primarily by removing the added-on elements. It is recommended that a qualified historic or restoration architect be consulted to 1) accurately determine how much of the building's historic fabric remains beneath its most serious physical modifica- tion, the massive canopy visible on three of its sides; and 2) to assess its potential for restoration. CONCLUSIONS As an historic resource, the Maxwell 's Restaurant building is significant primarily for its historical associations rather than its architectural quali- ties. Thus, historical , rather than architectural , significance is the primary value of the Maxwell 's Restaurant building. In terms of historical significance, the building has played a prominent role in the life of the community, and has served as one of few municipal . landmarks which gave the City its identity during the defined period of sig- nificance. The location of the Pavalon was part of the City's center of com- mercial , social , and civic life from the late 1930s through the early 1960s. 07/02/90(PIROMMAXWELL.RPT) 18 Lsa Aside from the pier, whose continued existence is uncertain, Maxwell 's:Restaur- ant is the only remaining structure-representative..of the significant historic context, "Monumental and symbolic civic landmarks of the City, of Huntington Beach, '1930-1965." On the basis of these analyses, the structure appears to qualify for eligibility in the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance under Criterion A. Impacts to the structure from the proposed project will need to be addressed. 07/02/90(PIR001\MAXWELL.RPT) 19 Lsa 'Published and Unpublished Sources REFERENCES Building Permits for 319 Pacific Coast Highway, on file at City of Huntington . Beach, Building Department. Conard, Rebecca. , 1990 Historic American Engineering Record, Documentation, Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, Vol. 1. Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach. Gebhard, David and Robert Winter 1985 Architecture in Los Angeles: A Compleat Guide. Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City. Huntington Beach News, 1937-1938. On microfilm at the Huntington Beach Library, Central Branch. Johnson-Heumann Research Associates 1990 Huntington Beach Historic Resources Survey Evaluation. Pre- pared for the Huntington Beach. On file at City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Marsh, Diane. Historic Resources Inventory form prepared for Maxwell 's 1986 Restaurant (for Thirtieth Street Architects,Inc. 1986 inventory). Meadows, Don. 1963 "Huntington Beach--Town on the Mesa" in The (Orange County) Historical Volume and Reference Works, ed. Thomas B. Talbert. Historical Publishers, Whittier. Monnett, Lt. Col . John R. , Major Lester Cole, and Sgt. Jack C. Cleland. ' 1945 "Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles in World War II." Special end- of-war issue of The Alert, Ft. MacArthur's camp newspaper. National Park Service 1982 National Register Bulletin 15: Guidelines for Applying the National Register.Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, D.C. Orange County Register. "Maxwell 's By the Sea has had a busy history," by Kim Heffner. December 19, 1987. 07/02/90(PIR001\MAXWELL.RPT) 20 �1 lsa Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. . 1986- Historic Resources Survey Report: City of Huntington Beach: Thirtieth Street:Architects, Inc. , Newport Beach.. On file. at ' Huntington Beach Public Library. U.S. Army 1945 "History of the Western Defense Command," vol .6, part 6, mimeo graph. Annex C to Appendix VIII: "History of Elements of the 56th Coast Artillery Regiment (155 mm. Gun) Assigned to the Southern California Sector, Western Defense Command, during the period 1 October 1942 to 19 January 1944." On file at the U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA. Informants Consulted Arnold, Eileen; long-time resident of Huntington Beach and business associate of Jerry Pierson (.listed below) iKaiser, Don; long-time employee of the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building Maintenance Milkovich, Barbara; Archivist of the Huntington Beach Historical Society Person, Jerry; chairman of the City of Huntington Beach Historic Resources Board i 07/02/90(PIR001\MAXNELL.RPT) 21 APPENDIX D. TRAFFIC/PARKING REPORT i 07/24/90(PIR0001\SECT4-3.EIR) Lsa ' PIERSIDE RESTAURANT CIRCULATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ' 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 (714) 553-0666 LSA PROJECT #PIR001 July 21, 1990 lsa PIERSIDE RESTAURANT CIRCULATION AND PARKING ' ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION iThis analysis has been prepared to examine the circulation and parking implications of the proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project, located on Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach. This analysis focus- es on the potential parking demand generated by both the existing public uses and the proposed development, and compares this demand to the proposed project's parking supply. Existing parking data has been collected by LSA Associates, Inc. from the operators of the Lake Street public parking lot and the existing Maxwell 's . parking lot. This data is used to document the monthly variation in public use ' of the Lake Street parking lot during 1989. An average summer and non-summer month is identified, and typical weekday and weekend parking_ activity is deter- mined. Based on the four parking accumulations (summer and non-summer weekday and weekend) ,' the existing public parking base at the Lake Street lot is docu- mented. Existing parking utilization per the various time periods was collected. Based. on the public parking lot and the restaurant parking data, the forecast parking accumulation of .the proposed project, including the restaurant expan-. sion, was determined. ' This analysis also presents a trip generation comparison of the -previous-. ly approved Pierside Village and the currently proposed Pierside Restaurant project. Daily and p.m. peak hour trip generation estimates for the previous t Pierside Village project are based on the results of the Traffic Impact Analy- sis - Pierside Development Proiect, prepared by Greer & Co. , July 16, 1987. Trip generation estimates for the proposed Pierside- Restaurant project are based on trip generation rates supplied in the Institute of Transportation ' Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual , 4th Edition, 1985. As will be dis- cussed, the currently proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project will generate significantly less daily and p.m. peak hour trips than the previously approved Pierside Village Development project. To illustrate the effects of the reduction in peak hour trips generated by the proposed project, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is ' 07/21/90(P1R001\PARKING.RPT) Ls presented for the intersection of Lake Street/Pacific Coast Highway, the prima- ' ry vehicular access to the proposed Pierside Resturant project. Finally, this report. includes a discussion of the project's access with ' the arterial street system, a parking queue analysis and a discussion of inter- nal circulation through the project. FORECAST PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS The primary focus of this parking analysis is to determine whether the proposed parking supply can adequately accommodate the existing beach parking ' accumulation and the parking demand resulting from the proposed development. As the proposed project is located at the beach, the parking demand is sensi- tive to the seasonality of beach activity. Therefore, this analysis identifies the parking demand at four representative periods of the year: non-summer ' weekdays, non-summer weekends, summer weekdays and summer weekends. Two parameters are necessary to determine the forecast parking demand: the peak parking demand by land use, and the percentage of parking accumulation , by time of day for each land use. To arrive at the parking demand by time of day, the peak parking demand is multiplied by. the percentage accumulation by time of day. The results of this exercise indicate the parking characteristics , of each land use during their operating hours. The maximum parking accumula- tion is determined by finding that hour of the day when the most vehicles are anticipated to use the proposed project and to park on-site. This number of ' parked vehicles is the maximum expected to utilize the parking facilities, and is equivalent to the number of parking spaces needed to accommodate the pro- posed project. In identifying the proposed parking demand for the Pierside Restaurant ' y 9 P P P 9 Development, two components are necessary. The first component is the existing public parking utilization for the lot located along Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the lifeguard station at Lake Street. The second component is the parking utilization curves for the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant. The proposed parking demand is based on the application of the utilization curves for the , current Maxwell 's Restaurant to the proposed 15,000 square foot Maxwell 's Restaurant expansion, the construction of. two restaurants totaling 25,000 square feet, and to a 6,000 square foot sit-down cafe. Public parking data for the existing public parking lot at Lake Street were identified based on revenue information collected by the lifeguard station for the year 1989. To determine the parking accumulation curves for each sea- ' sonal period, interviews with the Crewleader of Beach Operations at the lot 07/21/90M R001VARKING.RVT) 2 lsa ' were conducted. The lot currently accommodates. approximately 240 parking spaces. Review of the parking data gathered from the .lifeguard station for the public parking lot at Lake Street identified distinct parking variations. These four periods of distinct parking variations are identified as follows: • Summer weekday ' Summer weekend • Non-summer weekday • Non-summer weekend ' Based on these four distinct seasonal parking variations, hourly parking utilization curves were identified. These curves were normalized to reflect the monthly percent difference between the summer and non-summer seasonal variations. The Maxwell 's facility parking data presented in -this report is based on discussions with the owner and the controller of Maxwell 's Restaurant. The. current Maxwell 's parking lot contains approximately 80 spaces and is separated from the adjacent public parking lot by chains. Based on discussions with the controller at Maxwell 's Restaurant, parking for the restaurant is increased by relocating the chains to allow for an additional 47 parking spaces to be reas- signed from the public parking lot to Maxwell 's parking during the weekends. The forecast parking demand and utilization curves for the Pierside Restaurant Development are based on surveys of the existing public parking lot and Maxwell 's Restaurant parking. The new and expanded restaurant and cafe facilities .proposed in the project. are assumed to operate similarly to the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant parking. Therefore, the parking demand projec- tions are based on the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant survey. The following discussions present a summary of the analysis techniques and the forecast parking results.. Existing Public Parking Utilization ' As mentioned previously, revenue data for the year 1989 were examined for the public parking lot located adjacent to the lifeguard station at Lake Street. Based on the total monthly revenue for 1989, an average monthly reve- nue was identified by summing the totals for each month and dividing by twelve. . The upper graphic in Figure 1 shows the Lake Street Lot monthly parking varia- tion. As the Figure indicates, monthly variations are identified as a percent- age of the average month. As expected, the summer months of June, July, and August represent a significant increase in parking activity above average 07/21/9001 R001\PARKING.RPT) 3 300% 2807. 260% '240%. z 2207. , z 0 200% W 180% U a i a 160% 1 1407. O r 120% z U tY a 80% 60% 40% I i _i 20% 0% JAN FES MAR APR MAY jJN JUG AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH ' 400% ' 350% I 300% v K , C 250% � C 1 a 200% 1JJ O �V , W 150% U W � a t00% 50% i C% WEEKDAY WEEKEND WEEKDAY WEEKEND NON-SUMMER SUMMER 100% Represent Annual Averages FIGURE 4.2.1 LAKE STREET PARKING LOT ' LL,sa 7/19/90:AS ' lsa ' annual conditions. The.. average annual monthly parking activity is most closely represented. during the months of March and May. The lower graphic in Figure 1 presents the seasonal and .daily parking variation for the Lake Street parking lot for non-summer and summer weekday and weekend. Once again, the parking activity is presented as a percentage of the average annual daily parking. The average annual daily parking is represented ' by the average monthly revenue, identified above, divided by the average number of days per month (30 days) . As the Figure indicates, during the non-summer weekday, parking activity is less than 50% of. the average daily parking activ- ity. However, during the non-summer weekend and summer weekday, the parking activity is approximately 150% greater than the average annual daily parking activity. The peak parking activity is during the summer weekend, when the ' parking activity is approximately 300% greater than the annual average daily parking activity. Hourly parking accumulation curves and parking supply lines are presented in Figure 2. As the Figure illustrates, parking accumulation curves differ for each seasonal and daily parking variation identified previously. It should be noted that the parking supply line for weekdays and weekends differs. The ' public parking supply has been identified as 240 parking spaces during the summer and non-summer weekdays, while, with the reassignment of 47 parking spaces to Maxwell 's Restaurant during the weekend, the public parking supply' of 193 parking spaces was used. During the non-summer weekday, the peak parking accumulation was identi- fied at less than 50% of the parking supply. During the summer weekday, 100% accumulation results between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. A similar scenario re- sults for the weekend conditions, with less than 100% accumulation during the non-summer weekend and a three-hour maximum accumulation period between 10:00 ' a.m.. and 1:00 p.m. As this section- of the Figure illustrates, however, parking accumulation could not exceed 193 parking spaces (240 spaces minus 47 spaces reassigned to Maxwell 's Restaurant); demand for parking would be significantly greater if additional. parking- was .provided. ' Forecast Proiect Parking Demand As previously discussed, the parking activity for Maxwell 's' parking lot was based on an- interview with the controller of the Maxwell 's Restaurant parking lot. Based on this discussion, the parking characteristics during the four periods were identified. Similar to the hourly parking accumulation data ' gathered for the public parking lot, parking utilization curves were generated for Maxwell 's Restaurant based on the controller's data. Figure 3 presents the ' 07/21/900IR001\PARKING.RPT) •5 1 - existing parking accumulation curves for Maxwell 's Restaurant parking lot. As ' the curves indicate, parking supply during the weekdays is 80 spaces. . However, with the reassignment of 47 parking spaces from the public parking lot, the parking supply during the weekend is 127 spaces. ' 07/21/90(P1R001\PARKING.RPT) 6 I NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND 240 SUPPLY = 240 SPACES 240 220 220 j 200 200 180 160 SUPPLY = 193 SPACES 160 W 160 W U W 140 140 120 120 O 1. K 0 100 mW 100 W m 80 Z 60 2 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 • 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIONIGHT 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME Of DAY TIME Of DAY . SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND 240 SUPPLY = 240 SPACES 240 220 220 200 200 1eo 180. SUPPLY =,193 SPACES I 160 y I60 N U 140 Z 140 = 120 0 120 0 100 m 100 K � W m 60 z 60 7 Z 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT .6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON. 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME OT,DAY I TIME TK DAY , FIGURE 4.2.2 LAKE STREET PUBLIC LOT EXISTING PARKING ACCUMULATION Lsa7/1,/,O,:AS NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND so SUPPLY =80 SPACES 130 SUPPLY = 127 SPACES 120 70 no 60 100 N N 90 cJi S0 U 80 . 70 O 40 O Q 60 W 1 30 3 50 J J Z Z {0 20 30 20 10 1A 10 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3..00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND 80 SUPPLY =80 SPACES 130 SUPPLY = 127 SPACES 120 70 110 100 60 N M 90 j W U_ 50 U_ so I I 70 40 C Q 60 3 30 2 60 J 7 2 2 40 20 30 20 10 10 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY FIGURE 4.2.3 MAXWELLS RESTAURANT LOT EXISTING PARKING ACCUMULATION Lsa 7/19/96:AS lsa Characteri-stac of restaurant type land uses, the peak parking accumula- tion curves throughout the day show two distinct peaks. These peaks occur during the noon and evening hours to reflect the peak parking attraction to the restaurant during the lunch and dinner periods. As the Figure indicates, park- ing accumulation during the non-summer and- summer months is below the parking supply. During the non-summer and summer weekdays, parking accumulation is less than 70% of the parking supply of 80 parking spaces. However, during the ' summer and non-summer weekends, parking accumulation increases to approximately 125% of the weekday parking supply, or .-approximately 100 parking: spaces. However, due to the reassignment of additional parking,. the parking accumula- tion for Maxwell 's Restaurant is still below the weekend parking supply of 1.27 parking spaces. It should also be noted that the peak parking accumulation of 100 parking spaces for the 10,000 square foot Maxwell 's Restaurant results in a peak parking generation rate of 10. parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. This ' is-consistent with the City of Huntington Beach parking ordinance for restau- rant land uses. Forecast Parking Demand Analysis Results The forecast parking demand analysis for the Pierside Restaurant Develop- ment has been examined for the four seasonal variations identified previously. Analysis of the Pierside Restaurant Development parking- is made up of two components. The first component is the existing public parking demand, which has been identified to range between 98 and 1.93 parking spaces on non-summer weekdays and summer weekends, respectively. The second component includes the expansion of. the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet, and the addition of 11,000 square feet and 14,000 square feet of quality restaurant land uses, and a 6,000 square foot cafe. For.fore- ' casting purposes, the utilization curves for the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant were applied to all future parking restaurant developments. The forecast parking demand analysis tables for the public parking lot and the restaurant land uses are presented in Figure 4: The forecast parking demand for the proposed restaurant land uses is generated based on the 10. ' parking spaces per 1,000 square. feet rate identified previously in this report and consistent with the . City of Huntington- Beach parking ordinance. As the Figure of tables indicates, the maximum parking accumulation ranges between 311 and 635-parking spaces on non-summer weekdays and summer weekends respectively. 07/21/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 9 NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND , q. t./ Sq. t. Room --- 15,000 31,000 Room --- 15,000 31,000 HB Code --- 10/1000 10/1000 HB Code --- 10/1000 10/1000 ' Total Total Parking per Parking Parking per Parking HB Code 240 150 310 Demand HB Code 193 150 310 Demand Weekdays Weekdays , 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 1 0 0 1 7:00 AM 2 0 0 2 8:00 AM 6 0 0 6 8:00 AM 3 0 0 3 9:00 AM 13 0 0 13 9:00 AM 9 0 0 9 ' 10:00 AM 17 8 16 40 10:00 AM 54 38 78 169 11:00 AM 58 15 31 104 11:00 AM 96 83 171 349 NOON 81 15 31 127 NOON 122 113 233 467 1:00 PM 98 60 124 282 1:00 PM 142 150 310 602 2:00 PM 81 75 155. 311 2:00 PM 133 150 310 593 ' 3:OO PM 69 56 115 239 3:00 PM 119 128 264 510 4:00 PM 48 38 78 163 4:00 PM 105 75 155 335 5:00 PM 35 IS 31 81 5:00 PM 65 45 93 203 6:00 PM 35 15 31 81 6:00 PM 46 75 155 276 7:00 PM 12 38 78 127 7:00 PM 15 113 233 360 8:00 PM 12 60 124 196 8:00 PM 15 150 310 475 , 9:00 PM 9 75 155 239 9:00 PM 8 150 310 468 10:00 PM 3 60 124 187 10:00 PM 5 150 310 465 11:00 PM 0 45 93 138 11:00 PM 2 135 279 416 MIDNIGHT 0 0 0 0 MIDNIGHT 2 45 93 140 -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Parking Accumulation 311 Maximum Parking Accumulation 602 SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND ' Sq. t. Room --- 15,000 31,000 gRoom --- 15,000 31,000 HB Code --- 10/1000 10/1000 HB Code --- 10/1000 10/1000 , Total Total Parking per Parking Parking per Parking HB Code 240 150 310 Demand HB Code 193 150 310 Demand Weekdays Weekdays ' 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6:03 AM 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 12 0 0 12 7:00 AM 39 0 0 39 8:00 AM 36 0 0 36 8:00 AM 87 0 0 87 9:00 AM 72 0 0 72 9:00 AM 164 0 0 164 10:00 AM 108 8 16 131 10:00 AM 193 38 78 308 11:00 AM 156 6 16 179 11:00 AM 193 83 171 446 ' NOON 216 38 78 331 NOON 193 113 233 538 1:00 PM 240 60 124 424 1:00 PM 193 144 298 635 2:00 PM 240 113 233 585 2:00 PM 174 144 298 615 3:00 PM 204 98 202 503 3:00 PM 164 98 202 463 ' 4:00 PM 192 38 78 307 4:00 PM 164_ 75 155 394 5:00 PM 180 15 31 226 5:00 PM 116 45 93 254 6:00 PM 192 23 47 261 6:00 PM 58 60 124 242 7:00 PM 155 45 93 294 7:00 PM 58 113 233 463 8:00 PM 120 75 155 350 8:00 PM 39 150 310 499 9:00 PM 96 98 202 395 9:00 PM 19 150 310 479 10:00 PM 48 68 140 255 10:00 PM 10 150 310 470 11:00 PM 12 38 78 127 I1:00 PM 10 135 279 424 MIDNIGHT 12 0 0 12 MIDNIGHT 0 45 93 138 -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Parking Accumulation 585 Maximum Parking Accumulation 615 J, 15,000 - Maxwells Restaurant FIGURE 4.2.4 ' 31,000 - Other Restaurants FORECAST PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS ' Lsa7,,,/,O:AS Lsa Figure 5 has also been prepared to illustrate the parking demand analysis . with the proposed parking supply. The Figure identifies. two parking supply Tines: the proposed parking supply of 575 parking spaces, and the maximum ' parking supply of 635 parking spaces. The 575 parking supply is based on the total number of' striped spaces. With valet parking, additional parking. can accommodate up to 635 parking spaces. ' As the Figure indicates, the forecast peak parking accumulation occurs at .2:00 p.m. on weekdays and 1:00 p.m. on weekends, when the peak utilization of ' the public parking lot and the restaurant lot coincide. The maximum forecast parking accumulation during the non-summer weekday is less 'than the proposed parking supply of 575 parking spaces. During the other three seasonal periods, however,. the peak forecast parking accumulation exceeds the proposed parking ' supply of 575 parking spaces, which will require some degree of valet parking. As the Figure indicates, the maximum parking supply of 635 parking spaces ' adequately accommodates the maximum parking accumulation during the non-summer weekend- and summer weekday periods. However, during the summer weekends, the maximum parking supply is forecast to equal the maximum parking accumulation of . 635 parking spaces. It should be noted that the peak public parking demand ' analysis during the summer weekend assumed a peak parking accumulation of 193 parking spaces, due to the reassignment of -47 parking spaces to Maxwell 's Restaurant parking lot. However experience indicates that the public parking ' demand for beach parking is a function of parking supply. In other words, if the 47 parking spaces were not reassigned for restaurant use, the peak public parking accumulation during the summer weekend would have been 100% of 240 parking spaces, or 240 parking spaces. TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON In July 1987, Greer- & Co. prepared a Traffic Impact. Analysis for the Pierside Development Project. The project proposed development of 40,000 square feet of specialty retail , 30,OOO square feet of quality restaurants, and 30,000 square feet of fast-food services. The study identified daily and p.m. ' peak hour trip generation as-presented. in the following table: PM PEAK HOUR ' DAILY IN OUT TOTAL Pierside Village Development 89810 500 280 780 ' 07/21/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 1 1 i . NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY. NON-SUMMER WEEKEND 700 JOG — 600 MAXIMUM SUPPLY OF 635 SPACES 600 MAXIMUM UPPLY 635 SPACES PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 575 SPACES PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 570 SPACES Spp Soo 0 _ {00 {00 > o ° 300 W 300 p 0 f � ] z 2 Z 200 200 100 100 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT. 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6.00 PM 9:00 PY MIDNIGHT TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY PUBLIC ®MAXWELLS ®RESTS. N7 PUBLIC ®MAXWELLS ®RESTS. SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND 700 700 6W MAXIMUM SUPPLY OF 635 SPACES 600 MAXIMUM SUPPLY OF 635 SPACES PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 575 SPACES PROPOSED SUP P Y F 575 SPACES soo 500 MNH u W J , U U {00 {00 r O O 300 S 300 m m > zz 200 200 100 100 0 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 4:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY PUBLIC ®MAXWELLS ®RESTS. PUBLIC ®MAXWELLS ®RESTS. FIGURE 4.2.5 FORECAST PARKING DEMAND �—alga 7/19/90:AS �, �. Will ' lsa ' However; subsequent to the previous project approval by the City of Hun- tington Beach. City Council , a reduced development . is currently proposed to include 40,000 square feet of quality restaurants and 6,000 square feet of' sit- down cafe land use. An additional 10,000 square feet of beach related retail and food service is proposed, but their facilities focus on serving the pedes- trian visitor and are not expected to generate parking or trip making demand. ' The proposed trip generation is identified in the following table. The trip generation rates are from the Institute ,of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Tria Generation manual ,. 4th edition. PM PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT TOTAL 40,000 SF . (3 Quality Restaurants) 2,995 150 95 245 6400 SF Sit-Down Restaurant 985 60 25 85 Pierside: Restaurant Development 3.,980 210 120 330 ' As the Table indicates, the proposed project generates approximately 4.,830 fewer daily trips, and 450 fewer p.m. peak hour trips than the previous ' Pierside proposal . As a result of the reduction in the number of daily and p.m. peak hour trips generated, no significant project related impacts to the arterial street system in the vicinity of the project site are forecast. This conclusion is substantiated with the results of a Greer & Co. study entitled, ' Downtown Specific Plan - Traffic Analysis for Proposed Density Reduction in the Downtown Core Area, April 4; 1989, in which the effects of down zoning the Downtown Specific Plan reduced the volume of traffic in the Downtown Core Area. As stated in the Greer study, "These volume changes are nominal and won't '. significantly effect traffic operations-Icn any of the streets as presently planned." (p. 5) . ' LAKE STREET INTERSECTION ANALYSIS To determine the potential impacts associated with the development of the ' Pierside Restaurant at the intersection of Lake Street/Coast Highway, an Inter- section Capacity. Utilization (ICU) analysis was conducted. Briefly, the ICU methodology compares the volume to capacity (v/c) ratios for conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums these critical. v/c ratios for each intersec- tion approach and determines the overall intersection capacity utilization. The City of Huntington Beach defines acceptable intersection -operations at an ICU value of 0.90. 1 ' 07/21/90M R001WARKING.RPT) 13 t is , The peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Lake Street/Coast ' Highway are based on information included in the Final Environmental Impact Report for The Waterfront Master Plan Hotel Development, July 18, 1988. These volumes were used as they reflect an approved analysis of this intersection, including the effects of the Downtown Specific Plan, the previously approved Pierside Village-developments and the approved Waterfront Master Plan project. The peak hour traffic volumes included in The Waterfront Final EIR have , been modified to reflect the down zoning of the Downtown Specific Plan and the reduced development intensity of the Pierside Restaurant project. The result- ing peak hour intersection volumes reflect an average weekday condition assum- ing the build out of the Downtown Specific Plan and Pierside Restaurant pro- ject. In addition, a summer condition is included to determine the effects of summer beach traffic at this intersection. This summer condition includes an ' increase in east and westbound through traffic, as well as an increase in the appropriate turning volumes into and out of the Lake Street parking. area. To determine the effects of the down zoning of the Downtown Specific , Plan, the trip assignment for the Plan was reduced according to the reduction in trip generation as presented in the Greer & Co. study entitled, .Downtown Specific Plan - Traffic Analysis for Proposed Density Reduction in the Downtown ' Corg Area, April 4, 1989. The results of this study indicate that the reduced density will result in a peak hour trip generation reduction of approximately 13%. Therefore, the trip assignment associated with the Downtown Specific Plan, included in The Waterfront Final EIR analysis, was modified to reflect this 13% trip generation reduction. As previously discussed, the proposed Pierside Restaurant project will ' generate fewer trips than the original Pierside Village project. While the original Pierside Village was forecast to generate approximately 780 p.m. peak hour trips, the proposed Pierside Restaurant will generate a total of 330 p:m. peak hour trips. Overall , the proposed Pierside Restaurant project will gener- ate 58% fewer trips during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. To reflect this dif- ference in peak hour trip generation the inbound and outbound .movements to the ' project and the intersection of Lake Street/Coast Highway have been reduced accordingly. The resulting modified a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at Lake Street/Coast Highway are input into an ICU analysis worksheet. The intersec- tion lane geometrics used in this analysis assume the addition of a third eastbound and westbound through lane, per the current Caltrans project. The ' results of this average weekday ICU analysis are presented as follows. The ICU analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 07/21/90M R001WARKING.RPT) 14 ' Lsa Lake:Street/Coast Highway Average Weekday ICU Analysis . AM Peak Hour PM Peak .Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS Without Project 0.56 A 0.77 C If With Project 0.59 A 0.78 C As seen in this table, the intersection will operate acceptably, below 1. the 0.90 threshold, during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The effects of summer traffic volumes are assessed by increasing the. eastbound and westbound through volumes- according to historical seasonal variations observed on Coast Highway. - According to the LSA analysis, Seasonal variations in Pacific Coast Highway Traffic Volumes, April 6, 1988, the a.m. peak hour is unaffected by the variation in seasons from non-summer to summer. The p.m. peak hour, however, can exhibit a four to nine. percent increase during the summer months. To present a conservative estimate of the seasonal varia- tion in traffic volumes, an increase equivalent to nine percent in p.m. peak ' hour through traffic has been assumed in this ICU analysis. In addition, the increase in beach parking activity is represented in- this ICU analysis. According to the parking counts collected from the City of Huntington Beach, the average a.m. peak hour summer arrivals are approximately 123 vehicles. The p.m. peak hour summer arrivals total 30 vehicles. There- fore, the inbound movements to the Lake Street parking area are added to the summer period ICU analysis. The results of this analysis are presented below. Lake Street/Coast Highway Average Weekend ICU Analysis AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS - Without-Project 0.58 A 0.80 C With Project 01.61 B 0.81 D As seen in this table, the intersection will operate acceptably, below the 0.90 threshold, during both a.-m. and p.m. peak hours during the average summer period. 07/21/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 15 lsa INTERNAL CIRCULATION The proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project is located along Pacific Coast Highway, between Lake Street and Main Street, south of the exist- ing Huntington Beach Pier (see Figure 6). . Removal of on-street parking along - Pacific Coast Highway and restriping the roadway to accommodate three lanes of travel in each direction is currently being pursued by Caltrans and the City of Huntington Beach. Ingress access to the proposed project site is located along Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Third Street and the intersection of Lake Street- and Coast Highway. The Coast Highway access between Main and Third Streets provides for right-in only traffic. A 150 foot right turn decel- eration lane is proposed prior to the access driveway to remove ingress traffic from the southbound Pacific Coast Highway through traffic lanes. Northbound traffic along Pacific Coast Highway is required to either turn left at Lake Street, or to make a U-turn at the Fifth Street intersection to gain access to the proposed driveway between Main and Third Streets. Egress from the proposed project site is located opposite the Second Street intersection along Pacific ' Coast Highway, approximately 360 feet south of the proposed ingress location and at Lake Street. The Coast Highway egress provides for right-out only traffic movement. A right turn acceleration lane is also proposed at this driveway to accommodate egress traffic from the project site onto the mainline ' flow of traffic along southbound Pacific Coast Highway. The Lake Street exit is via a fully signalized intersection. Pedestrian access to and from the proposed project site is facilitated along signalized crosswalks at the Main Street and Lake Street intersections along Pacific Coast Highway. Currently, access from Pacific Coast Highway. to Maxwell 's Restaurant and the beach promenade is accommodated along two stair- ways. The first is located adjacent to the Huntington Beach Pier, north of the project site, and the second is located at the Lake Street intersection adja- cent to the Lifeguard Station. The Pierside Restaurant Development project proposes to create additional access to the beach promenade from Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street via two plaza locations at the ingress and egress driveways. In addition, walkways are proposed between restaurant pads providing adequate pedestrian circulation through the project site, thus reducing the number of pedestrian movements along the southbound Pacific Coast Highway sidewalk be- tween Main Street and Lake Street. In addition, the sidewalk along the south- erly side of Coast Highway has been eliminated between the project right in and right out locations to further reinforce pedestrian use of the Pierside Restau- rants promenade and eliminate the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along Coast Highway. 07/21/900IR001\PARKING.RPT) 16 ■s 01111 -MII, Im fir. 0-0 M VINII so go ow MW an W J o q I .80Ci oi O IL(DE�l 'P Ll 0� 0 u i - -- -- - - - 7ACIFIC COAST NIGNWAT _ �•1•... 1 l• .K • nRA � - l C ..i I // - — A.. .O • • O rynp.p I . = N•g1O . � ..�. . I C —0 I � P 11 1 6UILDINGII A 1 •/ '� �t•p MaDe BUILDING B 6VILOING, I - � ,.. '_I_ Imo. W j-1•-'�-_�- � __ __ _� M91 Id nO hd i - SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 6 0 50 100 PROJECT SITE PLAN Lsa 11 6/26/90:AS is Pedestrian/bicycle conflicts are also managed along the Strand with the provision of a pedestrian boardwalk separated by planters, walls or railings from the bicycle trail . Transit service along southbound Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the project site is currently provided by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) . Existing bus stops are located . approximately 80 feet north of Main Street and approximately 100 feet north of Second Street. The proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project design can accommodate the existing bus stops and future plans for bus turnouts. PIERSIDE RESTAURANT PARKING QUEUE ANALYSIS A queuing analysis is conducted to identify the probable storage lengths at the Pierside Restaurant's parking garage entrances. The purpose of this analysis is to ensure that queues do not develop at the parking garage entranc- es that will create conflicts with arterial street traffic flow. The potential for a queue, or vehicle back up, arises at the garage entrances due to the relationship between the arrival of vehicles and the ability of parking control equipment to handle these vehicles. Gated access controls are proposed at the ingress locations at Lake Street and the midblock location on Coast Highway. The methodology for determining desirable parking gate storage requirements includes the peak hour arrivals and the appropriate factors for parking control equipment characteristics, as presented in a report entitled Entrance-Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilities by Robert Crommelin and Associ- ates, Inc. To evaluate the potential queue formation at the garage entrance locations, the ratio of the arrival rate to the discharge rate, termed the traffic intensity (or. "i"), is determined. For purposes of this analysis, the p.m. peak hour inbound traffic volume was selected as the arrival rate, as the contribution of the morning beach arrivals combined with restaurant inbound volume is greater than the arrivals during the a.m. peak hour. The project peak hour trip generation is summarized in the following table. The peak hour inbound beach traffic and trip distribution by access location is also presented in the table on the following page. 07/21/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 18 is Trip Generation AM Peak Hour. PM Peak Hour Land Use In Out In Out Quality Restaurant 34 18 152 94 Sit-down Restaurant 62 21 59 24 SUBTOTAL 96 39 211 118 Inbound Beach Traffic* 13 19 Coast Hwy Access % Distribution 35% 35% Volume 34 74 Lake Street Access % Distribution 65% 65% Volume 75 156 * Average Weekday Traffic Volumes Note: Per ITE definition, quality restaurants have a turnover rate of one hour or longer, whereas .sit down restaurants have a higher turnover less than one hour. As seen in the table, the Coast Highway access is forecast to include 34 a.m. and 74 p.m. inbound trips. The Lake Street access v�2.11. have 75 a.m. and 156 p.m. peak hour inbound trips. Therefore, the p.m. peak hour inbound vol- umes are used as the arrival rate in the calculation of storage requirements for the.gated access to the parking garage. The discharge rate for the project gated facilities- are based on recom- mended values in the Crommelin study. For a gated ticket dispenser with a sharp turn- at the approach, the Crommelin study recommends a design hourly capacity of 305 vehicles. 'This.-value assumes an average headway of 9.5 seconds per vehicle. Assuming an inbound volume of 14 at the Coast Highway access and 156 at the Lake Street access and a design capacity of 305 vehicles per hour, the intensity factor for the Coast Highway and Lake Street access locations is 0.24 and 0.50, respectively. Assuming a 99% confidence level , or the probability 07/21/9001R001\PARKINC.RPT) 19 i is that the potential queue will not be exceeded one in 100 times, a reservoir requirement of 44 feet, or two vehicles, at Coast Highway and 66 feet, or three vehicles, at Lake Street is required. As the storage length available is approximately 200 feet at both the Lake Street and Coast Highway accesses, all storage requirements can be. accommodated within the driveways to the parking garage. It should be pointed out that this analysis assumes average weekday , inbound traffic volumes. Due to the location of the proposed project and the proximity to the beach, summer parking activity is a consideration in this queuing analysis. Due to the available storage length of 200 feet, approxi- mately nine vehicles could queue without impacting the arterial street system. Using the Crommelin approach, a nine vehicle queue would result from an inbound volume of 253 vehicles per hour. The total inbound traffic volume identified at Lake Street during the average weekday is 156 vehicles per hour. . Therefore, the increase to 253 vehicles represents an increase of approximately 60% over the average weekday inbound volumes that could be accommodated by the proposed gated access plan. i 07/21/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 20 rr �r rr �w rr err r rr r rr rrr rr rt r�r� �r �r r ar PIERSIDE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LAKE STREET (N/S) / PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (E/W) LSa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I EXISTING AVERAGE WEEKDAY FORECAST AVERAGE WEEKDAY FORECAST AVERAGE WEEKDAY WITHOUT PROJECT v/C . v/C v/C MMENT I LANE CAP, AN' NVOLl1MEPH AM RATIQ`PH MMOVE ENT LANE CAP, �VOIIltEPH AM RATIO* PH LANE CAP, �YOLIMEPH AM RATIO* I" OVE I ------ -=-------------------------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------------- -------------------=--------------------------- NBL I 1 1600 46` 11 0.03 * 0.01 NBL 1 1600 92 21 0.06 * 0.01 1 1600 80 11 0.05 0.01--1 INBT I 2 3200 28 16 0.02 6.01 * NBT 2 3200 84, 51 0.04 6.02 * 2 3200 78 33 0:04 * 0.01•*1 NBR I 0 0 23 9 0.00 0.00 NBR 0 0 56 19 0.00 0.00 0 0 52 7 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1600 63 52 0.04 0.03 * SBL 1 1600 213 185 0.13 0.12 * 1 1600 213 185 0.13 * 0..12 * SBT 2 3200 16 3 0.05 * 0.02 SBT 2 3200 57 11 0.12 * 0.04 2 3200 40 3 0.11 0.04 1 SBR 0 0 149 46 0.00 0.00 SBR 0 0 326 124 0.00 0.00 0 0 326 124 0.00 0.06 EBL 1 1600 33 151 0.02 0.09 * EBL 1 1600 52 359 0.03 0.22 * 1 1600 52 359 0.03 0.22 IEBT 2 3200 1,126 1,129 0.36 * 0.36 EBT 3 4800 1,235 1,279 0.27 * 0.27 3 4800 1,235 1,279 0.27 * 0.27 EBR 0 0 33 12 0.00 0.00 EBR 0 0 68 25 0.00 0.00 0 0 66 21 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 31 15 0.02 * 0.01 WBL 1 1600 78 36 0.05 * 0.02 1 1600 35 15 0.02 * 0.01 WBT I 2 3200 1,081 1,178 0.35 0.39 * WBT 3 4800 1,142 1,362 0.26 0.33 * 3 4800 1,142 1,362 0.26 0.33 *I _ -WBR 0 0 48 67 0.00 0.00 -WBR--1- 0 0 103 208 0.00 0.00 ----0- 0 103 208 0.00 0.00- -------------------------------------- ------------------------------I IN/S Critical Movements 0.08 0.04 N/S Critical Movements 0.18 0.14 N/S Critical Movements 0.17 0.13 I E/W Critical Movements 0.38 0.48 E/W Critical Movements 0.32 0.55 E/W Critical Movements 0.29 0.55 I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 Right Turn C. M. . 0.00 0.00 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 I Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 Clearance Interval . 0.10 0.10 EXISTING FORECAST PROJECT FORECAST NO PROJECT CONDITION ICU 0.56 0.62 CONDITION 0.59 0.78 CONDITION 0.56 0.77 LEVEL OF SERVICE A B ! LEVEL OF SERVICE A C LEVEL OF SERVICE A C I PIERSIOE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LAKE STREET (N/S) / PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (E/W) Lsa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 I EXISTING AVERAGE WEEKEND FORECAST AVERAGE WEEKEND FORECAST AVERAGE WEEKEND WITHOUT PROJECT I I V/C V/C V/C MOVE- I VOLUME RATIO* MOVE- VOLUME RATIO* VOLUME RATIO* I MENT - LANE CAP. -----AM- PM AM PM MENT LANE CAP. AM PM AM PM LANE CAP. AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1600 46 11 0.03-* 0.01 NBL 1 1600 92 21 0.06 * 0.01 9 1600 80 11 0.05 0.01 INBT I 2 3200 28 16 0.02 0.01 * NBT 2 3200 84 51 0.04 0.02 * 2 3200 78 33 0:04 * 0.01 *I NBR I 0 0 23 9 0.00 0.00 1 NBR 0 0 56 19 0.00 0.00 0 0 52 7 0.00 0.00 SSL I 1 1600 63 52 0.04 0.03 * SBL I 1 1600 213 185 0.13 0.12 * 1 1600 213 185 0.13 * 0.12 *I SBT 2 3200 25 3 0.05 * 0.02 SBT 2 3200 66 11 0.12 * 0.04 2 3200 49 3 0.12 0.04 SBR 0 0 149 46 0.00 0.00 SBR 0 0 326 124 0.00 0.00 0 0 326 124 0.00 0.00 Eel I 1 ' 1600 33 151 0.02 0.09 * EBL 1 1600 52 359 0.03 0.22 * 1 1600 52 359 0.03 0.22*, I EBT I 2 3200 1,126 1,231 0.37 * 0.39 EBT 3 4800 1,235 1,394 0.28 * 0.30 3 4800 1,235 1,394 0.27 * 0.29 I EBR I 0 0 50 12 0.00 0.00 EBR 0 0 85 25 0.00 0.00 0 0 83 21 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1600 47 15 0.03 * 0.01 WBL 1 1600 94 36 0.06 * 0.02 1 1600 51 15 0.03 * 0.01 WBT 2 3200 1,081 1,284 0.35 0.42 * WBT I 3 4800 1,142 1,485 0.26 0.35 * 3 4800 1,142 1,485 0.26 0.35 '.-WBR--�- 0 0 48 67 0.00 0.00 -WBR- 1 0 0 103 208 0.00 0.00 ----0 0 103 208 0.00 0.00 I ------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ N/S Critical Movements 0.08 0.04 N/S Critical Movements 0.18 0.14 N/S Critical Movements 0.17 0.13 I E/W Critical Movements 0.40 0.52 E/W Critical Movements 0.33 0.58 E/W Critical Movements 0.31 0.58 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 I Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 IEXISTING I FORECAST FORECAST NO PROJECT I CONDITION ICU 0.57 0.65 I CONDITION 0.61 0.81 CONDITION 0.58 0.80 I LEVEL OF SERVICE A B I LEVEL OF.SERVICE B . D LEVEL OF SERVICE A C So ;� . r ratso Lsa PIERSIDE RESTAURANT CIRCULATION AND PARKING ' ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 1 PREPARED BY LSA ASSOCIATES, INC' 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92714 (714) 653-0666 LSA PROJECT #PIROOI iJune 27, 1990 ' lsa PIERSIDE RESTAURANT- CIRCULATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION 1 This analysis has been prepared to examine the circulation and parking implications of the proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project, located on Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach. This analysis focus- es on the potential parking demand generated by both the existing public uses and the proposed development, and compares this demand to the proposed project's parking supply. Existing parking data has been collected by LSA Associates, Inc. from the operators of the Lake Street public parking lot and the existing Maxwell 's parking lot. This data is used to document the monthly variation in public use of the Lake Street parking lot during 1989. An average summer and non-summer month is- identified, and typical weekday and weekend parking activity is deter- mined. Based on the four parking accumulations (summer and non-summer weekday and weekend), the existing- public parking base at the Lake Street. lot is docu- mented. Existing parking utilization per the various time periods was collected. Based on the public parking lot and the restaurant parking data, the forecast parking accumulation of the proposed project, including the restaurant expan- sion, was determined. This analysis also presents a trip .generation comparison of the previous- ly approved Pierside Village and the currently proposed Pierside Restaurant project. Daily and PM peak hour trip generation estimates for the previous Pierside Village project are based on the results of the Traffic Impact Analy- sis - Pierside Development Project, prepared by Greer & Co. , July 16, 1987. Trip generation estimates for the proposed Pierside Restaurant project are. ' based on trip generation rates supplied in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual , 4th Edition, 1985. As will be dis- cussed, the currently proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project will generate less daily and PM peak hour trips than the previously approved Pier- side Village Development project. Finally, this. report includes the projects access with the arterial street system and a discussion of internal circulation through the project 06/27/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) Lsa FORECAST PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS The primary focus of this parking analysis is to determine whether the proposed parking supply can adequately accommodate the existing beach parking ' accumulation and the parking demand resulting from the proposed development. As the proposed project is located at the beach, the parking demand is sensi- tive to the seasonality of beach activity. Therefore, this analysis identifies the parking demand at four representative periods of the year: non-summer weekdays, non-summer weekends, summer weekdays and summer weekends. Two parameters are necessary to determine the forecast parking demand: the peak parking demand by land use, and the percentage of parking accumulation by time of day for each land use. To arrive at the parking demand by time of day, the peak parking demand is multiplied by the percentage accumulation by time of day. The results of this exercise indicate the parking characteristics of each land use during their operating hours. The maximum parking accumula- tion is determined by finding that hour of the day when the most vehicles are anticipated to use the proposed project and to park on-site. This number of , parked vehicles is the maximum expected to utilize the parking- facilities, and is equivalent to the number of parking spaces needed to accommodate the pro- posed project. , In identifying the proposed parking demand for the Pierside Restaurant Development, two components are necessary. The first component is the existing public parking utilization for the lot located along Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the lifeguard station at Lake Street. The second component is the parking utilization curves for the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant. The proposed parking demand is based on the application of the utilization curves for the current Maxwell 's Restaurant to the proposed 15,000 square foot Maxwell 's Restaurant expansion, the construction of two restaurants totaling 25,000 square feet, and to a 6,000 square foot sit-down cafe. Public parking data for the existing publ.i c parking lot at Lake Street were identified based on revenue information collected by the lifeguard station for the year 1989. To determine the parking accumulation curves for each sea- ' sonal period, interviews with the Crewleader of Beach Operations at the lot were conducted. The lot currently accommodates approximately 240 parking spaces. Review of the parking data gathered from the lifeguard station for the public parking lot at Lake Street identified distinct parking variations. These four periods of distinct parking variations are identified as follows: Summer weekday Summer weekend 06/27/90(P1R001VARKING.RPT) 2 ' I I Lso Non-summer weekday Non-summer weekend Based on these four distinct seasonal parking variations, hourly parking ' utilization curves were identified. These, curves_ were normalized to reflect the monthly percent difference between the summer and non-summer seasonal variations. The Maxwell 's facility parking data presented in this report is based on discussions with the owner and the controller of Maxwell 's Restaurant. The current Maxwell 's parking lot contains approximately 80 spaces and is separated from the adjacent public parking lot by chains. Based on discussions with the controller at Maxwell 's Restaurant, parking for the restaurant is increased by relocating the chains to allow for an additional 47 parking spaces to be reas- signed from the public parking lot to Maxwell 's. parking during the weekends. The forecast parking demand and utilization curves for the Pierside Restaurant Development are based on surveys of the existing public parking lot and Maxwells Restaurant parking. The new and expanded restaurant and .cafe facilities proposed in the project are assumed to operate similarly to the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant parking. Therefore., the parking demand projec- tions are based on the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant survey. The following discussions present a summary of the analysis techniques and the forecast parking results. Existing Public Parking Utilization As mentioned previously, revenue data for the year 1989 were examined for the public - parking lot located adjacent to the lifeguard station at Lake Street. Based on the total monthly revenue for 1989, an average monthly reve- nue was identified by summing the totals for each month and dividing by twelve. The upper graphic in Figure 1 shows the Lake Street Lot monthly parking varia- t-ion. As the Figure indicates, monthly variations are identified- as a percent- age of the average month. As expected, the summer months of June, July, and August represent: a significant increase in parking activity above average annual conditions. The average annual monthly parking activity is most closely represented during the months of March and May. The lower graphic in Figure 1 "presents the seasonal and daily parking variation for the Lake Street parking lot for non-summer and summer weekday and ' weekend. Once again, the parking activity is presented as a percentage of the average annual daily parking. The average annual daily parking is represented 06/27/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 3 3007. 280% 260% 20 � 220% z U 200% X 780 Q 760% Q 740% 0 r 7 207. I 4 U OJ:: I a 80% 607. o% 0% JAN FEB MAC APR MAY JJN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 400% I I 350� 300' I ' ti 1 K p W 250% \ 1 200% o \� z w 750% U K W a 700' I C% i WEEKDAY WEEKEND WEEKDAY WEEKEND `ON-SUMMER SUMMER ' 100% Represent Annual Averages FIGURE 1 LAKE STREET PARKING LOT Lsa6/25/9,:KF _ I 1 ' ---- _ Lsa ' by the average monthly revenue, identified above; divided by the average number of days per month (30 days) . As the Figure indicates, during the non-summer weekday, parking activity is .less than 50% of the average daily parking activ- ity. However, during the non-summer weekend and summer weekday, the parking activity is approximately- 150% greater than the average annual daily parking activity. The peak parking activity is during the summer weekend, when the _ parking activity is approximately 300% greater than the annual average daily ' parking activity. Hourly parking accumulation curves and parking supply lines are presented in Figure 2. As the Figure illustrates, parking accumulation curves differ for each seasonal and daily parking variation identified previously. It should be noted that the parking supply line for weekdays and weekends differs. The public parking supply has been identified as 240 parking spaces during the ' summer and non-summer weekdays, while, with the reassignment of 47 parking spaces to Maxwell 's Restaurant during the weekend, the public parking supply of 193 parking spaces was used. ' During the non-summer weekday, the peak parking accumulation was identi-- fied at less than 50% of the parking supply. During the summer weekday, 100% accumulation results between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. A similar scenario re- sults for the weekend conditions, with less than 100% accumulation during the non-summer weekend and a three-hour maximum accumulation period between' 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. As this section of the Figure illustrates, however, parking accumulation could not exceed 193 parking spaces (240 spaces minus 47 spaces reassigned to Maxwell 's Restaurant) ; demand for parking would be significantly greater if additional parking was provided. ' Forecast Prdect Parking Demand As previously discussed, the parking activity. for Maxwell 's parking lot was based on an interview with the controller of the Maxwell 's Restaurant parking lot. Based on this discussion, the parking characteristics during the four periods were identified. Similar to the hourly parking accumulation data gathered for the public parking. lot, parking utilization curves were generated r for-Maxwell 's Restaurant based on the controller's data. Figure 3 presents the existing parking accumulation curves for Maxwell 's Restaurant parking lot. As the curves indicate, parking supply during the weekdays is 80 spaces. However, with the reassignment of .47 parking spaces from the public parking lot, the parking supply during the weekend is 127 spaces. 06/27/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 5 i NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND 240 SUPPLY = 240 SPACES 240 220 220 200 200 ISO 160 SUPPLY = 193 SPACES 160 W 160 In u_ W 140 I 140 U I 120 U 120 - 4 Q O 100 m 100 6 F m 60 i 60 2 Z 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 Pm MIDNIGHT 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 Pm 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND 240 SUPPLY = 240 SPACES 240 220 220 200 200 180 ISO SUPPLY = 193 SPACES I 160 y 160 W V too' 1 140 s 120 00 +20 ,00 m ,00 rc T W m so Z 60 f J 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT 600 AN 9100 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6..00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME OF DAY I TIME OF DAY FIGURE 2 LAKE STREET PUBLIC LOT EXISTING PARKING ACCUMULATION Lsa 6/25/90:KF rr iris , rr rr r r r► rr . r � r � ris rr r � rr, r r m . m m m m m . m m ' NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND SUPPLY =80 SPACES 130 SUPPLY = 127 SPACES 120 .FFF70 110 too 60 N N 90 W W u 50 u 80 70 O i0 O Q n 60 W 3 30 O 5 2 Z .0 20 30 20 10 - zi 10 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PY MIDNIGHT 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 Pm 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME OF DAY TIME OF,DAY SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND aD 130 SUPPLY = 80 SPACES 120 SUPPLY = 127 SPACES 70 110 . 100 60 N m 90— W U_ 50 U_ 60 x x 70 O 40 G a ¢ 60 y j0 ] SO � 7 I Z 40 4t 20 30 20 10 10 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIONtCHT 6:00 AM 2:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY FIGURE 3 MAXWELLS RESTAURANT LOT EXISTING PARKING ACCUMULATION LSa6/25/90:KF lsa Characteristic of restaurant type land uses, the peak parking accumula- tion curves throughout the day show two distinct peaks. These peaks occur during the noon and evening hours to reflect the peak parking attraction to the restaurant during the lunch and dinner periods. As the Figure indicates, park- ing accumulation during the non-summer and summer months is below the parking supply. During the non-summer and summer weekdays, parking accumulation is less than 70% of the parking supply of 80 parking spaces. However, during the ' summer and non-summer weekends, parking accumulation increases to approximately 125% of the weekday parking supply, or approximately 100 parking spaces. However, due, to the reassignment of additional parking, the parking accumula- tion for Maxwell 's Restaurant is still below the weekend parking supply of 127 ' parking spaces. It should also be noted that the peak parking accumulation of 100 parking spaces for the 10,000 square foot Maxwell 's Restaurant results in a peak parking generation rate of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. This is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach parking ordinance for restau rant land uses. Forecast Parking Demand Analysis Results The forecast parking demand analysis for the Pierside Restaurant Develop- ment has been examined for the four seasonal variations identified previously. Analysis of the Pierside Restaurant Development parking is made up of two ' components. The first component is the existing public parking demand, which has been identified to range between 98 and 193 parking spaces on non-summer weekdays and summer weekends, respectively. The second component includes the ' expansion of the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet, and the addition of 11,000 square feet and 14,000 square feet of quality restaurant land uses, and a 6,000 square foot cafe. For fore- ' casting purposes, the utilization curves for the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant were applied to all future parking restaurant developments. The forecast parking demand analysis tables for the public parking lot , and the restaurant land uses are presented in Figure 4. The forecast parking demand for the proposed restaurant land uses is generated based on the 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet rate identified previously in this report , and consistent with the City of Huntington Beach parking ordinance. As the . Figure of tables indicates, the maximum parking accumulation ranges between 311 and 635 parking spaces on non-summer weekdays and summer weekends respectively. 06/27/9001ROMPARKING.RPT) 8 rFNON- UMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND q. . Room --- 15,000 31,000 gRoom --- 15,000 31,000 HB Code --- 10/1000 10/1000 HB Code 10/1000 10/1000 Total Total Parking per Parking Parking per Parking HB Code 240 ISO 310 Demand HB Code 193 150 310 Demand Weekdays Weekdays 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 1 0 0 1 7:00 AM 2 0 0 2 8:00 AM 6 0 0 6 8:00 AM 3 0 0 3 9:00 AM 13 0.- 0 13 9:00 AM 9 0 0 9 ' 10:00 AM 17 8 16 40 10:00 AM 54 38 78 169 11:00 AM 58 15 31. 104 11:00 AM 96 83 171 349 NOON 81 15 31 127 NOON 122 113 233 467 1:00 PM 98 60 124 282 1:00 PM 142 150 310 602 2:00 PM 81 75 155 311 2:00 PM 133 ISO 310 593 ' 3:00 PM 69 56 115 239 3:00 PM 119 128, 264 510 4:00 PM 48 38 78 163 4:00 PM 105 75 155 335 5:00 PM 35 15 31 81 5:00 PM 65 45 93 203 6:00 PM 35 15 31 81 6:00 PM 46 75 155 276 7:00 PH 12 38 78 127 7:00 PM 15 113 233 360 ' 8:00 PM 12 60 124 196 8:00 PM 15 150 310 475 9:00 PH 9 75 155 239 9:00 PM 8 150 310 468 10:00 PH 3 60 124 187 10:00 PM 5 150 310 465 11;00 PM 0 45 93 138 11:00 PM 2 135 279 416 MIDNIGHT 0 0" 0 0 MIDNIGHT 2 45 93 140 - - ---- ' Maximum Parking Accumulation 311 Maximum Parking Accumulation 602 SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND q. t./ Sq. t. Room 15,000 31,000 Room 15,000 31,000 ' HB Code --- 10/1000 10/1000 Total HB Code --- 10/1000 10/1000 Total Parking per Parking Parking per Parking HB Code 240 ISO 310 Demand HB Code 193 150 310 Demand ' Weekdays Weekdays 6:00'AM 0 0 0 0 6:00.AM 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 12 0 0 12 7:00 AM 39 0 0 39 8:00 AM • 36 0 0 36 8:00 AM 87 0 0 87 9:00 AM 72 0 0 72 9:00 AM 164 0 0 164 ' 10:00 AM 108 8 16 131 10:00 AM 193 38 78 308 11:00 AM 156 8 .16 179 11:00 AM 193 83 171 446 NOON 216 38 78 331 NOON 193 113 233 538 1:00 PM 240 60 124 424 1:00 PM 193 144 298 635 2:00 PM 240 113 233 585 2:00 PM 174 144 298 615 3:00 PH 204 98 202 503 3:00 PM 164 98 202 463 ' 4:00 PM 192 38 78 307 4:00 PM 164 75 155 394 5:00 PM 180 15 31 226 5:00 PM 116 4S 93 254 6:00 PM r 192 23 47 261 6:00 PM ` 58 60 124 242 7:00 PM 156 45 93 294 7:00 PM 58 113 233 403 8:00 PM 120 75 155 350 8:00 PM 39 150 310 499 ' 9:00 PM 96 98 202 395 9:00-PM 19 150 310 479 10:00 PH 48 68 140 255 10:00 PM 10 ISO 310 470 11:00 PM 12 38 78 127 11:00 PM 10 135 279 424 MIDNIGHT 12 0 0 12 MIDNIGHT 0 45 93 138 -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ' Maximum Parking Accumulation 585 Maximum Parking Accumulation. 635 15,000 - Maxwells Restaurant FIGURE 4 ' 31,000 - Other Restaurants ' FORECAST PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS `� 6/26/90:AS Lsa Figure 5 has also been prepared to illustrate the parking demand analysis with the proposed parking supply. The Figure identifies two parking supply lines: the proposed parking supply of 575 parking spaces, and the maximum parking supply of 635 parking spaces. The 575 parking supply is based on the , total number of striped spaces. With valet parking, additional parking can accommodate up to 635 parking spaces. As the Figure indicates, the forecast peak parking accumulation occurs at , 2:00 p.m. on weekdays and 1:00 p.m. on weekends, when the peak utilization of the public parking lot and the restaurant lot coincide. The maximum forecast parking accumulation during the non-summer weekday is less than the proposed , parking supply of 575 parking spaces. During the other three seasonal periods, however, the peak forecast parking accumulation exceeds the proposed parking supply of 575 parking spaces, which will require some degree of valet parking. As the Figure indicates, the maximum parking supply of 635 parking spaces adequately accommodates the maximum parking accumulation during the non-summer weekend and summer weekday periods. However, during the summer weekends, the , maximum parking supply is forecast to equal the maximum parking accumulation of 635 parking spaces. It should be noted that the peak public parking demand analysis during the summer weekend assumed a peak parking accumulation of .193 ' parking spaces, due to the reassignment of 47 parking spaces to Maxwell 's Restaurant parking lot. However experience indicates that the public parking demand for beach parking- is a function of parking supply. In other words, if the 47 parking spaces were not reassigned for restaurant use, the peak public parking accumulation during the summer weekend would have been 100% of 240 parking spaces, or 240 parking spaces. TRIP GENERATION- COMPARISON , In July 1987, Greer & Co. prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis for the Pierside Development Project. The project proposed development of 40,000 , square feet of specialty retail , 30,000 square feet of quality restaurants, and 30,000 square feet of fast-food services. The study identified daily and p.m. peak hour trip generation as presented in the following table: , PM PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT TOTAL Pierside Village Development 8,810 500 280 780 06/27/90(PIROMPARKING.RPT) 10 ' ar rr rr rr rr rr �r rr rr r rr rir rs rr rs rr rr rr rr NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND 700 loH, 600 MAXIMUM SUPPLY OF 635 SPACES 600 MAXIMUM PLY 635 SPA ES 11719 PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 575 SPACES PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 570 SPACES 500 500 u u o � IS 300 300 m ] Cl = 2 2 200 300 too 100 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 7:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY PUBLIC ®MAXWELLS ®RESTS. [S]PUBLIC ��]MAXWELLS ®RESTS. SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND 700 700 600 MAXIMUM SUPPLY OF 635 SPACES 600 MAXIMUM SUPPLY OF 635 SPACES ' PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 575 SPACES PROPOSED SUP P Y F 575 SPACES 5w bw j J u u = 006 = 400 Y Y o u rc J00 m 300 i Z 200 200 too 100 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 A&' NOON 3.00 FIV' 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT 6:00 AM 9:00 AM NOON 7:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM WONIGHT TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY PUBLIC ®MAXWELLS ®RESTS. PUBLIC ®MAXWELLS `®RESTS. FIGURE 5 FORECAST PARKING DEMAND Lsa6,2,/90:KF Lsa However, subsequent to the initial project approval by the City of Hun- ' tington. Beach City Council , a reduced development is currently proposed to include 40,000 square feet of quality restaurants and 6,000 square feet of sit- down cafeteria land use. The proposed trip generation is identified in the following table. The trip generation rates are from the Institute of Transpor- tation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual , 4th edition. PM PEAK HOUR ' DAILY IN OUT TOTAL 40,000 SF Quality Restaurant 2,995 150 95 245 6,000 SF Sit-Down Restaurant 985 60 25 85 Pierside Restaurant Development 3,980 210 120 330 As the Table indicates, the proposed project generates approximately ' 4,830 fewer daily trips, and 450 less p.m. peak hour trips. As a result of the reduction in the number of daily and p.m. peak hour trips generated, no impacts ' to the arterial street system in the vicinity of the project site are forecast. INTERNAL CIRCULATION The proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project is located along ' Pacific Coast Highway, between Lake Street and Main Street, south of-the exist- ing Huntington Beach Pier. Removal of on-street parking is proposed along ' Pacific Coast Highway, and the roadway restriped to accommodate three lanes of travel in each direction. Ingress access to the proposed project. site is located along Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Second Street. , This access provides for right-in only traffic. A 150 foot right turn deceler- ation lane is proposed prior to the access driveway to remove ingress traffic from the southbound Pacific Coast Highway through traffic lanes. Northbound . traffic along Pacific Coast Highway is required to make a U-turn at the Main , Street intersection to gain access to the proposed driveway. Egress access from the proposed project site is located opposite the Second Street intersec- tion along Pacific Coast Highway, approximately 360 feet south of the proposed ingress location. This access provides for right-out only traffic movement. A , right turn acceleration lane is also proposed at this driveway to accommodate egress traffic from the project site onto the mainline -flow of traffic along southbound Pacific Coast Highway. ' Pedestrian access to and from the proposed project site is facilitated along signalized crosswalks at the Main Street and Lake Street intersections ' along Pacific Coast Highway. Currently, access from Pacific Coast Highway to 06/27/90M R001 WARK I NG APT) 12 lsca MaxwelI 's. Restaurant and the beach promenade is accommodated along. two stair- ways. The first is located adjacent to the Huntington Beach Pier, north of the project site, and the second. is located at the Lake Street intersection adja- cent to the Lifeguard Station. The Pierside Restaurant Development project proposes to create additional access to the beach promenade from Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street via two plaza locations at the ' ingress and egress driveways. In addition, walkways are proposed between restaurant pads providing adequate pedestrian circul-ation through the project site, thus reducing the number of pedestrian movements along the southbound Pacific Coast Highway sidewalk between Main Street and Lake Street. ' Transit service along southbound Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the project site is currently provided -by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) . Existing bus stops are located .approximately 80 feet north of Main ' Street and approximately 100 feet north of Second Street. The proposed Pierside Restaurant.Development project design can accommodate the existing bus stops. ' 06/27/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 13 G I . p q t � L a o✓,� � W �9 o o = �- -- PACIFIC COAST "IGNwAY -- - - -- luOKl�wN F-,uiK•r0 •!• Ol P - ' ^ • � BUILDING B •` i � BUILDING, 1 IY •!'i V W 1 � 1 1 i \� / •ill,. I • � I wu I � metro f' -J I SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 6 0 50 100 PROJECT SITE PLAN Lsa 106/26/90:AS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 90-2 SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-2 FOR PIERSIDE RESTAURANTS PROPOSAL RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PREPARED BY: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 CONTACT PERSON: LAURA PHILLIPS PHONE (714) 536-5271 SEPTEMBER 27, 1990 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC REVIEW . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 GENERAL RESPONSES . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 GR-1 - Land Use and Legal Title Issues . GR-2 - Off-Site Alternatives GR-3 - Additional On-Site Alternatives-Lower Intensity SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO COMMENTS . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 4-1 P\U - JULY 25, 1990 WORKSHOP N� 1 SEER 90-2 (W-1 - W1-16) . . . . 4-1 PLANNING COMMISSION�6£�A$�R�21, 1990 MEETING (PC-1 - PC-27) 8 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY REGIONAL INFORMATION CENTER. (CCAI-1) . . . . . . . . 13 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. - PUBLIC WORKS (PS-1 - PS-35.) .. . . . . . . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - WATER PLANNING. (WP-1 -'WP-5.) . . 14 - ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD, CITY OF 'HUNTINGTON:IBEACH (EB-1 - EB-1'4.) . . . 15 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (HBEB-1 - HBEB-11) HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD, CITY O.F HUNTI'NGTON :BEACH (HRB-.1 - HRB-22) KEITH BOHR/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (KB-1 - KB-11.) . . . . . 18 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES, AUGUST 7., 1990 (CS-1 - CS-7) . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . 19 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE :DEPARTMENT, -JUNE6, 1990 -- (PD-1, PD-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ED MOUNTFORD, AUGUST 21, 1990 (EM-1 - EM-4) . . . . . . . . . 20- E.J. CONLAN, AUGUST 16, 1990 (EC-1 - EC-8) . . . . . . . . . . . 21 EI.LEEN MURPHY, AUGUST 9, 1990. (EMI-1 - :EMI-6) . . . . . . . . . . 23 EILEEN MURPHY, OCTOBER 10, 1990 (EM2-1 - EM2-7) . . . . . . . 24 D. RAMOS, AUGUST 19, 1990 (DR-1 - DR-8) . . . . . . . . . . 25 MR. & MRS. DAVID BARTLETT, AUGUST 20, 1990 (DB-1 - DB-3) . . . . 27 LOIS FREEMAN, AUGUST 20, 1990 (LF-1 - LF.-11) . . . . . . . . 28 K. SERAPHINE, AUGUST 17, 1990 (KS-I .- KS-15) . . . . . . . . . . . 30 DAVID SULLIVAN, SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 (OS-1) . . . . . . . . . 32 - OPR, SEPTEMBER, 7, 1990 (A-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MRS. R.L. FLICK, SEPTEMBER 8, 1990 (B-1). . . . . . . . . . . . STATE LANDS- COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 17, 1990 {C-1 - C-12) . . . . . 09/26/90(CHB001',GENERAL.CMT) 1 t) -TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) PAGE PETITIONS, SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 (D-1, E-1) . . . . LEAGUE FOR COASTAL PROTECTION, SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 (F-1 - F-20) . . . . JEANNETTE C. LOTA, SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 (G-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L. WOLFE, SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 (H-1 - .H-14) . . . . . . . . . . JO CHRISTIAN CRAIG, SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 (I-1 - I-8) . . . . . . . . . TERRY DALTON, SEPTEMBER, 7, 1990 (J-1 - J-9) . . . . . . . . . . . CHAUNCEY ALEXANDER, SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 (K-1 - K-4) . . . . . . . . . . . SALLY GRAHAM, SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 (L-1 - L-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RICHARD GRAHAM, SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 (M-1 - M-611 . . . . . . . . . . . LISA THOMAS, SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 (N-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RITA REALTY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1990 (0-1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - C.R. ROBINSON, SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 (P-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JAMES A. LANE, SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 (Q-1 - Q-4) . . . . . . . LOUISE B. FIORILLO AND RALPH PECK, SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 (R-1 - R-8) JERRY M. PATTERSON, SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 (S-1 - S-14) . . . . . . . . . . DEBBIE COOK, SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 (T-1 - T-51) . . . . . . . . . . MARK A. MASSARA, SEPTEMBER 3, 1990 (U-1 - U-11) . . . . . . . . . . W. DIANE EASTERLING SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 (V-1 - V-16) . . . . . . . . . DOUGLAS M. LANGEVLj SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 (W-1 - W-8) . . . . . . . . . . TIM NOBLE, SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 (X-1 - X-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ATTACHMENT A - REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY 09/26/90(CH800l-,GENERAL.CMT) 1 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) is to respond to all comments of environmental signifi- cance received by the City of Huntington Beach relative to the Draft Supplemen- tal Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) , State Clearinghouse No. 90010503, prepared for the Pierside Restaurants Proposal . PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The DSEIR No. 90-2 for the Pierside Restaurants was distributed to vari- ous public agencies, citizens groups and interested individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of 46 days. The Notice of Completion of the DSEIR. was filed on July 25, 1990, with the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, and to all agencies and inter- ested parties who received a Notice of Preparation or requested a DSEIR. In addition, to provide further opportunity for public involvement, a _ notice of availability of the DSEIR was published as a large display adver- tisement in a prominent section of the Orange Coast Daily Pilot on August 10, 1990. All persons responding to the Notice of Preparation were provided with this notice of availability of the DSEIR. Copies of all DSEIR comments received as of September 10, 1990, are contained in this report. In one instance, the City of Huntington Beach re- ceived a response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) after the end of the comment period for the NOP (please refer to Chapter 3 of the document for a discussion of the NOP process completed for the project) . The comments on the NOP were made by the City Environmental Board (EB-1 through EB-14) and respon- ses have been incorporated into this response to comment document. In addi- tion, the Environmental Board provided the City comments on the DSEIR which have also been incorporated and responded to in this document (please see HBEB- - 1 through HBEB-11) . In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a list _ of the persons, organizations and public agencies making such comments is set forth in the Table of Contents of this document. Comments and responses have been correspondingly numbered. The response for each set of comments from a particular group or agency follow the comments. 09/26/90(CHBOO1'-.GENEKAL.CMT) 1-1 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES INCORPORATED INTO FINAL SEIR The comments and the responses to these comments included in this docu- ment become part of the environmental documentation for the proposed project. The comments and responses help to clarify the DSEIR and provide the public and - decision makers with complete documentation of the possible environmental effect of the project. The comments, representing concerns of individuals or agencies, have been responded to in a manner which addresses each concern - within the scope of. the project and consistent with CEQA Guidelines. The comments and the responses are herewith incorporated with the DSEIR to form the Final Supplemental EIR. 09/25/90(CHB001-%GENERAL.CMT) 1-2 uc QJESTIONS ASKED AT THE JULY 25, 1990 WORKSHOP #1 ON THE DRAFT ENVIROATLEIN'TAL DMAC'T REPORT (Will issues regarding the legal description of the project site be addressed? WI-a iWill a traffic study analysis be performed? I- 3 lWill nightclub uses be allowed if the restaurants fail? Parking irlpacts? _-W I - Are alternative sites addressed? If not, wfiy not? W I l Won't the roof decks, with people, tables, & trellises block views? IH,as a nexketing study been performed to identify the demand for more restaurants in the dcrwnto�,m? H-,Yq is the 25' heiq fn'- limit measLred? Mid line of roof or roof line? WI -0 Where is the additional allowable 10' to screen mechanical equiped treasured I fro: ; nid line of roof or roof line? 1 If you eliminated the beach-related cornercial space at beach access level, ;aouldn't there be.less parking demand and therefore, allay you to lower the a.s - iestaur into the parking structure to get the overall height down to the 25' heigh". Hoxq will cars.enter and exit the proj ec".? l W1.11 the acc elaration and deacceleration lanes be =n addition to the six lanes WJ- o.- traffic on PCH'? W1-1a [Isn't there a shortage of c n.-otecial pax)---n for :his project? W .13 I Is the roo`top dining s_t ce being parked? Culd the developer provide graphics that illustrate the view perspectives of t� "i`� [Pede-str,ans from various locations around the project? 0(-I S I Haw. much w:,l l the. parking fees be? W I-I(p (Will City of H.B. parking asses be honored:? 2-1 1 - PLANNING ,CO.MMISSION - AUGUST 21, 1990 COMMENTS ON PIERSIDE EIR Ken Bourguionon, Planning Commissioner : Suggested raising the structure approximately three additional feet above the water table pG- I so that building will be cheaper , safer, more easily maintained . He `eels the view corridors: will;:no_t:.be--adversely impacted by such action . ---- -._ .__�_._.. ...__-. . Victo-k Ltepzig, Planning Commissioner : Feels that another p�:o-ject pG-a alternative should be considered which looks at one or two_ restaurants . Lower intensity development will reduce visual " impacts . Alternatives. analysis in original EIR 82-2 is meager, and PG-3 may not suffice for this supplemental document . p,,,+ rm-GQri Ort _ , Planning Co i-ssion, Chairwoman: Feel's that ' alte_hative (.site analysis should be included . EIR needs more analysis of Iaoastal and Down-town Specifi.c- Plan: poa-iciies,,.,.•.e;xplanation of previous fC-iOjKav Seraphine • Loss of view is a significant adverse impact . Would like the -EIR -to reference Shore-lin.e .Acces-s Se�ct.'.on of the Coastal Element Section: .2:. 2 ,.9 .and-.ZIR -82-2::Sec,t� on-2% ._ 0nt`pige `48 of EIR PG-gj190-2 ; give ,exa„pLe.s _of"-what :is meant by ina4 ect� views .y h:e ` proposed.--bu:il.din.gs_ taller :than- ttieT..eg 5t'ing' Maxwell ' s? A lows q intensity .alternative show-ld' be considered because the land is; ` assembled and owned - by..the ,.C_ty;;;,a� h ghe;r dens-, ,ty is not "_equi ed for economic, (land cost) reasons :L.j, z}. P,agejr8 ,o, 90=2 i�s a video (0 jar .on acce able use l so P��e 8 q what• are,'th miro'r vari ations. :referred ' to ;under. pe+-}misks.,blbe buildout?.}P`Ezp�lgin' whe�her proposal consists -cf 2 '.or• '3 .;buildings �wibh� rnul'�. �1le �e4s�teurants or 2 `�G'IoZ I to 3 restaurants jU' sula Co`f_n A shuttle' bus sysrem 'may 'he'1?p zed-ude trafffic impacts . View obstruction _by -bui Id.i-ngs =i5:ro,bjec.t`i'onable . (F leen. Mur2hy: Water .in the. lower level of` p'atkirig ' structure -.may preclude parking during s-torm/flood•_'cond;itioris : - The height of- the pG'�w (buildings should not be raised.. a:_ _ Louise -ioiello : 'Objects -to Build.-ing -C' because it.;* is in' `zont`of her property (Block 101) C1.ar €y height._rest.ric.tions . 2%3 of _. pj:tI ,jBuilding C appears to be over,-25`:. high.. - -View `coz'ridots are not QI adequate - they only benef.i.t ,cl-ri*vers, on 19t' and 2nd 'Streets Oblique 'Flit (views are not available or accept.abTe on 101 Block. ' Page 40, EIR ?� 90-2 describes current view 6b`struc'ticn on PCH ' does- this• refer to �6: grassy median? Views. should-not ,be obstructe'd 'from -public- ,YG,;A I right-of-way or. private pr;ope^r=ty..` y - Mark_ Po. r : Traffic in the downtown area should be recognized as a as whole, consider the congestion- that will occur in peak hours on other downtown streets and vicinity. This analysis is weak. More TG7a3 Ethan 2 access points are needed for a structure this size . The `- relationship of existing bad traffic conditions to the project. is not adequately discussed. _. 2-2 . . . . :..... _ UJ PG�aSlDoua Laagevin: Alternate sites should be considered . EIR 82-2 called !or 30, 000 sq . ft , of development :on this site to include beach user concessions and a maritime museum. Therefore, a new analysis is required for this larger scale project, an alternative site analysis is appropriate . ay� Jeff Herasma : Alternative sites should be considered . /lp ( 7030d) 2-3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINfSS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Ge.vmer DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 2501 PULLMAN STREET .7, , ' p SANTA ANA, CA 92706 August 15 , 1990 Ms . Laura Phillips _ FILE: IGR/CEQA Planning Department ,:::• DEIR : Pierside City of Huntington Beach �n'1 " ' ', _ Restaurants 2000 "lain Street -° r SCH; 90010533 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 :ORA --. 1 - 23 . 7 Subject : DEIR for Pierside Restaurants Development Dear Ms . Phillips : Than;: you for the opportunit% zo respond to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pierside. Restaurants.. --Deve,l_opment:. Caitrans District 12 has no comment other than an Encroachment Permit will be required should any portion of this--=oYop._.sed--development cross '00V- J over, under , or in any way infringe on any portion of the Pacific Coast Highway, a State Facility . Please continue to keep us in`crmed of 'on this and any other.-- p.ropose.d dev__elopme_nt.s.:wh" ch could - potentially impact° our State. 'Transportation_F-ac.i-lilies;., If you have any questions or if we can be of any assistance , pease feel free to contact Chuck Limon at 714 724 2249 . T =nk yo _ . ... - i G - Robert _F. Jose h, Chief _.. - Advance -Planning Branch cc: Ron Helgeson-; .HQTRS Planning. Garrett Ashley, OPR Bill Bengston , Permits 2-4 Jim PIERSIDE DEVELOPMENT i:'�'Veq PARKING STUDY — REVIEW COMMENTS August, 23, 1990 The review of the subject Parking Study has been completed. The comments presented here are keyed to the draft document provided by LSA, consisting of 23 pages (Including title page not numbered). Title page. Include preparation information (Prepared under Supervision of , RCE p5— (or RTE)#) and stamp. eneral Comments: 11. Number all tables in body of report. 2. Refer to Figures and Tables by number and page. 13. Include Executive Summary at beginning of report. 5 4. Provide copy of reference documents or pertinent portion there of (Greer Study,Crommlin Study, etc.). . 6 15• Submit 3 bound copies of revised study for review. Faxed reports are no longer PL5acceptable. IPage 1, Paragraph 4, Was .previous Pierside project approved, or was a project conceot approved for study? Page 2, Paragraph 3, A parking survey of the lot would be appropriate. Include ITT. or SANDAG rates for similar beach environment restaurant uses. Include data available from other local sites, e.g. John Dominus, Ancient Mariner, Cano's, City of Irvine, City of. Newport Beach. ,q Page 2, Paragraph 5. Did data derived from revenue information from Beach Operations, I include daily use by holders of annual parking permits? �j- 10 I Page Paragraph 1. Have data and normalization process included as appendix. Page 3, Paragraph 2, Remove "approximately." The number of spaces is finite, Indicate the hours during which the 47 spaces are assigned to Maxwells. How was 47 spaces determined to be the.requfred additional parking of Maxwells during this time period? Page 5, Paragraph 3. What is estimated peak demand and time period for summer •�S"dal weekends?' Page 9, Paragraph 1. Without reassignment, parking supply for Maxwells is less than the requirement per code. Page 13, Paragraph 2. Typo — "previous" Page 14, Paragraph 3, How was the reduction In trip generation applied to the peak hour numbers? Distributed by direction? Uniformly to all? -(� Page 14, Paragraph 4. How was the reduction in trips distributed between locations? Page 15, Combine IDV values into a numbered table for both weekday and weekend. 2-6 . J pz_IgPage 15, Paragraph 3. What is an "average:A.M..peak-'hour?"- =Pleasey define-this.term J further. ' _) I Page IS, Paragraph 4. What is the degree of degradat-ion for•the= ,"summer period? Page 16, Paragraph 1. Reference to PCH direction should be "westbound" instead of "northbound" and "east" instead of "south". -Reference to-PCH u-turn should include 6th Street as future opportunity (5th will be closed) and Main Street R.T.O. lane at 1st (Lake) Street will take priority over acceleration lane exiting project site. Page 16, Paragraph 2. No discussion of handicapped access routes from PCH to beach •a area through project was found. This topic shall be discussed. Page 16, Paragraph 3. Discontinuation of sidewalk facilities along PCH frontage may not; _aa (1) be allowed by CALTRANS; (2) Reflect real world pedestrian demand or behavior in beach area. a3 Page 14 (Site Plan — PCH level). Include the other two level plans for clarity of total operation. Page 17. Modify PCH curb line to_create RTO lane beyond site exit onto PCH. RTO pocket into site should be 150' long. Page 18, Paragraph 1. Identify the ped/bike facility on site plans. Provide elevations & 1� X—section including connection to existing facility. Page 18, Paragraph 2. Future bus turn out(s) should be identified on site plan. Page 18, Paragraph 3. Begin discussion with brief description of entry operation and exit operation. Include machine operation, driver information, manned collection, and valet operation. Changeable lane direction, if used, should be mentioned (1st Street entrance only). - Tx-).ag I Page 18, Paragraph 4. Clarify second sentence; intended meaning is not clear as written. �g-otq Page 18 (bottom of page). Relocate Table heading to next page. P5, I Page 19 Table , Trip Generation. Where did the distribution percentage figures originate? _51 I Page 19 Table , "assumes average weekday". Based on what data? Counts? Other? Please clarify. p$�5.2 I Page 19, Paragraph 1. Include discussion regarding peak summer weekend (peak demand), Page 19, Paragraph 2. Rate of 305 vehicles per hour is = 9.5 seconds per vehicle, _ Vehicles will not arrive at a uniform rate, but rather in platoons from traffic signal adjacent. What are arrival rates when this factor is considered? Also need to address effect on gate entry operation when exiting vehicles queue at entry point, and when vehicles are. maneuvering into or out of spaces near entry (see parking layout). Page 19, Paragraph 3 and Page 20, Paragraph 1. Where is the 200' of vehicle storage at 1st Street entry point? Site plan shows 130'± to PCH from gate location. Please provide full size site plan, not reduced version. -P5_;e� I I.C.U. Sheets. Identify source of values used, or which values were changed if from a previous.study (identify study). 2-7 2527g J•. CITV of HUNTINGTON BELCH IN.TEf ...DEPA.jTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON I(ACM �r Eric Charlonne Laura Phillips To Associate Planner From WaterPlanning. Draft EIR 90-2 Date August '1 4, 1990 Subject Pierside Restaurants, ^•� Attached for your review are the Water Division' s comments of the Draft Environmental Impact Report 90-2 . The comments. listed below will apply to the project alternatives as shown in the .report. 1 . The City of Huntington Beach Water Division is able to famish only the minimal level of water supply to serve the proposed project' s fire and domestic needs. Deficiencies in the water system identified in the 1988 Water Master Plan indicate that the following conditions may not be met which could affect this project. A. Peak hour demands cannot be met unless the mitigation measures identified in the 1988 Water Master Plan are addressed on construction. B. Current supply sources (water wells and importing facilities ) are not sufficient to meet the ;existing peak hour demands . C. Existing storage facilities are inadequate to meet I existing or ultimate demands . 2 . The construction of the domestic/fire protection reduced pressure principle devices (backflow) has been an issue recently due to the nature of their construction: An extra - effort should be made in the location and design .of these devices in order to disguise, -mask or other wise hide these devices within the landscape features as a .mitigation measure to the standard installation used in other commercial/retail developments . Should you have any questions of if I can be of further assistance, please contact me at extension 5528 . EC:bb 2-8 s _ . . .. UL 1. Environmental Board - } CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . HUnnNGTOneUCH p05, Office BOX 190 .. Hon,*!igtor geac C��ifC�:'.Id C1%V4� Department of Comrnun1ty Development. August 9. 1990 Environmental Resources Section City of _Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington .Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Ms, Laura Phillips I . SubJect : Supplemental Draft E1R No. 90-2 At the publ 1 c workshop meeting held August. 8, 1990, It was brought to the Planning Department's attentlori that the second page- of "the'•report we submitted on June 18th (re: Notice of Preparation for Draft EIR 90-2) had been excluded from the Supplemental Dra"t EiR whIch-was'"prepared znd`-"dlstr�lbuf`ed by-`your consul--tah,a. Consequent.ly-, your, staff'. resp.o•nse to these seven (7) additional environmental concerns: were :c�tltted from , e Supp1"enen.2l` TR;' " "'1 a_ n� Attached l-s a auplicate..cf the" Envlronmental .Board's June 18th report. We would WV - Royto Iteir^►L'91on' and thylchardson c `Corn t. e Cha l r'man r' - __ ChrTs I)h e'l wall , 'Ch'a'F.- ` `~ Irene Alfieri cc: Mayor_ Thomas bays Ca:her l ne- St 1P._, Councl•lman-Peter Green Bi I-) -Linehan -' Plannl'ng Ca,r lss!oner V"!ctor'-Llepilg —Jeffery Edens Daniel Torres r: sacs_. 2-9 �- Environmental Board CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON eucn Fos: Office Box 190 H.intir,,gton Beach, Cslifict-nia 92648 Department of Community Development June 18, 1990 Environmental Resources Section City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Ms. Laura Phillips I . Subject : Notice of Preparation of Draft,EIR No. 90-2 Project Request: The -deJolltion of one building (Hax,.bll's) and construction of a total of 56,000 square feet of Camerclal Buildings. The plaza level wl!l include three new restaurant b::!Idlrtgs, and Gould Include a maxImu, of sever, (i) restaurants total.iing 40,000 square feet. An additional 16,000 square feet is to be add to the loner level to Include a casual restaurant, and beach related concessions. Two levels of subterranean parking Will be provided In the addition to surface parking for a total of 575 -- spaces. Ucaticn; An approximate 3.5 Acre site located southeast of the Intersection of !lain Street and PCH. II. Pindincs: The Environmental Board has completed It review of the Planning Depa;trx nt's Environmental Check list for the referenced project and believes that the Staff's Check list does not '3 accurately address a number of is.-ues, specifically the lcpacts with regard to parking, parking structure and Increased traffic conJestlon: Sections 3f. Construction of the subterranean parking structure may requlre s=e form of dewatering within she excavation- Site �Latering can influence the direction of �oundwater flow in the - s:rrounding area. Due to the proximity of an apparent email/group ater rimedlatlon prcJect as w-ell as other underground storage tanks In the vicinity, a potential exists to Influence ground crater contaminant pluzes should they exist. Section 13a,b,d. The proposed project will generate s,,bstantlal vehicular movement we tc a siSnlflcant Increase.ln development of the property compared to what currently exists coapounded with the. increase In ' avallable parking. There will also be an Increased Impact on the present circulation or movement of people using the bike/foot path adjacent to the project. Cg=nt:: In addition to those findings listed a"ove, the ad hoc cowittee's report contales several additional concerns on the attached page. The project also.entalis demolition o', existing old 9' structure, regulatlons concerning safe removal and disposal of any asbestos on site mst be strictly adhered to. Close proximity of the beach area makes airborne contaminatlon by friable asbestos particles a particular danger. III. [X) Rec=ndatlon: It Is the ?nvironmental Board's opinion that the referenced project will have �.�significant adverse effect on the surrotanding envlrontnent and agrees with the staff reca;mendatlon that Wlaninnimental I ac R ort equIred. Cson Ad hoc Committee Chairman Chris Dhallwal, Chair Irene Alflerl cci Mayor Thomas Mays Catherine Sttp Cour.c!)man Peter Green Bill Linehan 2_10 *V& Environmerntal Board CITY OF HUNT-INGTON :FACH H%;KTWcTONo ACH Post. 0f fice Box too . HUmin_-tor. Beach, Ca:.iiorn•,a 92648J' Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR No. 90-2 Page 2. Additional concerns questlonedi _ la, 'No' to 'Ma.ybe'%" Due,to the installatlon-of- a _two level subferraneanuparking dtructur the-proposal may have Impact to geologic substructures. - 2b. 'No' to ' Maybe': " With the. construction of._the tpropoaed addltl`ona1'restaurants�.(maxim m of six- . possible) .a potentaalf ex lots-;fo`" creation of 'object-Ionalbe`oda's=dse'to Ircreas�:d '.-r,estauran.t-, type,.-Waste �( generation and storage,_ Fur.ther-_fhe nc�rased uae,�c.f bhe public aac:111�1ee as another-source of C Jpct.lonab.le odors.. ``9`'; = a•Yl:�ic^ r_ ti: _. ,I oI7. 'Maybe' to 'Yes' The project by design Is larger in scale than what currently exists and will produce nov 1igh.tzand glare:.as a .r.eeu•It.. 14a. 'No' to '!laybe-' : , Tht.-protect eiay.`liay.e,.an:effect upoo'Cilty !re'��ervlce`�"cue to"atie::inhec•er,� lire EI`�"� l ( potential at any of the proposed restaurants. 19b, `No' to 'Yes'- i ,the proJeca w�oul� have `an,e,ffecE-upon�C'i;ty Police' secyC'ce� wiz. .'cmhe potential of Increased vehicular.•and fcot..traffic 'In tfie vfc!'rilty o; ttt�e'pro5ct 'and'the�salef'a d arisu*t!.onzof' alcoholic beverages on the project cite. lid. 'No`� tc 'Maybe' The proposed`p oiect 'has`potent-it),to irccei"s :a-t'rorsge`�+itAln�the area. As a resjlt additional trash cans along the bike pat}i`and'beach zone in the vicinity of protect may be necessary to.recuce the .potential. for Increased littering or to,roe et the demand° of Increased use of the beach. The same; ls..val'id for pub lic`re7troua 19• 'No`._to- '.Maybe':...Parks and..other recreat,ionzl "ac111 j,- may be`aft-e�-ted-ay=the proposed: project as potential •ex.ists -for increased patronage_oi `the lamedlated'beach area`whlchtmay result In overcra►ding along the bike path an debeacn fron:a6e; airu use cf tne�ovecnlght `R:V:"a*ea'antf beach ` Ire `pl'ta adjacent to the souO 1*.,ay_be_. ac4ed. The potential_`;:oc_:lncreis'd`patronage in the proposed'=area.a y=also: Increase nuisance, 1.1ttp.rinq, further redueing-the`-aeotlietic qual1-t1eb; 1:_ :_ _.. ..:t r ._.._v s . 2-11 Environmental Board Y, CITY OF HUNTINGTOiN BEACH HUVTNGEO\BEACH Post Office Box 190 . Hintington Beach, 'Cori-fornia 92548 Department of Community Development August 28, 1990 Environmental Resources Section City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA . 92648 Attn : Ms. Laura Phillips Subject : Supplemental Draft EIR No.. 90-2 Project Requests The proposed Pier side Restaurants' project consists - of 56,000 square feet of beach related retail/restaurants and 675 to 635 parking spaces. The construction of the proposed project will neces3ltate removal of all exlatfng structures except for the life _ guard headquarters. Our comments concern. the potential environmental :effects of ( I ) Historical Resources, ( II ) Traffic/Parking and ( III ) Aesthetics. Our -� comments do nDJ address the appropriateness of the project Itself . Location : An approximate 3.5 Acre. site located southeast of the Intersection of Main Street and PCH. Tx� Recommendation : The Eov I ronmental Board be 1 Ieves that '`' E,Soo l ementa l EIR 9,0-2 Is i nadrguate and that a more detp I a ed study be performed by City staff on the traffic/parking and Aesthetic Impacts of this Project , It 1s also our opinlon that the orla.lnal EIR 82-2 does not properly address the cumulativ.e effects resulting from the mu-I t Lt"e, of Projects underway , I . Historical Resources _ If the building known as Maxwell 'g Restaurant is demolished then It should be appropriately memorialized- by plaques and monuments-. Concurrently , consideration should be given to incorporating a national surfing museum as part of this or the pler rebuilding project . I I . Traffic/Park l na It atraine credulity for a finding that "no significant impacts to traffic or parking have been Identified" . A report by LSA Associates dated. 7-21-90, page 2 states.: "The primary focus of this parking analysis its to determine whether the proposed parking supply can n adequately accommodate the existing beach parking accumulation and the parking demand resulting from the proposed development . " The Supplemental Draft EIR report fails to take Into consideration the cumulative effect of the multitude of projects approved or proposed, relying instead on the nearly decade.-old 82-2 EIR. Some of those ro?ects are as follows: 2-12 r � STATUS iViain Pier Phase-I : ' .9.0,000 sq. ft. entertainment complex::6-plex . -Under--Construction L .-movie theater, 6,000 sq, ft. nightclub, 130 condo units, and commercial & office. space. Tom Square _ _ 10,000 sq. ft. commercial space and 80 resi- Under Construction dential units. Demonstration Blocks 1241000 sq, ft. mixed retail/office (Currently Proposed 53,000 sq. ft.) at, Parking Structure 800 spaces...north of pier. Approved Third Blocks West 27,000 sq. ft. overall''re tail-offices, -35 000'sq'.,-'`'TettatiVc, ft. mused retail/office, 200'space parking strut -tore and 68 residential-,units. Parking Structure/ 32,000 sq. ft. commercial/office'and 838 Approved Retail Heritage-Square - �R'ehabilitation�of site bounded�by Olive''A"vei,�� �Terit�t ve``= _ _.._?viairi St`.;'Or`ange'Ave:.; and�Triiid`S Huntington Bayshdf& 159 -unit residential condo project, Under Construction Art Center/Library .. - ... ;. _ e y: ..,�^«:Site Acquisition Rehabilitation a .-":;. _ ..4, ,r 2.,- � . . , •A zed as Autho_i Main Pier Phase`II 140,000 sq. ft. mixed retail/office and parking. Approval set for '91 100 Block East _ 50,000 sq. ft. mined�comrne'rcial/offi pprovl set.fgrr'91 We believe the cumulative effect of the projects, the population growth and the enhanced ability to attract significant transierir'traffic-demand the survey':, --updated `before ihee no,significant impact" finding is possible or belies abfe , -C„1-:1 It is also noted that the impact on traffic of-other major~projects (Hilton`Hotel, etc.) has been addressed in the findings of the Planning Division but not incorporated in SEIR 90-2. 2-13 The following concerns of the Environmental .Board should al.so 'be , I addressed because of traffle/parking Impact : Fire Code occupancy limitations Ingress/egress i nca udl,ng adequacy of deceleration and acceleration lanes. P'✓"" I A Bus turn outs and/or stop -areas and -imp"a0t on traffic flow. Z Reevaluation of the average work day trafflc _ - 7 I compensation in light o.f the forego`ing_. III, Aesthetics - On page 39 of the SEIR 90-2 It states that ' the City of Huntington Beach has adopted a plan to develop an ordinance " to protect and enhance scenic values . " The proposed project does not accomplish t1hls objective : } tag it Supporting documents 4.3 .7. clear l y demonstrate significantly Increased blockage of scenic view. The buildings are substant i a.1 1 y .h I gh:er and wl"der than current structures Furthermore , If the buildings are raided to eliminate designed lower deck parking structure's flooding, there will be additional disru-ptian to scenic view And an additional 'Impact on the :beach - by l.ncreased shade cover during parts of the day . Proposed mitigating recommendations do not resolve "gl-are" impact . Lights should be directed to protect ocean view. we. find of little meri-t the statement on page 5 of SEIR 90-2" that "Pedestrian views from within the project would, however, be significantly enhanced. That Should not be a consideration In resolving this Impact . You don' t " rob Peter to pay Paul . We also feel that serious consideration should :be given to l'ncluding the Lifeguard Headquarters as part of . the project . . " at least for face llfting. " It would complement the project rather than be a stand out. "pore thumb. " R H. Richardson Ad Hac Lommi ttee: Chairman William Linehan , Chair Daniel Torres James Cathcart Jeffrey Edens cc :. Mayor Thomas Mays Councilman Peter .Green -- Planning Commiasloner Victor Leipzig 2-14 �, ► Histofid Resources ,Board CITY OF HJNTTNG.TON BEACH-1 �.. �. ' HUNTWCTON UACH' Post OfficeY�Box-: 190 Huntington_:. Beach; September -J -1990: . DEPAiiYti'.%dT 4,r - - GO!�1A1UNIiY DE U�:'rl'JF.':.i:fvT Laura_Phillips, Associate Planner p,Atiii!^i0 v'`!ON Copartmerit of'Community Davelopnent City- of Huntington Beach 2000 Main'St. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 _ RE: EIRL:90-2:. .Piexaide Restaurant Devalopment Dear Laura-: =This; follow'_ng report in raeponBe to E,IR •9Q-2 wag -•presentQd,ioPt he _ Historic`Rdaourcee..,Soard:- and adopted on September 5, 1990. (MotioniLang^evin.[Milkovich) ON COMMITTEE REPORT.; ;E,IRr 90-2 PIERS.iDE aRESTAUWT DEVELOPW I. This document is not only inadequate', it is improper. CEQA Guidelines, section 1-s163= (s) ("$)..(.A.):y':: roc?:i"�e.s. a `Subee.'au _;E2R=when rsew!'in.fovmation,:.of I , subs tdbtial_simportance, to the_pro ject-'becomes ,available_, which •ass not known p �.a when,.,tha previously, ElR was- art+ f'ed and shows more severe, damage.�'o, envir-o meat _ h Since she-EhR was pi^eparect, a.- or`ic-r"-esou- cee-'survoy'identi .ie`d...the.:._s_. structure immad 'ately=soiixh:o. trie.;pie _ as potentially historic. The research recently completed by LSA confirms the historic significance of this structureur•: I addition,,, the: .City was notified during the response period to the ' notice o`F' preparation that' thin location 'wa`s tte:'eii mrriue dtob� °?-9'04))'o the Pl acif ic-Elect'tio-'=a `F•IRST -Orange •CoLn._y. Line: - ,'r . - :Ne.ither resource wae.addre.aced,an-the.:orig;inal.�documer.t;.� _8otz,,,,ara ma j or.:c.u1"u:al significance to the city of Huntirigt6ei Beeich-and' to `Orange' County. - ' The".or51'•y`.way.:'a`_.buppl:emental document (to the EIR) can be substituted itl is the changes are minor. Destruction of two major historic sites has a major, no_.>m'_-nor.,. cultural. impact. We-We tbsrQfpre, that,;kzomp?ete a,baecuent _3IR_.must. be, prepared._ "` .+ II. Even if the Council decides to study this document, we believe that it should ba-rejected :as 'i:iaaequate•. The:;folaowinc; items ,in,the; Eaddressed.-in-the. nvi=onmenta1 -,Acae•ssment were not core tly, addressed.•in-•the:-Draft._EIR. They U requ_re va_.ious.ampl_i:icatione and�ex.p nations .acco_,ding• t- .current case law: _ . _ . :. r IteM- -1d." modificationFof` unique geological or ph yeical ;features - this pla -destroys historic physica•1 features _, . " 2-15 Item S. alteration of land •use - the area :has always been public open space Item 13d. circulation patterns - heavier commercial .use will 'change pattern Item 14d. . parks - reduction in available public recreation .arra IR ` Item 18. aesthetics - historic scenic vista destroyed I o b l Item 19. recreation experience changes - proposal injects commercial - Item 20a. does not address Pacific Electric Depot - requires monitoring for historic archaeology and interpretation as first electric rail route in Orange County. "- Item 20c. now use' limits participation to upper income levers Revellent case law: Friends of "8" St. vs. City of Hayward, Bishop v.a. County of Inyo. In part, these cases :eauire the City to make .a "good faith" effort in conducting an environmental investigation. Specifically, the City � • S; must present. the data or evidence relied upon .to determine "no" a.ig.nif icant impact on the environment in the initial study. At minimum, to .make .this document adequate, the Draft SIR should provide an explanation -f no significant impact is deemed appropriate. III. Alternatives: Cave law requires the study of alternative sites for a project even if the present developer does not .own other' land. (Citizens of - Goleta valley v. Board of Supervisors, 197 Cal. App. 3d 1167 .(198.8) . It also requires full discussion of all reasonable alternatives .including adaptive rouse of the historic structures, with complete factual material and .analysts (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Lnc, v. 32DA Dist. Agricultural Assn.:, 412 Gal 3d 929, 935 (1966) ; Laurel„Heighte improvement Ass. v.. Regents o: �fU� University of .California, 47 Cal. 3d 376 (1 t 988).1 citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board cf Supervisors, 197 Cal. App. 3d 1167 (1986) ; etc. ) The alternatives are presented in this document in a mangier to suggest their. infeasibility. The lead agency is demonstrating a claar bias against the historic resource when, instead, its responsibility is to present a complete and unbiased disclosure of the environmental impacts of the project -. - and the alternatives which will make it less destructive. l "No project" does not prohibit restoration/rehabilitation of the . historic structure. Its future restoration is an entirely different matter. Planning funds are available from the National Trust for : G F ietcric Preservation to assism a sensitive developer, and 'tax credits are still available for certain classes of investors for correct restorations. These options make a restoration financially feasible in many cases which might not be so otherwise. All feasible financial sources need to be researched by the project proponent .and/or the lead agency as part of the EIR. 2. Open apace designation does not mean removal of historic structures ��-�•� nor public services. This alternative is improperly conceived and. must be restudied. 3. The preservation of Maxwells as stated within the project is a fa=ee ( �^ assu:iption. This alternative reeds additional information. Iv. AB 3180, effective January, 1989, requires that a monitoring prog-w... be (l established along with an SIR to insure that m. itigat-lon measures are comp M eted 2-16 ae the project proceeds. A monitoring `plan' Ss` not--fricluded in the Draft SIR for this project. V. This p'ro ject ;document', -`ss- "we11,--as..,the- previous.SIR f,or the area, to�to in 1((1J���``�� �I conflict with the-General Plan,. Cultural_Reaour''cQe�'eec't''ion "wfiicki`stBites,- "' To create a productive harmony between m.an__an.d. his environment by: 1. preserving and protecting areae• o�" significant hietorc, `ecen`ic and"-archa.aohogic:al values: and. (Section 2.1`.2.5 Cultural Resources, Huntington Beach General Plan, amended th'rough- June,• 1984.) . The area has always been open for pubI c'use whettie`_" kia- a parking or strolling area.-.;,At special celebrations such as the "Black Gold Days" event, q a traveling C,ariiival"was allowed to set up their rideo, including a carousel, for the ,two or three day event. Photographs which show the presence of a �J Carouse_. 'and other midway activity, were -taken. dur.ingrone,,or.-mor.e of: these , -• " public celebrations: More typical.use.e di:ring_the..,hietor.ic�pe:riod`we e"pLblic`- band'-concerrts`or religious revival meetings. Late' in the"hrietoric'period, an:` open air,'stadium;_was-placed'on_the south side next to the Pavalon for free viewing of public events, ' including•'iriunic paY ban� con cort`s":and 14 ihkng; beauty contests. U^like come beachwe: along the coas-t, the--hhistoric cultural `function of this beach has-,b_ee_n_to serve a11_.walk.s of, 11°q by`maintaiiSing'too'd� stende, r'� parking and unrestractod_. access. The` new'" proposal wi117tmaet'='ttie-use' of this portion of the"•boach" for'paroons'of limited means. �:.`•^:.tea Intense'"ccr„me'rc+ali~zatioxr.of- the_area sliea in� the�.face of,,all�historic 1 usage._ This proposazl 4s finconeistert with- the :intent, of-the City%`.16. obtained a cou•rt•_eett1ementrin; the, early 19306,- bddur'in ithe'-lani Sfo'r'=public 1� access to the bbeach. (,Ciy.. of Huntiriaton `Beacti' 'va '�i?trntng�on=Beach: 60:� A Corpora ion, et. aT". January '15; `1932jt 'P ;" " '':._. _.- ;,a 4;: -v Comnittee membere`-h;aYe� carefubly rev+swe3 rangy,.analypd this 'Draft`EIR. AS a result of_ -their, study,,,.-the memtVera believe `th`'_e documei!!e.- at ') address the conflict with the Ge:reral Plan, ttd discrepancy in perception of historic use, the impact to ,minority rusage, and the conflict of the proposed clan with the intent of the:-coui�t-d. 'FurthQrmore',=fh°a.pa:'heti.o attempts &t: miwigat-ion. �! unintentionally' demonetrat'e=that--.the:_eavir_.onmental imoacts.:c&rino; be reduced to ins ignifieiffi-cei: The,:.P_I•anning Comm -ssion, and-City,Couricil,, 'reepetlCtivel.y, will have to,make a-statomer.�-of. ovgrr_i ins Corice. . . to`';accept `this dcCuma in lieu of anothe_r,.- adequately prepared and"rii��gatHd' statament: = _ � � '_" •a .,D n erry Person, Chairman, r h ' k r'.. &_ •. r v C . Hia-for-ic."Res r ouces Board ' " Z e. an,.; JP/BYM- - cc:` FL" hazel" Ube.ruaga; Michael---Adams, Michael Mudd ...._s G 2-17 1�eolev pPmer ` C 3.0 ROJ �T DESCRIPTION The .Plerside .Re.staur.ants_ development' is proposed for- an. `area--of app.roxi- mat•ely 3. 5 acres on the ocean side of PCH between Maim Stre Ust:azu'ra:n-tV, andirrt Street (on -the.. southeast• -side -of the %pier) The °propos-al i s for== :beach- ; re]ated concessions and= packing facil:iti� .--: ;The ;:project; s p'rcao.se:d to be built i;n one phase in 1.991 . The .proposed project. cnsists - 56,000 square r"eet. of beach reaaced.re.tai.1/resta_ur';ants _ • 575 to 635 parking spaces ` :. - The maximum .potentia.l build .out of the ..project that. wilt. a assessed`. in j this SEIR is based on maximums &Ilcred, purseant__.to, a rp oeosed isaosi:tlon and nb' Develooment Aar:eeim nt and .ground lease with the _Reedeeveelopmen4.- Agency anal a Conan t�ono i Use.- Permi t tram the I ty os urtt 1 noon Beach. .. t he niaximaim a l low.- able build. out contemplated for_the. project i s_!as f6l l ows -` - 56,00.0 square' feet specia.l.ty retailyres_ta,urants; • 575: to,6.35 parking spaces The .anal`ysis::i.n" this STIR shall be -based:, on maximum 111,ow le build out., as detailed- above, based on the project apalicant'.s propgsal' p..lus, provi- sions in the Develo.pmen. Agreement and Disposition and:Devaiop�ment Agreement, I allowing min.cr variations in .projec -ouila cut;. This Suppiemer,tzl EIR (SEIR) i is based on preciously certified EI,4 824 completed for .'.he Downiown Specific j plan,_ ;which documer,:ted environmental: impacts.,':for a maxin,.un, .de.lve.lopmenz...:of 75,000 'squzre feet .at this site, in addition to-the square rootage c-nt.ained..i_n I the structure housing Maxwell 's Restaurant, The property is currently devel.o.ped with a 10,000 square foot full 'ser- Yi-ce restaurant_--(Maxw-el)-."s: Restaurant) ; -a. parking lot, a lifeguard headquar- tiers, a sr�all p,izia concession, a 2,'00 square foot, stand alone beach level . . - concession.stand housing a takeout food vendor..and a video arcade, and approxl-it, mately 7,000 square feet of retail uses on the :beach level of the restaurant' buil.di.ng.. All .existing.-use•s currently on the site except the lifeguard head= quarters (which will be : undisturbed) , are proposed to be either removed: be " relocated .to .new space withih. the proposed project. Location. 3.1 Project Tie precise location and boundaries of the proposed project are shown,:in Figu,re 3. 1 . The regional location cI the proposad project is shown ,.in Figure j 3..2. r'agure. 3.3 shows project location and surrounding zoning. j 07/2:/90(i1ROO1\MASiER.DOC) 2-18 i I I - I I , .... '; ai:.._ •n s...d ....a a„y 1... _ ... _ _...,.L.. ,.__...,i::... ?r'....a.C7'k ::j.:r�a a V`_Na 4r,.' o-. .c. ... a:• 3.2 DescriDt:'i`on"of` Propo*sed-`Pro:-act n dk ,. - '_ _ .. .. : ." a .--.�..�,. ,.-'�i': w� .. �'":;E`��. �^.• �,. _ '- The site, •plan/p,arking facilities -are' sKo%4n'on• Figures 3:4', •3.5 and 3.6. RepresentativeLLeleva*f6hs"are �%�°c=l�udedc�n�Sec�i`on--4-. Ags"t:he>ts}c{�.a �e�resenta-, t ve �ufldfng outline"s' of'-t-he':�r6bb sd'�pro,;:ect ware�;showr. 'on .,F:igure:.3.�. The' i heavy black b f�7df"ny "outl'i""he's:-are sh`ow.n fuom ;tfi:e gceanMside.- ifid r?I,�CH�s:tde of the project, ExrstMg-_'b�� id�hgs (i �e., �.�i�;rs�, av;�K.i�o ex7 g�st,n Uxwell 's: Restaurant, Lffeguard�He-adqu.arter_s:; 'and: Hurt�.n�ytzon Pier n,,,`ColC.y .. 'are shown to: scale on the'dra.r�ng 'for-�comparis:an. L� ; ",� �-:. t� � • ,:. �.acr•,a. I.. -' :a r'".• '.a> 'L'---• v..urF -�€ iss Siz� � b.•'� �,� •. The con'structi!or0f rtheapr.oppsed aproyect, ;;,:except�forrth;er, ifeguard head-, quart,ers, w 11 1 T.Pht ,qfi a•1`1; exi,sting.struc" U.-es µtur�ently a444 � the s i is. The project r"o:o>tpr.. nta ±oes �no�ty�encroac�4 on t�e`� .der:t is.;b�acti, th6 bicycle path'ccr beachyacc:ess roZ tree pier,�fhe'fo�o p`rjnt�.;6 �thi p�rop0-ed pier; plaza or the`"IRC-H; rl.gh:t of ;ways Re�iac e.rit of, t ��ex'ist�n �pt�bl c par rng will, be provided i 1-he„.new ,pzr{�irg s rucure o ae Eu�l�t 'bn t'he s lte ;� p , .pper F � � �- h .rr l:.v -iil`.'� WR.i C}!w a�.'1 n 3 3,3 Pro.iect 0b.iectives ;-� , :<�a� �;• The pro osed< merfit�i s b2i n `contain l ated'a'sY=a-= ati de:vel o ment i in conjunction with the support---o'f t't�'e CIty's Redevelopment Agency. A Disaosi- Aareement (D2A1 ad_rr_uAd 1s,,U__Jj being considered v th Pncv o" cUry out its objectives within the scope of the owntown Redev- eropment Plan,sand-the ,-.Dowratown._.Speci,fic Plan. The entire project is within both:,pl;anning are P..'r•:irary acals�.o '�ttle`ie 1zrsfa're tot ede elo .t�tie area ir, and arounc, DowrLown Nurlt�ng'i:on�6eacn fr"ofi�6aac}i6ou�leva�rdta �th'8 eastern edge i of_ g�rntown Ttia�north�%nsterlylboul�ary`�ci *he-bDo ntbwfic5peel-f-ik .P_1an area its �t ti ae venu e. 1cea; •:s.i f ;Addi'$ion l,ly ' a `d4vello`f egntt �°�reerhintMt-s ;being: ,proposed;;t'o, theiCity to set ioning nd e7sure '--aanerence eta- ,-; • E aon,jmea _ ; , ��u3-ed,ain this SEIR. The `deyel,'oper W hl .sreceive assu�ranc-esr-from2-thee;Ctty -that-he w�i"ll_be.� able to cdnst'ruct the-,pro3ect=.'aceore.ing• to thv.!plails, a:t%ached ,tq the agreement. _ .._ ... - °.�� ;..".;;�„ *;';... sue.. %i�i�. `;'l.'.._ �: £a' r�� r•°=r•• y.... _. Th'e project is in accordance with the C1ty's approved Local,`-Coastal Prd- gram (LCP) for the site. As a coastal amenity, the restaurants, plazas, prome- nades and pubhis parking faril:.rti;eaawi,ll-�enha j-sitor., s.er_v.•ir3:;oaportunitias and local coastal' obje'cti.ves..1n.c.I-uded In :the LCc I hs- deVe i opmen-L i S; Or0Y05e.'',.. t0, con sJs t--_o ,,~25tc,L'rZ'i+S�- p 1 2Yds'' prame- Tic_rS, ,7L'bl 1 c r rki n bedr, re 1.2?c ,ODd se"'v`i Ces .. The overall d:s i a , al,e I i ty packaza --rknd-.Etch;.ectur l s .y I.e of .ne., '"eS�Zlil'an t; comip I ex i s i cons,s�en °wi=th;1`ocal:vco n.i.ty servl;,g Tacil�.it, es and_w.,I 'serye ei'aHdo ntown 4. =i/2:/90(P!ANI NASiES.CGZ) 2-19 I t: usiness generating attraction. See Figures 4, 5, and '6 for site plan/design - scheme. Specific project objectives include the following: I. To implement the Downtown Specific Plan and Local "Coast-a-I Phan,. �as they apply to the site. 2 To .provide a footprint for the City's -proposed Plaza at the foot .of the Huntington -Beach Pier. 3. To provide restaurants and -commercial _ fac-ilities appropriate .for the beach going public.,.: 4. To provide additional sales- tax revenue to the City of Hunti,n.gto Beach. 5. To provide improved access to the beach through the site for the �._ .public. 6. To preserve existing public parking opportunities -currently located on-site. 3.4 Ilse of he EIR i - The City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency are re uirina a Certified EIR prior to approval of a ;Dis os. ion and ,3 Develo ment nt lease Qenc ano a �onoitiona Use Permit an oastsT Development trmit (City) . - This Elfeis intended to be used for the entire project, contemplated to. be built out in one phase. This EIR is a Supplemental EIR intended to provide information necessary to update the previous EIR prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan, EIR 82-2. Because the proposed uses and scope of development for the subject property are consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and covered by EIR 82-2, focused impact assessments for potentially historic resources, an aesthetic impact assessment and a circulation and parking assessment are included to supplement the information and analysis in EIR 82-2 to make the previous EIR adequate according to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15I63, Supplement to an EIR) . This supplemental analysis is provided ,to give project specific detailed analysis to focused areas of potential impact presented by the proposed project 2-20 i N 4,0 EXISTING SETTING IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURE$ 4, 1 Historic-Resources _ - - - -- = - -- The .folIo.wi-ng:discussion is a summary of the His'toric' Resdurc'e-.-E. 1:nation of Maxwell 's Kestaurant by LSA Associates,7Inc: , -1996 - 4 l 1 Existing 'Setting In.. the- late . 1930s the City of _Huntingto.n Beach, with lhi help of the Works Progress:. Qdministrat-ion, built- a large publ �c:�bu.il.ding uadj•acent-=to .tSe j pier. Originally;namedathe Pivil_i-on= ( it`er changed to "=Pavalo.n '� ,3tt�is^ fac11 - ity wa- one of�ai-se.r.-ies._o_f. maj.o•r•_muriiopal structures which- formed p.art .oT the s' waterfront recreation and commerc-i-al i'strict surrounding Elie= i-ahtlmark hunting ton- Beach- Pier'; Al'th-6u9h "it has- experfenced (changes'~ih use and appearance -in the past 52__years, particularly_ since the mid-1960s, the structure has remained a major feature'of thb`oceanfront 'recreatlon 'area=fo-r=wlii`ch Huntington Beach is famous. Huntington'Beach, l.i.ke many`othe'r:Sautli'ern Cal i forma a,c-oa's= >Y- Go muiii-ti es, recognized the.beacf front as o.ne of i`ts most vaivable natur"al assets= Ther City capitai ize.d 'on. this. '.attribute .: by embarking .om a program of "deve7oPing W 1ts waterfront `for. re-cre'at'i,on;- tour.i sm-;,v and commerce.' J --At�they C-ent'e`r 'of= "thi s development_ was_ :th.e .formidabl-e concrete mGn ci'p'T pi'e_r =bu=i I-V i riN�1914 Around 1935; _ the city government,--decided thatL t•he`pier_;'�area •beraf..ur.ther enhanced by the addition of-an=ocEan front civic hall suitable for dances and other ev:en.ts., The, avai.lability of.,Public Works Administration funding, part of the federal . governent_'`s _effot".ts ,`to 'facilitate, recowe,ry'- from the lecon'onic depression of .the 19.3.0_s., made possible tWr' Meal-_ization�of%thi-�=objeci ive Ther:City ,of Huntington :8each" s.olici�ed� designs` or tfie�b ~�ing';''�an in 1937 the noted. 'Los Angeles b-as_ed -ar'chitecturaI firr�=of Wal can"ds i=s'en'was selected for- their modernistic_"" de,"sign.-"'The:'Hunting_to_n Be"'r ' Pavil-ionA =as the structure was off.i,ci a.1Jy: ,nay;ed; was• dedicated`ortiid- 'a "w�el° a8'vbrtf�-ed-d'and: ex- travagant three day celebration be ginnin9, on•Saturday, M y 28, '1938. In 941 , (the name of,•th.e dance .hall was changed from the Pavilio t the Pavilon. 0. The Pavilion was located in ,the. heart.of the Cit_y.'s ce ter of c• mercial , social , and civic 1 i fe. This area, cent:ere•d'_at-.Lhe"-Jun.cti o':� Mai'_ " treet' and Ocean Avenue, included virtually.,, all of the' major landmarks 'of' Huhtington i Beach, Among these were the oTd City Hall and^Memorial Hall on the southeast (inland) side of Ocean Avenue (Pacific Coast Highway) ; on the seaward side were 07/24/90(=!R001%MASTER.000 2-21 ��. . 1 1 _ 4 2 Traffic and Parking { A traffic study was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. 'to exar,i-ne -the circulation and parking implications of the proposed `Piers.ide Rest-aur.ant Deve1 - opment project. The analysis focuses on the potential :parki.n.g demand gener:ai:ed ' by both the existing public uses and the proposed development, and .compares this demand to the proposed project's parking supply. The report is summar ted'- 1 below and contained in its entirety in Appendix D. 1 4.2.1 Existing Setting Site Access and Internal Circulation . The proposed Pierside Restaurant Development :project is located along i .- Pacific Coast Highway, between Lake Street and Main Street, s:out`h of the exi-st- II ing Huntington Beach Pier (refer to Figure 1.4.) ,- Removal of an street parking along Pacific Coast Highway and. restripi,ng the. roadway to accommodate three lanes of travel in' each direction is currently being .pars-ued .by Caltrans and " the City of Huntington Beach. Ingress access.- to the proposed .p:roject site is located along Pacific :Coast Highway_ between :Main :Street and Third :Street and the intersecti.on'of Lake Street and Coast Highway. The Coast .Highway access � - between Main and Third Streets provides for right-in only traffi-c. X1 IbSOfoot sYk right turn deceleration lane is proposed prior to the access driveway 'to remove pt r ingress traffic from the southbound Pacific ' Coast Highway through tra.ff' 4 o^tR .� Lanes, Northbound traffic along Pacific Coast- Highway is �requir ner-..51 .1ff � . turn left at Lake Street, or to make a U-turn at the Fifth Street intersect'io.n �C OC, to gain access to the proposed driveway between :Main and Third Streets. f5,reaa; from the proposed project site is located opposite the Second Street Inter.s.e;c tion .a.long' Pacific Coast Highway, approximately 360 feet south of the proposed ingress location and at Lake Street. The Coast Highway - egress :provides for right-out only traffic movement. A right turn acceleration lane is also pro.; posed at this driveway to accommodate egress traffic from the project site onto the mainline flow of traffic along south'bound Pacific Coast Highway. The lake Street exit is via a fully signalized intersection. Pedestrian access to and from the. proposed project site is facilitated. along signalized crosswalks at the Main Street and Lake Street intersections along Pacific Coast Highway. Currently, access from, Pacific Coast 'Highway t-o.. Maxwell 's Restaurant and the beach promenade is. accommodated along two stai-r.- ways. The first is located adjacent to the Huntington Beach ,Pier, north of the ,: project site, and the second is located at the Lake Street intersection adja cent to the lifeguard station. A third staircase is located approximately one,." hundred- feet north of Second Street. 07/24/90(P1R031\yaSTER.000) } 2-22 - i i 7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 'The Pierside Restaurants project is a part of a larger effort to rehabil - itate and revitalize Downtown Huntington Beach, In November, 1987, the City Council recommended a Master. PLa;n`for devel- oping the beach area north of the City pier. Subsequent to this action, the f State Department of Recreation adopted a general plan for the area which 1 includes a tiered parking structure, a. passive park -and_ beach Irelated conces- sions . In 1986, the City approved a tourist oriented shopping plaza at the I south side of the City pier. Subsequent to the granting of those approvals, ( the Developer and Agency' agreed to shi.f-.t redevelopment- towards a: 0,11-age,:.orien- tation and reduce the density -or intensity of development -on ,he site. The currently proposed plan is reflective of that effort and change in direction. In late 1986, the City adopted the Main Pier Redevelopment Master Plan. The plan is 'a schematic I and' use- plan which plots new projects in a redevelop- ment scenario. The plan specifies- development for -individual lots=, implement- ing most of the Downtown Specific Plan, and making some shifts of development ,..intensity from one subarea to another. The Master Plan and proposed projects below account for the cumulative. projects. considered.. Each project:'$_size, location, and relationship to the project is discussed below. Pierside Restaurants, The proposed project consists of 56,000 square feet with 575 to 635 parking spaces. Main Pier_ Phase I . A. 90,000-square foot entertainment _comp:l:ex-Js,-bei-.ng_ constructed . nor.th of Pacific Coast. Highway. :6etween Main �Street°�and}; Second Street. This mized'.use project wi-11-include.-a. s.i:x-plex movie: theater, 6;000 square foot nightclub, commercial and office space., and. 130 condominium units. The project will provide 300 parking spaces. in two subterranean levels. Th'e parking will partially accommodate .the theaters, offices,, .and .seta.- . uses. The remainder of ' needed parking will be provided by the 200 -block parking. structure. ' Parking for the residential units .wil.1 be provided- in a separate subterranean structure. - The residential parking, will. be separated- from the commercial parking. Resident and guest.parki.ng will be. pgin- ' d on-si e fcc o �/C�•�1.... awn Square. This :mixed-use. comp.lex.� cv u- et4+et. It is bounded "ySOrange Avenue, Sixth, Street, -a :Street'. . Thes — (p project voWW, have 10;000 square feet of commercial -space and W, resi- dential units; 73 stacked flats and 16 townhomes. On-site parking. wi be - g9 07/24/90(�IR0001\sc:T4.3.EIR) 2-2 3 ;R provided for all residential units in subterranean parking structures. Commer- cial parking will be -available on Main Street and south of Orange Avenue in a proposed municipal parking lot . Demonstration Block, The proposed project would allow for *he rehabili - tation or new construction of all existing structures on the block bound ;by_= Olive Avenue, Fifth Street, Walnut Avenue, and Main Street. The intent oT, 'fie project is to ensure all buildings are seismically safe and to upgrade existing architectural facades into conformance with related projects being developed in the downtown area. The project will also implement .1 ighting, landscaping, and signage consistent with adjacent proposed projects. The maxim.-Um square footage on the block would be approx.imateiy i24,000 square feet of mixed retail/of,fice. Currently, there are approximately 53,000 .existing.. square feet of mixed retail/ office. North of Pier Parkine Structure. This approved project consists of a proposed suote_rranean. parking structure on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway,. adjacent to the —municipal pier, It will include restroom facilities, community faciIity (surf museum)'-.and beach acces.sway. it wil lccntain approxi- mately W parking pace , 75 Thire Block •West. Tentative plans for: the -proposed project call for a ,mix of parking and commercial uses. One objective of the project is to pr.ov.i-de additional spaces for the downtown area. The project is located on the block . ^d Olive Avenue, -Orange Avenue, Main Street and 5th Street. - eA rx+�Gsr� -� _ -' Prelirinary plans tail for a 27,000 square fcot overall retail orr"fre including market, 30,000 to 35,000 square foot nixed retail office, a 200 space parking stru.cture,.. and 68 residential units. ��` `s�"""` L // VC �/, Parkinq Structure/Retail 200 Block Main Street. This approved proj2.ct,.' �S7�`� currently under construction, is -located on the east side of Main .Street bounded by Olive Avenue, 3rd Street and Walnut Avenue. It will consist -o,f. 32,073 square feet of 'commercial and office uses and approxi„iately. 838 pa;rkin.g spaces in a flive-level parking structure. The structure will provide addi•ttoh- al parking -spaces for the downtown area. Heritage Souaro... Heritage Square is a tentatively proposed project by the City' that may not be' implemented for five to ten years The intent of the project is to preserve existing historic buildings and allow for the relocation of other historically significant buildings in the City to the 300 block: : The project site is bounded by Olive Avenue, Main. Street, Orange Avenue, and.Thi. Street. The project will include the rehabilitation of the Post Office located on the northeast corner of Main Street and Olive Avenue. • 07/2G/9G(°1R0001\SE".;G•3.ElR) • 2-24 t Huntington BaYshore. Huntington Bayshor a 159 unit residential condo- 4- miniuri -project. --�Gons-truction started in November, 1987, and the project is completed. -- -The project. is located in the, northern`downtown district bound by Alabama Street, Lake' Street, grange =Avenue, A`t� anta-Avendg an i•'Frra.,uurir, _ .. .. •-�, �sr`.7":�C Ar_ t Cente r/Li6`rarv- Reh•'abillta ' gnrhT Ili e «�-i- t i oor.A.,na --sake--fro s _ ri:..r�ate:s �Th i s i' ye`' s'l o"crated gat vKor.-s--o°u<th- east corner of .Maur_.,rStre-et and Acacia`y'A'e—. }r''7'he pro-jed-ti Ts' irricl'td*sLethe 4-�g -�� rehabil�itatiori'of the existing 1•Sbrary o --the ladjacent block southwest of the proposed art center.. Main Pier- Phase II.: Main Pier Phase II encompasses two blocks bounded by ii Main 6th Street and Walnut Avenue. -.The. ommer- cial -block.bounded-by _Main Street, PacHic Coast Highway, 5thyStreet and�al,nut Avenue 11 contain''a r'0xIma't'eT >�` s care feet yV m •ked0`r a31 office Pp Y p,� and parki:ng,. Therresi_den"tJal'-6lock;'�`bo n ed.by 6thv Street�,Y•WalruttAveriuest5th Street and Paci''fic Coast N�gfiway� w�1`� "cori.n 7t ©ndo fiiunsa�id6a1 parking ppral_ ,s expected 1991 rW a ' r;tcrP ' A ov ..r . ._,i f�•�, s L: t �Gr►O�c?Cr.�T�oa? .vu�. 8/�c0 I�.. 100 Block' East (Main Per'`�Ptiase ci `Ann"eXl"= 4�tfiai`�isa'�idP' lal=� tspbpity owners` nay, reh'abil;it'ante: with added" squareF fobt2ge=�o'•r �deAi lhi"sW I and'- bu4 d, pursuant`to t}ie_ Downtown'-Specifrc". ,P1'ary "'fotah%maxmdm<brl•dr�outfits appebzi- mately 50;000osguare feet of mvxe'dc6cm�nerc�al off'irce= .Proces g �s �oncur.rent with Main`-`Paer"Phase I I��� -p { cr' o accessr. . a y . . . ". .. _^::ti .. .. •.. 'dam ;.4 .,Ucw_ 4i{.`!•%4c,� wh•r�;. .� qe c,"`+�..�.9.c;' c�-- These figureszincluaef a-11`'ad=i'stric-ts-`withii=n'h't'fi'e~'Dowrit'o►vhf�Spat�f�i rPla t � �s area- Jnslud1ng the propo'sed`pro•Skf- rite';'a rrd= ara'c�ons�de5red=--maxium:aaI-o e.D le.it,�a4, dens i ties, ' These �fi_gures` 'are' 'conjs'1''s en- ewi t i tfie'prov i's'i;on5 {of the Downtown Specific Rl an and the envronmenta'1ana�lysi=s `dori'e�i'ti' tIR2 2�=rtT�here"'htawe-been some shafts be•tWeen,-categories since`adop�i;or of+`the �5 e�i=tic 'Plan"=wh:ic`h"�diw-fot affect over,al...tintensity..•..or'`environmental �fTec�ts:T ' EI=1 82=2;"'addr-e.11 i.` the overall impacts of ,the Downtown Speri'inic 'Ql'a_,. an t determined, that' increased Ir intensi.ty;'of'_d'eyelopment antl `the number `of'.Tincreksedr' esi.dencess;iwduldthot overburden the' infrastructure-or. land`-carrying,capaci•tY - f�gis=' 1ear" ha-t'- hand r G" development` o'f 'the irtensic. and= cop,r-`f�`t�h'e'�proposed project are intended by the Downtown. Specific Plan and, Local� Coastal Plan for this area, and that City 1 ans` full •�`p y_`'anti�ciprate"'this Tevei If deJehoamen' . ' Areawlde` tlevelopment:;:. in l i ne with redevelopment trends 'contezipl ated ' are i n aa'cco_rd'a'ric:e vTi`th''t-h:e"•C�i t�y's General Plan and regional' growth project=ions`of'SCi,G (based on=City sand �tdunty projecti0"5) Li `i.` f (%c ?C� [i`-�� �,: irC st 07/24/90(PIRICC1\SECT4.3.EIR) v J� COMMUNITY ''S .E.RVLCEtS Mu:114GT0\BtACM ' - Departmental Memorandum TO . Jim Way FROM Bill Richardson - DATE August 7, 1990 SUBJECT PIERSIDE VILLAGE - IMPACT ON MARINE SAFETY Following our discussion on Pierside and in order to refrain from being repetitious, I have. listed the following concerns in addition to-those you voiced: 1 Increased security problems with our facility due to in, vehicular and pedestrian traffic. { 2. Increase difficulty in closing the beach GS at the 12 Midnight curfew�a I as the restaurants will probably have.a 1:00 a.m closing hour. Historically, individuals have wanted to take that last minute stroll after leaving such facilities. 3. Some of our maintenance and public tsafety activities are not CS compatible with restaurant or open public forum; i.e. handling law enforcement issues, body recoveries (very infrequent), stray dogs (we have pens to hold them until O.C.A.C. arrives), etc. " Many of item three issue will be dealt with through minor operational changes. Items 1 and 2 present the greater problems. ; 2-26 .. -. _... -, •r.•. .., _ ., .-:r_ m...��'y'?t- `ri?.w'd rc?.""a^aS. .-f✓A' iT�...c�_ ?--� Ij *H.S v� PIERSIDE RESTAURANT PROJECT Impact (Depending on who has the responsibility of the plaza, parking , landscape and pedestrian areas . ) 1 . Increase cost in maintenance :of parking lots,- plaza;. lanct'scape general' areas frm pier tc First Street:` (Cos't coula° be offset o - by ci-ty- operation- of parking lots . ) 2 . Compounds„ -trafffi--c corg;e-stio-n- a*..,,,th:e i;r.s t', `Str;eet-nent?ranee -by CCj -�p doubli-ng . parkin.g, -space and'.. c6mbtning..J1b:e:ach op.erat-i-oh�zt.r-af:f•ic with .short =term,:res r.&nt t'raf f is . 3. Creates add.it�io.nal. .tra"-f-ic_ and; pedest'r .an:..coage-stion�= ,t"'First Str.eet.. . The= pedes�t_r_iap; ci�os�sing a.t ,P,Cri fend. First is ,the most used .- cros.sing_-along t.he,_beachfront. and sthe..Lcr.ossing;. co*�ti^ues -across the eritr_arice -.to the -parXing:. f.a.cil;ity _bA g cars Up into PCH Jwhi_ch _.j:ams_ t.Y�e traffic yin- all ai ectionst 40 ;taw jW yj 1 jr an re 2`27 -:h 3;_••._J�., a t-r���'���' i ..r':tk.:r�i...:.:c.. .A..':-:'.:•:V•_� Si. y -}�,.y�R�:.tr)5. . �•.....1f It K4 !�Sj2R �. 1,.,.; ,�•: a . t:"�:• '�.yar�.$ .�/,,%t•. •K tT$ $$r�'�;, �.iy 6...a-e ems• �Y��. t ... �:}A�i{A:';l!'1,.••i�:.r.. lrc."t' •.r.1 - .+. a. �r N.X. . _ a•r.:'r.; .'��. _.-q.�•: . . . .: ••fir r ,.Y_.. !� . - -. _ •.•i`': .:.',.lrY. .�?-"lay ` ^•'''f ,��,•'Yc. Lila CITY :' OF HUNTINGTON BE INTER-DEPARTMENT .COMMUNICATI'ON HUNTINGTON BEACH -- - '• ` To: LAURA PHILLIPS, 7rrom: JIM MOORE, Associate Planner Department Analyst. Sr. '. Subject: Impact on Police Service —.-Date: June 6,,. 1990 for Pierside Restaurants We have developed formulas for estimating additional manpower requirements for various types of projects. They were _ derived by, measuring actual calls for service for. each of these types (e.g. - commercial, high, , -medium and low dens residential, . etc. ) . Using this data, we have estimated:-chat'.:`:. there will be- one police for service per 2745 square feet of commercial space per year. Based upon a desired annual number of calls per police officer of 356, constructing a 5.6 :boo square foot commercial complex will result 'in approximately twenty calls per year, . on average. .. It will not be necessary to hire . additional personnel or purchase other resources for'. this. project. . ..(56, 00.0. sq. ft. / ..2745) =. 20 calls per year 20 calls / 356 desired number-_ of calls annually officers.. At .the.'current time, the salary.cost for police service .to . a call is. averaging $31..40. The salary cost for police service this year at this development is.'expected-; to reach $628,0.0.- $31.40 x 20 calls = $628 .00 As a note .to Planning, we are. :.receiving large numbers of requests . for the construction .of these smaller projects. that. when viewed' individual , do not 'require additional manpower. ; ' • rr� But. if you view , these projects . collectively, we will'.:Xrea`ch.` O� levels 'where additional manpower :will be required. Trac}crig these . prgj ects., and the ,accumulated , effect on .public.. saf-ety requirements should•,_, be.. initiated .and •a plan developed,•that-. will ' address 'this issue: - VED 2-28 -1= 5tN' tlY:-X6PDX I818COp121" 'lU1U-'` -$"L i—yU. �U AM 1 i�Y'LUllll� d��Ul�'Ib�R 1 ED MOUNTFORD 6232 Dolphinwood Drive, : Hunt ington.,rBsach; CA 92649 August 21, 1990:. _ ,_, SN 1x . 1.'s: k s.L.� ,f..., Ms, Laura Phillips, 'Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, P. 0. Box •190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 re: comments on BEIR 90-2 Piirai'de Restaurant Dear Me. Phillip61 - Overall, ZAbalieve`'ths EIR -does a thorough job of analyzing the gym- I impacts of the propoasd development, Howwver, the. .:di.scugs.ircnr regarding project =al`terna�tives riead's�= 'o� be x�p` a'nd`a'd 'Y�Aeo AE'iR '9o-2. ahould include an analysis to date.rmina it surrounding circumstanoas have changed since' EIR 82-2 was certified, to such e:rA_A a degree. that would invalidate. the conclusiong G 4{�� f,ltidi-Igs in .:.a_ _I' t.•i L••- -•. The al:tprnative projects ^analyzed in EIR 90-2 include: 1). No .project.; 1� " Y • •v. ri -' • '` ,R : 17.}.1 I..I,.i i 2 i.iisll�- rie., w ll� i3I�s i.-.Aspd 2)- Coril4rs�i`on' Iti?�;`=hii sli�tli-to-open apace uses; and 3) Prwscruet:idK061:.t.MaXwO�i-l'!-s=kistaurant structure plus addition- of two restaurants.- In my. apini.on..,the, EIR•,-needs t;a.,asasiai,;the� impn� i� 'cr`kdr.dli— n:—w-vTv- L -_restaurant -and two new restaurants, as.sagarat�;r��tarr a<t ves,;-to the propos*d- pr-oja'ct' `^'Thus•;-' -tNit4c'woXld 'be a =ourth y&Vtornative =m'3 that would look at one new rasltaurant and a fifth 4lternative that examine-s_;rwo ,.new,r.e-stau_ants'.:= a0 rt With ralspact''to"of'f-ei-to alternativas, EIR 90-2 states that off-site alternativss are not considered ,re,i-n.ce..this;.is. =a Sup le . ..Thisa etiaainent- ass _ ~th' :_ �l" ' , yi. x, uiitias at o`f`& s` to "alta.n4 I—es were diBousl>,id in, a�'previou"s.'EIR% 0' Tn1 xev swing EIR= s2 '2�� d d not find such,discussion-, ::;Theref0a,� S .uc34est •that-dilecuss� oi'' "EN-4 of altarnativas f.bq expanded -to:,-i,ncl^ude off""Site, :a"`ltat�nat}v_e� such as the"-Iiland� side 'o_1FCH 'or nortf of the pier. I believe the Planning Commission and the public should have the lene-.f of this :dnaly i,s- px.l:orLto i pu)•UtcUhi ,g• ,P, = � _ _ �thi�� ari-n �t'a'csr,. ty EAR S itjoere y, PdMountford# Member, Planning Commission EM/j a 2-29 .:re. DE?ARTME`T O I�. ��� :i• `'�•�, •• ;i—�'�, � `!� COMMUN��VJ.C�.��tLZL .�'.. '�'' .� .' Tl PLANNING DIVISION j' K'.Vrv'w;c';�,1r ;.y r�.•.• Ire r�.,• .. •� ��•`/•�11 w••� . .. i it �' 2-30 Vt YI°:A['oo !� '',3'�A4 - v+c:^G a4 '+� ►. • - .. '.. .v ,t' - raw`"{ .� .A . .. �• sue'.;- `� +:.�� �,�:..�'• ",. 'G•cac _:i6-^,.riJ. �.::� lv� Cy.� i:ita -i•�':C; .:.�.tj y-a- :�+•, t a. onc3.'� ',(y{j[,j/��:i�t?i G _ Tv'.{ Sxgr�C of:Vt 'i G'$ 'YCv�. x' ic 01 62 ///�} t 1 s• Z, i- ..i fVe Y ZT re a r "- V . ` anpower ?:i _'-3 "..'tea ;i t AiC� �f „�T . '-s;s ��' - t_._...... L1�.� '}�..t�. i=��i t_L iV ; �s.�rb 1 oL�.'r iK�'.•-�t�.17 rell CCDn: so ' �• � • --•- _. ._. ._ ._ ..- •-- _• .. ' .:�'�.. _ _ ..._ _._ram ._._...--.. i. 2-32 a• . K August 9, 1990 Laura Phillips Department of Community Development PO Box 190 r '` - �1 1.�, j!�`=I �• ��• - . iFY "b .err• a.1 ,__a S', f Huntington beach-, ' CA 92698 , �'._ T-1 1- _ _.__.._._._ ._. _-- :-_—__• -_.._.__ •, f- ,, .a. f ,5 ., i' ...a•..;> _ C- --.•-tom� __l..�"� - Dear Laura : .�;� ,�q '%: � '4 ''...".c-- .:��-.�r�,..il.,?- Cp,...a: 'i1V'��:,1ti `_ i'•; .1 �+'+� . I attended- the "W:o•rk'shop„" ,,on4 ►ugust ��r;Y990. ,I must- III _ y' / _; -�--,-_5 _..._ VEPA e A9 ^!- C - �rn appalled at the unfYp/roessional` way 'wet w(elretAre:a-ted:= s t 1 _ ; v:a sprj�(yilr_s?r 1�s§:tlt E ! h t�< ✓ '`- "�J r4s -a o .and the The Origirfa�l�,;EIR-;>w'as:aput toge'th-er` 8' ye�.a g - ... a �:�.;.fit•...,. r the • supplemental £IR was a' ye,ar,-:a.gjo::',Acc,o,r!din ;o,'jyhdt• 'I Funderstood__ from the "Work'shop"=:t;he,rfo:llyowing items we considered' to be of EMI no importance : �l a n" use ;e t,e=: • ~� r -M" s n+ ` � A ,- " ,ri 3, r r . ;` ...__.. uigt'he Gtf/'Aut�mgif, the th.e ,S.tate, ri on�sP 1 i�f.¢,��`L..`r�;r 5 � _'>, �- '_,_.?.r.�."-..:Ova .•••--:• �'✓� .! j- -Beach for the jproposeda'ruseof tithe land Fis.,�not considered .7V t-(� i ry��5 ^ ��'`��'"'"'"",��f- ..ar�„�•.-.K.as`--�! r�'- 'G" �j_ r. important whatl�is3, +' '_! f _ FFTT.••F`•" >>' fY5 r�r? r s.Y;!1 a -i1�a+v° ttr F F �.i' �r-� "`.�e I am aga1nstt all�✓privq.%te use Ofr�the Vo; r � The o l d c 1!i F�'a r ems; r e e s•t y Er�,'fiy�''!f"§�'AL'�•��•-^'��.�`, is true. The beach, the ocean, the a'nd;t:h�e +Ova�te{,ran`dP�th,e,r i*gh=jt tqf , ✓ 1 /q yf�, ,1.e t �••�f - r''�?•�!.�,...,!',�i'rJ��v�f��rf=is/.•� `°�`y�__,.--.��^D..._ ,.:-'y�� i b:.s'L b-�.�'�..+r`• _"- see' the ocean are eFverybody� s, riot �ju:stj7a few'devel�opez s who want ;J • ti` \ `r r°a i/f/ D r o-' ''/�df i/vA' s �± , �fjryj , w.i..��'',,,,�SS..vW^r� �'. .. .. . to make the almi,gh't=y; dQ-11ar ! ;aj I must say Commis=ior�e`r 5aer,i Ortiega was w v?po1.�iqt'A to Kand ` F t rb - J� J�pwr underst anding -he- pe V� " f �: �� .• �a,-. r�J,�,d�l.r:�.ar<�` �A M �t>�<ll•'�if i� �• _x /�',,± `�f,+.-a u e��•'� •_[ 1 _ ��t.r,..:.i �+ =`_'._a...;. - _:y,,.:4:` elf J ex. 1 lY),•, -,� -� wE, lteen _Mtt"rphfy.., A-t• i ti 1 � F r�.. + 1 f � A <t i J- 5 y YM✓+F -- 1' ttS - �j•?Y'Sq'a'�3 20:r-2lsst iStreet; i�:-B.9 6A8 2-33 n • A.ugust 10, 1990 Commissioner jer _ Ortega and Fellow Commissioners : . Just a note to object to the manner in which Pike Ada:is and _ the -)eo,le w,^,o we pa to -.)reoa. e . the supp!e-ment of the 6 vedr a- � old ., ea _ed the :. iti..ems or iun _in9ton Beach on Auaust uth. t o wz_ e ale. t e d to _:ham " workshop" ar:c al' c'_ us ;;ho are not ge t n apa_c race _he e_:c _ t to. a ;end. =te_ -.v c:e e n e i c h b a r Ursu__ Co`f n ,ta%de I-e_ plea to st the use t'^_ cLbl_c 'ceac.. =c= _esta:._ an6.= etc . `!i ke Adams C7. o^ �ti'" .,oL't dnti' eXp_anatiOn _ t legit the ress_on c .ti.e was ^vL C ^� L'J _°Le;i Lv^ J'.:_ le- t1i:= to c^i ola? :^.�S. :..e.^, s_nce 1 ^.O ..0= :--oW t 2 r:ai'125 Cf t..e CO^ '_s520.^.?_ 5 :^.c _! a n ,ring cam,,.. sat and twirler :fike t.Ga m a n w o S O n e �: ms ei,pty ,,. .. _ T:.en ne an d .,.n.e .;,a.^., w- o as _ cuess :he szoke persc:n O d_ 12= t , tempor a_ _l v , _Ana when ^me of :^.e .._ t_. =:-,s asked a I _ t: "mot_ _ _ .. � e ` •-c5 _Oi:, ':e ..i.v CV 7e c_ �' Cr s:e �Gi e ) a^ ..o Sei,G _v^ _m to answe. the cues!- ions . r:e also compsx_ned , 4n the early =cages c= she "works;.op" , t-at he had ::omised h, s w':e iie ':d- be „e -ariY = sav h e -ha,-,:c ..a , e planned ^_s pe.sonal 1i_`e to the scheduled" workshop. " i r1EasE , be c^cn:zant e `act t:^.at we a=e not �l✓la'� cc:7;,::_ ssi0Me:s an cc- ' _ know _h - __es or what can be .a <e abaut anal w•:_.. 18 not 'Ire_evan: . „ .:an _se : ct __. _ re.ev .._ was one o: you: _ __es. land 2-34 4 1 use is not relevant, what is? I would like to personally compliment Mrs. Ortega for singlehandedly treating us with the kindness and respect , I frankly feel we were due. Sincerely. i - i _ . %: .....':` •r• .� ��e �, ,tie '�•e :R: -2.O�1r�2�1s :,'"S�r.eet 3eachlCA• _ r_ :. , of_ ..•:;` r:� .96 4.'E. i% - �; CC to Hunt i ng tio_rn,.•,.: a h >^o*nqr'Y ow °., ._.,�' " ` r' Y ', of�.,..�,:L. .r.L� �l ti�-„• \ - .. i • • '�f/'ram n�•i..?'. is'`� t 1/4 - _.. _ .-.... .._ _- - i z. '7 y. yf _ 2-35 ' r IUD August 19,1990 319 8th Street _ 'Huntington Beach,CA .9264B Laura Phillips Planning Dept . E.0 �r City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street `- Huntington Beach ,CA 92648 r1UG,2_ 3199� DEPARTMENT Of Dear Mrs . Phillips i GOIdMUNITY DEVELOPM!+lqT pLANNING DIVISION i This letter is in regards to the Pierside Project Environmental impact Report . I wish this letter to be entered as part of the comment section of that report . 1 have been a resident of Huntington Beach for eight years2 (two years renting,.six years owning) ,I believe the project as is proposed will be dxxdetrimental to the Huntington Beach shoreline—At .the presnt time ,Huntington Beach has one of the largest and best-kept city beach anywhere in Orange County.The beach _s::wide - oven and is free to all who visit here .This , combined with th.e B.olsa Chica State Beach ,provides ,plenty of room fot thousands of pe,opl'e, _aR including residents who use it every day.Considerin; how close, this beach s to a major xsEYxzrt metropolitan,tRizxx xasxssrxxszxxxxxcKxe xszximxizxx xaxxx .area,`the city should 'consider the beach zone as a very unique recreational opportunity,not as 'a place kka to build commercial real estate . DR'3 I onnose the piersi de.•vroject ,because _t opens the wav for o4Cher !shoreline projects that would take away much-needed open area .Bui_ding 'DI _c�. lanyth_ng or. the - oceans ide of Pacific Coast Highway would be a major mistake .'"he new. PI-'er planned to be constructed saould `De the one expect- _on to this rule ,The c_ty. :nas pler.,t.y of experience owning and operating the cvrren one -The aasidxtresidents of t-, s cit- s y will lexzect not:^inc less Veer, the new one is cor.,pleted . I am fa-liliar with t:^.e old pier and ha� P2-5 walked it many times .To be .able to walk the pier , looking back at the shoreline xsifixR as on a sea-going vessel, is a very pleasant exper- -D Iience .To look back and see only shops ..and food stands will not be With the x>s"si completion of the new Hilton hotel and -he Pavilion DR_ almost ready, I believe there will be plenty of room for all of `t`ne merchants k^ho urant to do business here. ! believe a balance bewtee„ business and re.c_eaticnx2 needs to be addressed and established.-To (build on the oceanside of Pacific Coast -H.ighway will make ach-ie%iing -- - this balance much more di.ficult .Thank yo:: for your aZtention.'a: c; mime . S` r ce:e, y.,. D ..Rarnoos 3?9 St:: Str eet i 2-36 Mr , & Mrs , David Bartlett 607 7th Street Huntington Beach, CA 9264E �^ Laura Phillips 8/20/90 Planning Dept - �' City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St , Huntington Beach , CA , 92648 Dear -Ms . Phillips , We are property owners and 20 year residents of the downtown Funtington .Beach area , : we are in favor of the redevelopment that we have seen to date rr22 anc are also in favor o: the pierside restuarant project in concept , However , we feel the height of the structures should ^ be .kept BELO.•r OR LEVEL with Pacific Coast Hwy so as-. not to rblock ocean views , Additionally, view corridors maintaining at least 50 percent open space are essential . Recently we constructed a Gusto» ho»e for our residence. on 7th i street , We comolied with all of the city building regulations 1 regarding setbacks , open space and lot coverage which are -� -3 designed to maintain the asethetics- of the neighborhood It is o= ut most importance that this concept be continued in future I redevelopment whether it be residential or commercial , i Y . t � Sincerely , 1, Mr . & Mrs . David Bart=ett ! Co=.',hiU i 2-37 • r F k August 20 , 1990 i Ms . Laura Phillips Department of Community Development p 0 Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92.648 RjR� ETR STUDY/PIERSIDE VILLAGE:` I would like to register my o.bje,c,tion to the. b.uild`ing of Pierside Village , on the beach.. I don.' t see how the results of a 1982 EIR. s.t.udy can be accurate ,1 until it is: determined whet effects the existing. new, construction and ' proposed parking for all the new construction in the downtown ,. actually has on the a-rea.,_ let. alone the traffic flow patterns , How cam you make an �7-A laccur.at.e study of an- area that is just in the process of being built out? 'Another retail. project is not. the. proper use f-or this land. it. should be heft .as open space recreation, for al I to emjoy, h do n.o.t . c.on9id:er shops and restaurants as recreational , I would like to l.is:t. some other concerns about -� the project . 1 . If this project is allowed toi b.e bui.lt on. the beach., it would: open the - doo: for other cons.t-ructi:on on. the beach. The downtown is_ being built up so fast. that it i.s imposs.i.b-1 a il for any, E.IR cons.ultinT farm to accurately. determin-e wha.t. impact another retail center with restaur&n.t.s w4l ? have: on the: area un.t.i.l. the results of all. th.c n.ew cons-truction is: i rea i.ze,d and. i.` there . is a need. of: more of 6h.e: s:am ... Fossi.ble 46 ai.Iure- c Ithe project could. c.rea.t.e. a. beach slam: area. 2 . it would promote_ more traf fic conge"s`ti.on, . in the, pf-e-r, a-rea such: as l dcli.very, and trash trucks as, we'll a.s�- patrons or the pro j:ect�. Also i t 'ink. we should WZit and. see how. the proposed parki.mg. i.s g`ai.ng to deal - with the n.ew1y cons.-ruct.ed•. pr o.j;ect3 in.. the downtown. 3 . 4C. would obstruct Views of the beach from PCB? and: p-roJecas:. on the= inland side. of PCs. ^_'hat area should be kept as open: s-pace. :or a.1l- to ei.mjoy the view, without obstruction ard. so-ca. l.e.d view, opportuniti.es.. Ctpi 4 . feel an. al.t.er:�ate site: for this project. should be con •idered, suc2: at the .5,th. street area. No_e, is nct always bet_ter. . � 22I - �'�/-mil`✓�i--� �✓�iC.l'Y!^,/.}rz�/ o.i S "r e enia;I y. i 415 6 t.h S y.- ,. Hu:ti ngton Beach, CA 92648 2-38 i 1 TO: Huntington Beach Planning Commission FROM: Kay Seraphine, 509 17th Street, Hunt ington=Beach,, RE: SEIR 90-2: Pierside Restaurant Project I am concerned about the issue's not considered to. be si.gnifieant 1 enough 'to- be included in this SEIR: ' Land Use The discuss ion. of . Iand use. -in E I R 82-2 doesn' t mention i the site the Pierside Project will cover . SEIR 90-2 found that the land use by this project will cause significant impact to both viewshed and the City ' s cultural history , ther4fore , I contend that land use should have' boen discussed , Seismic Safety EIR"82=2 su964e-t.s that 'each site sho.u,l-d be= a-valu- _a I ated with respect to - liquefaction.' Z ._.. = Flood HAzard EIR 82-2 only 'eons ders. the f.l.00d plain between Lake Street- and the Santa--AnaRiver : _With subterranean -parking and the past' history, of wintei- atorms ' in thistiarea, -shouldn 't V 90-2_ include f l.00d hazard? Risk, _QL upset _Page i.- o'f 82-2 reports that : the a:' 1 and has - be_en s Lib JecIad to intensive `oi I� d:r-i 1.1 .ing' and: petroleum-_•relat,ed. _� uses . " i s 'there a. �possib-i 1 it.y: offinding s� J,-contamina- t Lion when grading for_'th-e Und.erground.. p-s_rk_i.n-g Public Services I would call your attention to the letter from ii Department Analyst , Jim Moore indicating that the cumulative K6�--5 affect of these projects on, police services needs to be ad- dressed . His commints would apply not .only: t:o police mabpower but to issues as gaff ic ,= parking ; .sewer:s., wager;. otc.. Astheties/Visual Resources= '.Thts" S:Ei.R .d.oes- document-,the viev,•shed that this project will cause Along with the .documents '6p that are qucted, the Coast'&1 "'Act P:o.-1 i.cy;. -Se.ctio 4:0251_ aaso_ .F._ protects scenic and visual =coastal: r_esource.s: i IFrom, the Coastal Element under Shoreline Access, -_Section 2 .L-5, i t .i s clear that e lack of structures. between-•F,H - nd._the o.c.ean is seen as a benefit ; something. to.-.be preserved. A l ternet t ve Sites 1-n.' .1.968 sn.d: 1909_:cases. judges dive 'ru.l ed E I Rs inadequate because alternate- sites were not included." ks 'there i g is no assurance that th=se cases will be heard on appeal -or h they are heard , overturned, would it not ave bsen prudent to include alternative sites in SEIR 90-27 e Alternatives 82-2 included an alternative -of- Lower. Ir,.ensity ; one of the arguments acainst this option was the cost of assem- i Ks-�( tiling land . Since land assembly is not necessary on this site , could a lower intensity project with less impact be included? 2-39 i 1 . CEQA Guideline ., Section 15064(a):, "`Some -examples of conse- quences which may bia deemed to be a. s.iignIf 1:oant, effect on th.e 'l environment are ;contained -in .A•ppendi`x fl. " Appendix G; (b) `, ay.e Ks a substantial , demonstrable :negative eas:sthet, c offec.t.; (j) "Disrupt or adversely affect a -property of historic or cultural significance to a community 2 . -EIR 82-2 , Section 4 , 1 , .page12 under Liquefaction: and lurch.i.n_g states , "Each site needs to be ev�4 uete.d fndivldu:alJy to dater- ; mine which of the factors contri'but•i.ng to liq.uefaction groundwater level , soil type , relative density) are .present . i 3 . Moore: As a note to Planning.., we tare re.ce`;ivI:n:g large num- ! bars of requests for the cons truct ion. of tthes:e sma'11-er- projects that when viewed individually , do not require additional -man.pow- { er . .But if you view. these projects collactivel'y., we :wi11 :reach 1 ���o� 1 eve'ls where add i't i ona 1 man.power wi l 1 be requATe.d'. Track ing these p.ro j.ects and .the accumui�ate.d. -e•f f ect on -,Public -sa-f ety re:- ' � qui.rements .should be initiated and a plan •deve.l.op.ed "that wi l l address this i.ss.u.e . I 4 . Coastal Act Pol icy, Se.cti.on 302`5�1 "Th,e scenic an,d visual i qualities of. coastal areas sh•al l 'be cons idere-d. and ,p:rot.ec•t6:d"_as a resource of public i.mp.ort:anc•e. Permitted :developme:n't hs11 .`be 13 sited and des i gne•d to prot�e�c.t v i-ews to and a•1 ong t;he ocean and scenic .coastal a s rea •, ,.. New •dev-e:lopment in 'hi.#Hy tceni;c areas sh•a1 .1 :b,e s;ubor.da:n.:ate to the ch8rscter of its s:e-t- t nsc, Coast.a i E i errant , S'horelin:eAcc:es:s , Sec .2 .'2•. 9., page 23" �C.o.estal Act policy .di.rects loca'1 go•vernme.nts. to :.p.r.ovi'de f`or maximum Public a.ccea's t.o the shcr e 1 i ne :and a•l ong -h,e co�as_t . Oppor•tun i i es for d i;r.e;c:t -p'h.ys i.ceA access to -.he whore 1 i'ns :i n t ' with t`h•e .e.x�c eipt'i o n. o f o n e Hun�ina,.on Baa.ch are exaelJen.,. . = � multi-f.arnil.y development :earth o.f he :P�;er , t.hs;re are no f�aj.or f -structu:r:e f;etween Paci.f is C.os.s High:w-ay .and 't;he sea a`l.ong th.e jl an- ire l.engt-h of :the coast in:e. •Furth:ernore., . t'he •nine mVIS's of beach. are under .pub i s .ow.ne_rsh i.p .and :rea.d.i Ty idant if i ed .as 'put,I I recreation area:s . " 1 - 6 . Citizens of Goleta valley vs Board �o"f Supervisors,, 'Citation j { 0197CA3dll:67 , 1988 and #216CA348, 1989 Laurel Heights improvement .As.s.ociation va Re,ge--nts of she University of California, 47Ca13d'367 , 1,9:88 1 r 2-40 6 A �. � � - .Y.. "�:�j�'f 4�Ci��:r:aTY-:w:' •n:.;-ram. ��yf•C �. jrR 509 !?:n st Huntington Beach CA 92648 ex 17 I » 2-41 r 7a /' c E t 1� CO.o . i::f•Y :L --� 2-42 6b "/(� �V �✓/��.r�'/"''��./,{A'l/,'�^�w�. - � - r -1/y,�(_/�'JJ�4 'nry. �z u .. ... - E,7 � U .:_.._ � - f Y�U.�-f.,c�.c.�c.4-ui,._o-�✓..�, G�'� ��v -���� . .(�.c;:�._ _ _ 3_ : : . j G�:rW ;�'� ,cis.. .;.�;��,c�u _ ` .i_ ,. •-��,c��ja� .,.c�..�. - �. 2-56 i i { . i i i i i i Syr . �, `'� ? SEPTEMBER 7; 1990_ j LAURA PHI.I_L. P5 �' �":;��r,:y�;,` .� ^ ��.•.:.:; �•1'.� Jima }..� PLANNING 'OEPARTMEFlT �, ;� ) +••�1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON.',.PEACH I 20b6, MAIN '`STREET HJNTI NGITQ ••BEAtH -CAS.= - ,.�.•_..(-� 92648 1 WISH TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING OUEST.I.ONS AND OBSERVATIONS - RE�;IJARDING- THE-- DRAFT EIR AND--SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR PlERSIDE -� RESTAURANT COMPLEX OR WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE TO .BE CALLING THIS - PROJECT ON THE,_OCEANSIDE OF -PC-H AT THIS TIME . ,." PROJECT ON THE OCEANSIDIE.,OF;;PCH_-.A-T- -THIS TIME 1 - HOW DO YOU CONSIDER A 1982 EIR AS THE.-BASIS E,OR A PROJECT H.AT WAS "NON-EXISTENT -?:N'r.;_�:1:.982 � �THE"`'CURRENT PROJECT ! PROPONENTS AND DEVELOPERS WERE LIKEWISE-,NOT IN THE PICTURE. IN -" 1962 . 4 - 24, .y - 2 . WHAT IMPACT ON THE PEOPLE DO YOU SE-E.-'000URING AS A RESULT OF ALLOWING PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT_: PROJECTS TO TAKE�,A'PLACE!"'ON -�- _ -PUBLIC LAND , ..-THUS RESTRYCT .NG-*;'USE , - VIEWS OFrANO'�A'6CE5!§;-TO— `z PUBLIC BEACH? 1 i 3 . -;:3_N- PUBLIC MEET-INGS--,REGARDING�-TF!I-S�PROJECT M656 F~HB`' PLANNING STAFF STATED THAT LAND USE WAS NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL j CONSIDERATION . I LISAGREE THE OXFORD .0IC7Z_ARY e• DEFINES `J ENVIRONMENTAL— -AS:�--RELATED TO SURROUNDINGS , ESPECIALLY THAT i PART AFFECTING PEOPLE 'S LIVES . ON THAT BASIS , PLEASE ANSWER j WHY ALTERNATE SITES THAT WOULD NOT AFFECT GENERAL PUBLIC i ACCESS AND VIEWS HAVE NOT BEEN;-••,CONS IDERE_P? T,HE PROJECT .t. j PROPOSED ON THE OCEANSIDE BLOCKS FREE VIEW FROM. PC.H AND j CAUSES INTIMIDATTGN FOR THOSE SEEICII' �^-TO=PARK AS.. BER�CHGOEAS�:-}� - - 4 . WHAT COST TO THE TAXPAYER WILL RESULT FROM THE ADMITTED INCREAS"7D. CRIME- POTENTIAL IN A PARKING STRUCTURE? HOW DOES — S i T'HE'" C:T•Y� PLAN TO MITIGATE PUBLIC SAFETY IN THIS PARKING STRUCTURE?' 5 . WHAT ~AFFECT WILL THIS PROJECT HAVE ON THE VIEWS OF THOSE i-RO:;ECTS ( BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ) ON THE INLAND SIDE 0= P-CH? HAVE" THESE BUYERS BEEN INFORMED AND IS THERE A j METHOD IN PLACE TO INSURE CONTINUED HONESTY REGARDING b POTENTIAL VIEW DISRUPTION? THE CITY DOES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SEE THAT A PROJECT THEY JOIN WILL. BE ABOVE BOARD IN D_SCLOSURES . i 6 . HAVE YOU CHECKED THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY WITH LENDERS,> i BE SPECIFIC . HAVE YOU CHECKED THE ' FINANCIAL RISK AND SUCCESS :::TH OTHER SEAS'_D= VENTURES - NOTABLY MARINA PAC:F:CA IN LONG ! BEACH , LONG BEACH MARINA ( BETWEEN BELMONT SHORE AND SEAL i SEACH , SEAPORT VILLAGE IN SAN PEDRO )? HAVE YOU ALSO COMPARED j THE SUCCEESS W1 H THE COST TO THE C_TY IN EXPENDITURES? BE 2-68 SPECIFIC , r' 7 • HAVE YOU AS PROTECTORS OF OUR ,C.ITY 'RES'OURCES tMET YOUR OBLIGATION TO THE PEOPLE IN MAKING THE `BEACH AND 'IT 'S VIEW AVAILABLE 'TO "THE MOST -NUMBER OF !.P.EOP.L'E-, ?FOR THEI'R 'ENJOYMENT i ( SCENIC , NAT!1AAL 'CULTURAL AND .RECREATIONAL') OF THE OCEAN , ! - BEACH AND RELATED - AREA' AS THE :STATE ELANDS COMMISSION EXPRESSED 9 ` A RESPONSIBILITY OF APPOINTED OR (ELECTED CONSERVATORS'=FOR THE CITIZENS IN PRESENTING THIS EIR .WRITTEN IN ' `1982 AND SUPPLEMENTED ONLY FOR THLS .NEW PROJECT? : .JUSTI'FY THIS , .PLEASE . SINCERELY ; jo JO CHRISTIAN-CRAIG j 529 LAKE -STREET HUNTINGTON 'BEACH., CA . 92648 i 1 - I - i - i i - i i i i I j 2-59 i �yT _ SEPTEMBER 7°,1.99.0. -- -LAURA PHILLIPS ,I PLANNING DEPT . CITY OF 'HUNTINGJT:QN_.nBEACH. _ - % ,..=_< : ..`9..�• -.,:: ;:t • .,_ y- 2-00.0 MAIN"ST , 1' , •._ ..HUNTING70N •,BEACH , CA 9.2648 - - • MS. PHIL-LIPS' - THE FOLLOWING ARE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS I BELIEVE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIR .FOR PIERSIDE J - I RESTAURANT -PROPOSAL . I BE�LIEVE,.T.HE,Y--E:hTHER ARE NOT—ADDRESSED j OR�-ARE 'INADEQUATE'LY ADDRESSED` AS IT STANDS NOW: '1 .- -WHY WERE OTHER"-;.,tES'`NOT9' ~CONSIDERED? THERE ARE OTHER �AVAILA'B�LE• SITES. ON:`''THE "INLAND SID_E,{OFb: PCH-;j;B0:7H• .NORTH, .AND..e `"SOUTH OF MAIN STREET THAT�`ARE . 'NOT ONLY SUITABLE BUT WOULD J^� ' HAVE_ LESS OF A. NEGATIVE IMPACT -ON THE ENVIRONMENT . 2 . WHAT IMPACT WILL THE PROJECT HAVE ON THE VIEW FROM PROPERTIES ON THE INLAND SIDE OF PCH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY J -3 .ACR;05S :PROM.;THE PROJECT? 3 . WHAT PERCENTAGE LOSS OF VIEW WILL RESULT FOR FOOT TRAFFIC •-A�_ONG'`PCH;. .FOR AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC , FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE �- I'NLANO SIDE OF PCH? 4 . WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EXTENSIVE AND IRREPLACEABLE VIEW OF THE PIER THAT NOW EXISTS FROM SOUTH OF THE PIED? I � s S . WHAT IMPACT WILL CARS IN THE PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE I � / HAVE ON AIR QUALITY IN THE AREA AS THEY SIT WAITING TO EXIT ! J-� ONTO PCH ( REFERRING TO EXHAUST FUMES? ) I I 6 . WHAT CRIMINAL CONCERNS ARE ANTICIPATED WITH THE PARKING STRUCTURE? WHAT MITIGATION IS PLANNED , WHEN WOULD THE PLAN -� BE PLACED INTO EFFECT AND WHAT WILL BE THE COST IN TERMS OF DOLLARS AND POLICE MANPOWER? 7 . WHAT FLOODING AND STORM-SEA DAMAGE POTENTIAL IS THERE FOR _ THIS SITE? WHAT WILL BE DONE AND AT WHAT DOLLAR COST TO PREVENT FLOODING AND TO CLEAN UP FLOODING WHEN IT DOES OCCUR? i S . WHAT IS THE ADVISABILITY OF OMITTED OR REDUCED FUTURE BUILDING ON THE OCEAN SA-DE OF PCH TO LEAVE THIS AREA AS A T q; BUFFER BETWEEN THE OCEAN ( STORM DAMAGE POTENTIAL ) AND i DEVELOPMENT? THANK YOU , TERRY DO' TON 17892 SHOREHAM LN. HUti T INGTON BEACH CA . �E�r.•►t;,:,- 92649 "vt�rLUK?�1' 2-60 f t i - September 6 2990 Laura Phillips Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca,. j 92648 Ms: Phillips : The following comments , questions and observations are just a few' I wish to ask the department to include in ,the Pierside Restaurant. Draft EIR to be submitted for Planing Commission review and approval . 1 . I would like to see a discussion that relates the project- roject - on the changirig• composition of the downtown area rather than. an inadequate supplemental to a 1982 EIR . 2.. Please relate this projects environmental. impact to other projects that are in the surrounding downtown area to- show a k'o true traffic and crime impact . 3 . This EIR does not deal with alternate sites as a basis for judgements regarding the use and taking Of public land . ,� Before this can be addressed" properly I want ' to see k . comparison .-impacts with a similar project composition on other nearby available land both privately and- city owned. 4 . I do not believe' that -he mindset: traffic and parking requires no mitigation because this is a smaller project than previously proposed adequately answers mitigation. Certainly the impact is greeater that NO PROJECT . Please answer with I mitigation for the proposed project . T`►a.nk you , Chauncey Alexander 8072 Or if twocd Dr . �� <-:. ,y�• ; .• � _ . Huntington Beach , Ca . 92641$ or i � '••-'�•"��ti��2tt1G5lOh - 2-61 i 77 t" i - ._... - � ._ ._ _ "... _..•....'+ice ._.. ""•';e...._ s'.,. .. - .- - - .. .. _ i INTERNAL-:C_IRCULATJON i The -:proposed Pierside Restaurant. Development project is located along Pacific Coast.Highway,,. between Lake Street and Main Street, east of the exist- ing Huntington Beach Pier, (see Figures, 6, pages 16-18). Removal of on-street parking -along -Pacific'Coast Highway' and restriping the roadway to accommodate three lanes-.of ;travel--inn- each direction is currently being pursued by Caltrans and the_.Cityr.of. Hunt.i.ngton Beach. Ingress access to the proposed project site is located along,.Pac.i-.f-ic•-Coast- Highway between Main Street and Third Street and the intersection of Lake Street and Coast Highway. The Coast Highway access between Main and Third Streets provides for right-in only traffic. A 150 foot right turn deceleration lane is proposed prior to the access driveway to remove ingress traffic from the eastbound Pacific Coast Highway through traffic lanes. Westbound traffic along Pacific Coast Highway is. required to turn left at Lake Street to gain access to the proposed driveway between Main and Third Streets. _ With the proposed closing of Fifth Street, future opportunity to gain access to this driveway for westbound traffic along Pacific Coast Highway will be via a U-turn at the Sixth Street intersection. .Egress from the proposed project site = is located opposite the Second Street intersection along Pacific Coast Highway, approximately 360 feet east of the proposed ingress location and at Lake Street. The Coast Highway egress provides for right-out only traffic movement. A right turn acceleration lane is also proposed at this driveway to. accommodate egress traffic from the project site onto the mainline flow of .traffic along eastbound Pacific Coast Highway. The Lake- Street exit is via a`fully signal- ized intersection. Pedestrian access to and from the proposed project site is facilitated along signalized crosswalks at the Main Street and Lake Street intersections along Pacific Coast Highway. Currently, access from Pacific Coast Highway to Maxwell 's Restaurant. and the beach promenade is accommodated along two stair- ways. The first is located adjacent to the Huntington Beach Pier, west of the project site, and the second is located at the Lake Street intersection adja- cent to the Lifeguard Station. As a result, pedestrian access and pedestrian flow will be maintained through the project site. Handicapped access routes from Pacific Coast Highway to the beach area - through the project shall be included in the design of the proposed project. Curb cuts at the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway and Main, and Pacific Coast Highway and First Street shall also be included in the design of the - proposed project. I I _ i 09/12/90(PIR001\PARKINGAPT) 15 I I — i I i i r f' 4095 East La Palma Avenue,,Suite L. Anaheim,.Califbrnia 92807' j 0� (714) 630.9230 ENG•INEERS & PLANNERS HUi'RUGTON BEACH DEVELC ' ,ENT -ER A.'[$ i TECHNICAL. ME,MORAA'DUM rluniingt�;� 5��ch, �R J_:•�e RE.: TRAFFIC IMPACT kNALYSIS - PIERSIDE DEVELOPPC-XT PROJECT I ' DATE: July 16, 1987 Tne proposed P=ersi de Development Project u^ll consist of a prcx=��atel 100 GOG sous e V- --� _Ap ___ r few or _Tlage- develoomeni- at the Hunting=o, Beach bier along pith an underground parking structure. The development -will. take place ,.on the west side of Paci-fic Coast Eighway on the pier and extending nor:h and south of the pier. The development will be constructed on the surface Over an underground parking structure containing approximately. 975 parking spaces for the Village and beach parking activities. Access to the parking structure �.1:_ Dr1G7ari_P occur -r0_ !'aCi=iC COaSt !'._' ghti.'ay opposite L xe Street and 6:,h Street. Access to s::o._-ter= surface pa_king =i1 ecc .: from sout..bound PCH soul c= '-fair, S!-reet. The proposed Village developrent win' consist of apprexi-mate_F 60 percent restaur_..:s and -food service and about 40 ^�:^er._ specia__y ret=_l s::cps. nts _1 cons is- c: abc;.- eu si -cow I E res:aura �i _ -SG . p-.ce • a_-ty, - res:au-_a-:s a' 50 ^erc.e-- .._gh—_u7nover,, :as:—:coc se_ fees. zasac on "" sc'uare :ems :GG, l;lJ - •G= GEt'e_Opce::- , Z.—Is represents 30,000 sQUcre *eat 0= QLcI_- =Estau:r—.ts, 30,000 square feet c: fast--food services, and 40,000 se::a.re -feet cf specialty retail stores. 7-he restaurant uses are' acc_t_on :o the exist:r.g 'Laxwe_l's r estaurar:t. T:_p generation rates for these uses as --reestanding . restaurants and stcr es are sho,.•n below, along _th .the ccr r esponci^.g a•,:_-ber of _ s generated. i Technical Memorandum Traffic Impact Analysis I P _ersid"e- Development Project July 1.6,_ 1987,- ;Page 2, I P.M. Peak Hour i Use Units Daily In Out Total Specialty: retail, _40-,_000 s. f:, _ - _, .�- Rate' :(/1 ;000 s. f. ) 40:7 - 2.-25 2 25: - 4:50 Trips:- 90. - -90�• Quality restaurants 30,000 s. f. Rate (/1,000. s. f:. 3.-80 - Trips,. _ _ _ `2,247�-�- _ --Q0 184- ....,. 6 Fast-food services 30,000 s. f. Re te. (/1 yOOO- s. f "): - : :'1:64:.4 . _ -9-.q„� ._. 4.0::. :i3.9 __. 8,807 301 280 7c1 However,wbetzLse`-the use-s i'e='not =e-es zndi=ng :uses-;� but 2 a :#nt eg_ated zs' - e ShOp .g 'vim g _ated` O b a S __v _ES1,'y __ aerie:ate a Sy^:e_g_'S�y OE inte_depeade;. 'a'C't_�'1Cf. ?e_Sons p2C_-o,r;,fz:. g`^the _e5% ii_cr-.s wt Slso be shoDDers at the Specialty sCo:es. Beacih atte ndees =1I also .,,. =—chase food it the f8S "00 8E_'V10E8: li'12 Ore, '�+"1e5E` LSES .'1`1 nCt generate, trips -in' the sa=e"man'ne'' '2's'r�eest2nC'i.^.'g` stc_E5 aria eSC2L:2^CS y_ - :,e ._c ~gene_stiony for ;:}?e D_0_leCt' N+'a'S redu'Cd 'C_�^e S��uet_C.^ yr+o a or=; o o . o. ;,.o';' 1'• „�.•D.:Zen��p__ to reflect es,zau:cr: 'szomer�s' a:'L_= %rIe 7ea.K nOL'r. !,, adci C10n., :^e Last-=ooc services tr iv generation was a_�c reduce—by DO percent to :efiect ,.•r-e over lap c_ teach act_vi_y and. shoD7e_S as -food customers. :.^.e nee trip genera_-Lon for the Village WE s about 63 ^e_cent of the total. _:le ::.1_la&e C__os ass_gnec to t^e area st-reet system ;:ere: Peak Hour 5, �L 7 3308 1-75 ..481 eK' I ` ` 1n erSa^_C_Or: capaC.,::y analyses were ConC:. _eu t0 de'=___..c :n.e C ,r_e = level o= inze_seCti on operations .it"i existing. _ra___c volumes an, ex__st_-:g nwere _ te_sec_ion lane geometries. ine 'a l"o`'.-- g _.., e_=ect_cr.s anal,v ze : w'_ _n a C__:Cna_ _nze_seC:._on. s tJ be exa::_n_c in an i _ tj August 10, 1990 Commissioner: jer : Ortega and Fellow Commissioners: . Just a note to object to the manner in which Mike Adams and , the people who we paid to prepare the supplement of the 8 year a- � old EI, treated the citizens of Huntiagton Beach on august 8th. t•.e were alerted to the " workshop" and all of us who are not gett_na paid made the effort to attend. dear i t tle :� is:".ho: U.su_a Co ,� made her plea to stop the use o:: 6...e public b.eac`. `_o: restaurants etc. Mike Ada^s Taft without any e x p 1 a n a .ion T_t left the im,gression t-a-r. "e .was. not coina to -1 '_sten to our legitimate como_aints. Then s rice 'I' do not. know t'r.a names of the comet ssioners the- man who is on the planning comm. sat . and' twirled Mike Adams a pty chair while we all sst andlistened. ^ :en he and . the. man, who was 11 guess :.he spokes- Pelson =or the studv left, temporarily, and when one o_ the citizens asked a a✓� cues-ion, the two "study people on the panel, had to sen& _o"r hin to answer the questions ., He also complained, in the early stages of the !'workshop" , t::zt he had promised his wife he'd be home early. i say he should have pla"nned his personal life to Include the scheduled" workshop. " Please , be cognizant of the fact that we are not cc,,,nissione:s and don' t know the rules of what can be talk,ed I about and what is not "relevant. jY1a, �(p I Lard use not being relevant was one of your rules. 1! land ' 2-34 I u'se :As not relevant, what is? I would 1-i•ke rto ,p,ersonally compliment Mrs.^ Ortega for, vinglehandedly treating us with the k?i_n!dness- arid'.;respect, .1 frankly feel we were due. Sincerely, E.i.l_een Murphy G -2D1-:2-1st. S.tre_et: Hun.t -ng,ton Brea-ch:, CA CC:: to Iiu-n:t:ingzozr-$each Tono_r-: __ 5.1.5, - _ I I I i i i I i I 2-35 I i .t August .19"'1990 3:19 :8,tr•eet ..Hunt.ingt:on :Beach,,_CA 92648 i Laura Phillips - Planning Dept '` � City of Huntington. Beach ! L 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach ,CA 92648 AUG ... DEPART41ENT OF Dear Mrs . Phillips : CoN1MUNiT:Y DEVELQPy'=1vT p.•pNHING DIYWON 1 This letter is in regards to the Pier;side Project'-Environmental -- Impact Repor.t .I wish this letter ,to be entered as pant of the comment -� section o*f that report .I have been a resident o.f Huntingto.n Beach .. for eight year .y sR ('two ears renting,six years : owning) .I believe the c projet as is proposed will be. daxdetrimenta to the :H.unt.ington Beach shoreline .At .the pr-esnt time ,Huntington .-Beach has one of .the largest and best=k+ept city baach anywhere in Orange County.The beach, is. -wide open and is free to all who visit here.,Th-is ,_combined with the Bolsa j Chica State Beach ,provdes plenty of room fot thousands of people, tA_CR including resident' ! ent' who use .it every day.Consideri:n how close. tY is beach is to a major *eJrxxxX metropolitan, xxgxe gs$gs�cgax�taxxaxssx-area,the city. should .consider the beach zone as a very unique recreational opportun ty,:not as .a place *kg to build- commercial real estate . DR'3 I I oppose the piers,' de project,because it opens the way for other shoreline projects that would take away much-needed open area..Building . _ II anything on the oceanside of Pacific CbAgt Highway would be a major �R 7 Imistake .'L'he new pier planned to be constructed s'nould be the one expect- ion to. this rule,The city has plenty of experience owning and operating the current one .The xvar*dxfftr•esiden#s Of this city will expect nothing less when tbe. new one is completed.I am 'familiar with the old pier and havt wal'ked it many times .To. be able to walk the pier, looking back., at the bac lshoreline atsztxxx as on a: sea-going vessel,is a, very pleasant. exper ience .to look k and see oQly shops and food. stan.ds:. wil.l not be:. With the sempsfr, completion of the new H_. lt-on hotel and the Pavi l"n DR� almost ready-; I :believe there will be plenty of room for all of the merchants who, want to do business here.I believe a balance, bewte:en business and 'recreationaI needs to, be. addressed and establisbed :To- _ build on the oceanside of Pacific Coast �jighway: wi-11 make achXdvrng this balance much more difficult Thank you fox your attention a.nd time:. $ n.c.e.re.ly, ' D.Aamos,_3.19 Bth: Street f 2-36 t - -Uv li: i;fy ruj i I i j I Mr . 6 Mrs. David Bartlett 60-.7 7th Street Huntington Beach,�CA j Laura_ .Phi-Hips 8/20/90 Planning Dept �~ City.. of- Hunting-t•on Beach 2000 Main St . . Hunt ing'ton-.Beach!, CK. .42:64-.8:. _ ••, -_ ., Dear Ms:- Phillips,::- _ we' are'property owners and 20 --year V;r*.sAden.ts of the downtown Huntington Beach area. u = we== are in favox_' .o,-f-•,the 'redevelopment that-we_ have seen. to date -and are also in favor of the pierside cestuarant"p oject in coric'e.pt. However ; wee feel_khe=height of the s.tcuetures should be kept BELOW OR LEVEL with Pacific Coast Hwy so as not to block ocean: v ews.: _A di,tionally.,Zvi,ew-corr.idor,s:..mointaining at j � least 50 percent- open space are essential. ` `" = ` i Recent=ly we,-:cons:t.r-:uct.e4,-a. pustom._•h,ome_.for our-,residence on 7th street , we complied with all of the city- building`Niegulations -r.egar'ding :setback-s_,.•:open :s.pace;_and- lot_ coverage which,are -3 designed to maintain the aesthetics -of the neighb'orhoo•d.� it is of 'utmost � i-mpor.'tance .that- t'h_is• .conc*p.t: be.: continued in future redevelopment whether it be residential'" or commerciactt '1 Sincerely,,�N4, � 1q9� , Mr .& Mrs. David Bartlett - 2.37 August.. 20 , 1990 Ms . Laura Phillips Department of Com=runity Development P 0 Box 1.90 . Huntington Beach,, CA 92646 gE EI:R STUDY/PIERSIDE VILLAGE I would like to register-.my objection to the :buiI'dinq of Pieraide 'Village., on j the beach. I don't see how the results of a 1982 ErR *study can be accurate ' until it is determined what effects the existing new construction and proposed parking for all the new construction in the downtown, Actually has on the 'area, let alone the .traffic flow patterns . How can you make an accurate study of an area that is just °i.n the process of being built out? lAno.the' r . retail -project is not the properuse for. this land. It should be _ _left .as open space recreation, for all 'to 'enjoy.. I do not consider. shops' and restaurants as recreational , -I would like .to list some other concerns about the project: : . ,� 1. If this project is allowed to be built on the. beach, it would open the - door for. other construction on the beach. Thedowntown is being built up so fast. that it is impossible for :any EIR consulting firm to accurately .determine what impact another retail center with restaurants will have on the area until the results of all the new construction is realized. and'if there i.a 'a need of more of the same. Possible 'failure of 1'r+1 the project could create a beach slum area. 2 . Lt would promote more traffic congestion . in the pier area such as delivery and trash trucks 'as well as patrons of the project.' Also I LIK1$ think we should wait and -see how the proposed parking is going to deal With the mewly constructed projects . in the downtown. 13 , It would ,obstruct views of the beach from PCH and projects on the inland ,1 side of PCH. That area should.be kept as open space for all to enjoy the view, without obstruction and so-called view opportunities. ,1pI4 . I- feel an alternate site for, this project should be considered, such as the 5.th street :area . 5 . A e is not always- better.. . R ' Sincer ,ly, �J Lois Freeman 415 6th Street I Huntington Beach, CA ?2648 2.38 I I TO: Huntington Beach Planning commission FROM: Kay Seraphins, 509 17th Street, Huntington Beach' ._ RE: SEIR 90-2: Pierside Restaurant Project ih V am concerned about theA.w usv not considered to be significant enough;to be included ins"this -:SEIR: 1 _ Lend Use ' The- discussion of land •;usi-'3"-n EiR 82-2 doesn' t mention the site the Pierside Protect will cover . SEIR 90-2 found that the Ian:d, use b.y this project wil-l;:cause significant impact to both viewshed� and the City ' s culturaa-'hAstory , therTfore, I i contend that land use should ;:have; been` discussed. Seismic` `Saf=ety _EIR 82 2 suggests th�t each alto should-,be evalu- I .tad with r`es a.ct to l :qu-efact-on: * = F food yard -E VR 82--Z =on 1 y considers the -fi 1 ood p 1 a 1 n between Lake Street' and the S %anta Ana==.Rraxer With subterranean parking t s. !- -3 and the pest history= of AnterLstorms ;in this urea, shouldn';t, 90,-2 i.nclu-de,, f l'd-d 2:Kazar--d? .. f. 4 Risk �: Un it --Page' 1 cf . 2 2a rep;orts 3thata the " 1an.d has, been- subjed to lnten'sive oi:l ;drt hlrng and pe•trolsum rest ect ed uses r ':" �.rs tk 'ere 'a' pos.?sib. -1 ityzIgf f',I—vg so� lut contamina- tion when grading for the un.d:ergr:ound _park_ing?�G , Public'Sery ces• I would call. your attention totKi letter from Department .Analyst, Jim Moore indicating that the cumulative_ affect. of these projects on police services needs to be ad- i K�J" dreased Nis"s'comment'se;wouldrap,pJ:y not-:oral:y to;,po_l�ice. ma Bower ! 6ut=.to, issues '=as 'tr.-s:f:f:ic. . parki.nB,; W,sevices,, water , etc; 4 At gsthotYi`cs/Yi su'eT _ge's=aur--ces.._Th i s SnE 1 R.�does document; the toss 'of \i ew -Along wit i .the, documents that ar°e quoted,S -e7-Coastal Act Pp- icy, Sect_ior� 30251 also pr.oteiAs scenic end =v ids-ue 1•a co.a.s,ta-,i-.resur oces A qt From the 'Coasts 1 -E 1 emVnt :un.de:r Shor_e.l i,nea Access,, Sect ion ii a Va:-ck. of s.tru'ct:ures .be,tw*en .PCHr:: nd the ocean i's.`Veen as .a -b'enefa,t-, someth-,ing ::to i •- - _ .... ..._.- , �_ ._ _ � s hat ,w ��y � , e•.y-. - Alternative Sites ;I1n._t—,8 ,eLn 1989. -•cases judges "hey e r uled EiRs �nadequa=te because- al:.ternaCeA lies wYere not n'i, clude;d � '!ii there is no assurance that these cases wi l 1 __be heard`on"WWOea,; cr---Tf S they are heard; _ overturned, would it not $ave been prudent to include alternative sites in SEIR 90-2? Alternatives 82-2 included an alternative o;t LOW-9n.`1-ntensity,; r one of .the arguments against this option wasthe"dd'st" of assem K!S b11ng 'land. Since land assembly is not necessary on this site, j could a lower intensity project with less impact be included? 2.39 1 . CEQA Guide.l fines ,; Section. 15.0.64;(a).,;"'S.ome; examples, at cons.o- qu:ences. whi h may be deemed' to, be,.a s.ign.i.ti;c.ant. affq,,;;t on t.h.e: env i ronmen are: con:t.ai ned' i:h; Ap.pend i:x Q.," Ap;pend:i x, a: (b) "Have; e substantial , demonstrable. ne.g-at iva ae.sthe.t.i:c of fect "Disrupt or ad:vers.e.1y affect a property of- h i:stor i c_ or cultural significance to a commu.n.i t.y ., .. 2 . EIR 82-2 , Section 4..1 pag:el2 un:d;or L.*q:,ue.fact.ion and:' l.urch.i;ng, states , "Each site, needs- to: be. evaluated i;ndivi,dus.l;l,y to d:e,ter- mine which of the factors, con;tributin:g to• 1:iq,u;efac,t.i;on. (e.g. groundwater level , soil type, rel.ati've: de,n:s,fty} are present 3. Moore: " As a note to Planning, we are. rece.ivi,ng, large num- bers of requests for the construction. of these: srnall;e:r pro4.ect.s. that when viewed i nd i v i,dua.l 1 y, do hot require add i,t io.n.a 1- mgnpqwlp er . But if you view these protects, co nec . vely, we will reach �a levels where additional manpower will be required. Tra-cki,ng these projects and the accumulated effect on public. safety re- quirements shou:id be initiated and. a plan developed that., will. address 'this issue . 4 . Coastal Act Policy, Section 30251 , "The s.cen.ic: and vis,usl qualities- of coastal areas sha l l be cons i dared: and' prote''C'f*4 'as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shOI` b9 K�j'13 sited and designed to protect views to and olo.n9 the ocean and scenic coastal areas , . . New development in 'highly -scenic areas shall be subordinate to the character of its, a;et- r tin9. " ( Italics mine) 1 5 . Coastal Element, Shoreline Access , Sec 2 . 2 ..9 , page 23, "Coastal Act policy directs local governments to provide for j max-imum public access to the shoreline and along the coal;t, y Opportuni .,iss for direct physical 4ceoss to the shorelrrie in Hunt i ng,ton Beach are excellent. With the exception of one multi-family development north of 'the Pier , there are no =mie �o6 - F structures between Pacific Coast. Highway and' the sea along the entire length of the coastline. Furthermore , the nine miles of beach are under public ownership and readily identif..ied as 'pubIic recreation areas . " 6. Citizens of Goleta valley vs Board of Supervisors, Citation 0197CA_3d1167 , 1988 and ii216CA3484 1989 Laurel Heights Improvement Association vs Repents of. the University of California, 47Cal3d367, i9$8 i f i 1 2-40- i ^— � .. � :y' ��;,4{!3��ryj'r�1���Y:e y�.�•,+Lty�t ..y,�+.l'r^1�t�,Q,.�P Q r I ' _. ... .... _•_ ..`� � ,.. e.m.� �y�' eJ..� -w.:...•_.. ., n ., +.a-.. s`a•:..�.a�.'.� ° ,�Y"S. �,'�az_ru':`._i`•,•. M- .,, " .. —•ti _ : ..,. �{, ,.r:._mot::-...... _,.. •.�:i� _.,_.a... ,, ..... a....•�!w` •L,....c a,...ay: �:` - •x..._� ...... t..,. ,. .,,, .. , - ... M r...r,, .. a r '�•.• .. ..`•�' ,a'•`.+.K ••y.'n..'.tea w.'•.,.-i�1�a..i.dui w Sv �al� v�- • a•.u.+.u.. Y.S......:A.-a'..�..r..t i•. zLZ Zi y. .....:. �� .... - �.._ .,.:'.(..r.a........ .. .b . 4.:,I:.+tt.k: e..w:�. -a..-.r,"^ b�•�'�r �`.4'.a r...,t -.�' _ _ - _ .. r t e ...e. w ._+� m.�. v.u �V: 'i!:a.r,S:M�-"'N+.'� -L:e.. r''r•_..� ... .._.. .. � .,.. .• ,w. ,. w..�. .. .. -»...w. .'.•.�.. ..._,..... ..... i2i. r.._. sy y'.�apt' ..n '4:t'.�.f ..s t�v1 mow, ...i!,"",y.`7rw.....h..'�:`�.�.. kt i..."�1:_ ... �_ _. .. _._ e W•t.'. ��i'"..__?..+�.:a. .... ,•K..,..,,.._...a ., KAY�; , .. .,.��s. .::may ... 509 17th St = nn Huntington. Beach CA 92648 I - .. ... .. _ , N:SY'a ... .w.`� �.-.+. -*M:'�rVX vA:• :.+:�£:. }���nw.--�`��^-.�9Q'%� aw q?.:��r�+}.0 v.y a94'.>Xa-,. _• fe' , '4 -• +a;_ 's`iyy�. ;:Quis .+s.:? c- .•,. • <.. , i • '].': •.•... ...°.. ..,....><, a r._ _ r•��'M(/",�`/j�. I .._.. a.....•6 ..•,.-� Y�� �.+w ...:lr-.,_�'.�.." .»•.,- a .._:'K��_1... __,c.. €r/r M1..e ":;;J�"a•y...w�s,- - •t� � _. _ .... �_...... _t_ .. �)»............... ...r.�_. 3i.'12�.h�.. _.... o;J'�.•.i 'Ll�•_ a w ...1J:.} �:'..i•u ,. 'R:.` .. � -� 2.4 1 - } I i t ep E.0' V: .P_ANNIN3'J:V: 2-42 • JJ $'AlF Of CA.IFORN1A,..•Off:CE Of THE GOVERNOR MOROI 09MMIMAN. Gow ner OFFICE OF PLANKING AND RESEAPCH ' 1400 1EN1M STREE1 ,' '>" :• ' ;' i SACRAMfNIO. CA i!!lt Sep 07 , 1990 _.. Y �.. _. _ �_. �,a � �,4 LAURA PHILIPS CITY OF HUNT,I NGTON MACH 2000 MAIN STREET _ ``F'1 �I9 HUNTINGTON REACH; CA. 9264 e- _ ,f., 90 d Subject : PIERSIDE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT �. ocbareTr �rT G,F R1- .? � SCR : 9 00105 3 3 ti . _ . _ caM WIV:Tr PLAN IN T Dear LAURA PHILIPS: r ... N.. .waR, i The State. -Cl.earinghouse .-ha `'subriitced :tfie.. above named draft _Envizoninentel Impact. Report ._,(WEIR) -to eelacted '�,.stat'e,-agencies for;review."'M �'ThW'review period ks now. closed "and 't'1ie comrt►e n"i-s .f,rom the responding= `•agency(-ies) is-dare ) -,enclps=ed .,ts On 't-the = encloe`ad° `Noticevof-••Completion fob you -will note that- the.-C.1earingho%i--se =her *checked the `agencies that have commented. Please re_view_tithe '•Notkde L -of Completion to ensure that yoyr comment package is complete . If the comment package..r- e: 's'no:t-,-: n corder please notify th_e S.tate:" Cleaririglio Fvi mmediately..� -�R'emsml er -.bo, n'ref°ez i to the j project ed; a 'ght- -ig: t =�t'a tee= Cle'ar'in',ghouse',.-number: S.G , s4tlTa;t �We. may-trespond 1 promptly � . v w .•.`.: r. _ ': _� . x,. . ' w,�; •r ; ems' . yL _ . w.�� -� �• ,.� ,„,sue ,,,� ,.' , �' . Please note tha;t.,Secaiori�� �23:104 of the`Caii•forniaM..Pub.13r_ARes` tfedioB�=Ccde required tha "a responsible agency or other _agency eh&A ;onhy - -make! t substantive!-comments-` `regi ing 'ihoe6 _ac�tivi4tie_s ;,invoived-fv K.•` pro ject.�.which are: within a-n` area' of_..ekprtde of theFragericy``or 9. which ar.e.'rrequ"ired'to be carried out or. approy►ed;'by -t=he-,agency" Commenting'.agencies =are` also required:_ 'by this'section,- to :sup bet=their ! comments with specific=document�ntion .r' .-Three. .comtnents .areuforwerdedF" '`'for your use .in ,,preparing •your f i`nal `EIR':: Should �y.'ou.:,need more'w" i riff zi►et`ion� or clari:fication;•a we -recommend _ilia-t : .you aContact�-- the' coMmeat nq" {t - . . This letter acknowledges that . ,yo.ua , have.-:..,complied �- -4kths .tfi6. e Clearinghouse :review reduiremenFts `or' ; draft. environmental documents pursuant to = v)Te'. California " Envi'Yonmentiel_ Qu,n;l ty. Act'.. _ =Pl`ease contact - Terri Lovelady.. . .. v =at {c916 ) � 445=.0.613 if you have any questions regarding the =environmental' "`review process . Sincerely, David C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 2-43 i v i 1 2-44 .. :I Aix . ::y:4: CI-TY ATTGt�NEY 'v P1,ANNING w ?u� i TA I (,li hN! �• bt0110/StYKM��1�N,0� . OATI LAND& COMMIBSION MOUTlw OFFICE 1007•13th sines 610T.MICARTHY,U"limile QVWMK-- ` :, , "``� �`• ifOti�nMN,QNller�b ti00ai.., pgAV bAVls,Oontroller `�('�'` �h ' ONAAL11 WARPFN J41Q4A.HUFF,P(0#grof imr.sst, /� 'ti, p- ' ' • .,.... _.tweuthr.O�ftoer 1' ` ``t�' +t r j• l e r r.. � ' - , ......+S.f%:,^i/a.f`e.'?'+.ap<'Y+ 1eR'q..+E�t •'!-•W , septissaber. 7, logo Ms . - t. Ms , Laura Phillips . City of xuntington-.`Sadah �; lopr =1 -..w°._�0'0 Main street .. " ,1 .-.-,t,.. P. 0. Box 100 Kutstinq:toh seachr �QA -s964a�,_ -y9 Dear Ma. Phillipa s i :. ,.,e.:Y:.-F- _.... Y y. .rAr•—...+'•.,-,.,..d`•' ..'• j..<:sw�- �.r..r..a.N'.r�.;x.. Stiff of iha State Lands . Comiission (szc) his eaviewed the City of Huntington. beach'o .Draft Lnvironmental Impact Report �C- I (DEIR) for the Piersido Restaurant osveloptasnt, 8CH No. $002-0533, and otter the following comments. : I' The DEIR faits to acKnoaledge--that the ;proposed lthd use inconsistent with the title to the property. We therefore incorporato,. byreference our letter of July 21 1990. submitted in --rsop4hao. to=.•.the --;NOV. The DEIR acknowledges on page S the obstruction of viewshed "cannot - be mitigated" and a !'significant impact is still �--� idantif ied". j Section 3.2 (page 12) states that oonstruction of the project does not aroach on the beach. While this may be presently true . j because the existing parking lot and other structures built an the beach recreation easement have already paved over that portion of the beach, the intensification resulting from tho proposed use makes the potential of-opsning this arse to recreational beach use mere unlikely. section 3.3 (page 12) also points out that this 11proposed development is being contemplated as a privet* development" which seems incongruous on a dedicated mublig recreational beach. Alec on page 12 of the DEIR, it is stated that the development "will C serve as .a downtown business generating attraction". TbSs ray bo ' 2-45 inconsistent with the city:ls- responsibility as trustee o: the ..�,r.., � „� � —acra�tional •aaen+ent;. a — -; - ANNLNGPL KC + CITY MORNEY IJ .v + Il.Fi •U , 4,Cnn• Gi i)I•, vac100440a-' till - - - � f,, 'eicgidtt a .ii` (pagv 2,0)., dTIATO XQ ktsovftes.i points out:. thst the _ � �•,, oity has, changed( th.0 vas and ..appearance Vt the :area. ;minas it•-wail did• oat:ed A& .a public beach in .,the ftils the DEIR focuses on the—existing structure as ;a h-istorical rvaouros, ;it fails :to (� acknowledge the us.o .at the beatoh is -`a h` -storic4l resource. �^ signifinant :;do©umenhation of historical ""Use of the; ;'beach area j exists, zronioa'hly, any :photos of ;publio use of the :-beach .hang on the walls of 'Maxwa'll•1 s Restuuranta attesting :,to Its hiectoracal character as a :sic riitioant recreational .roso.urce. Section 4. 3 ('page 40) , AXgJUZJ1Cg f VZ,AUt t RZBOL`QASIpoints j out. that the City's general p,lein vooastal &lament seeks C_ Prestriotions on 'the kind and intensity of development permitted near vituall,y important rtaources".. Section .5.0 (page 34) , s, The pgSR -relies on the prior FIR-(8.2-2) , the downtown apeo t .o' ;plan and -past . Coalsta•1 commission .actions, none or whLah disaussed or .dealt •with ithe legal rsstrictions _on. use of the -land. Are deo4s .on-tankers properly . informed? The DVIR acknowledged that the proposed proi.sot is not the . environmentally .0uporior alternatives (.pegs s6:) . The °consi'darat :on i of various alternatives 2aiZo:to .point: out that the :open space and recreation ,alte rna- ive .is the only alternative canal tent with,•'the land..use T-as.triotioho- on "the..:property s*otian S.o .(page' 47) . This zection points out that the •ma j.or environmental iinpaots. will. rttstaat from the :intensification oP :use _ of the groat which would ba ai•loviated by adoption of alternative � 1G j Ism Section B.2 as the .p=afMrrad alternative. section 4 ..0 .(page 66) The long term vtteots of intensiO nq : _`` 1 the use of the- area are .not oonsistant with the publ.io,■ .interagct.. lc Section 11 ,0 (page 71) 'R1 NTFJC� U �_ kV2TQART ADy -R6r TM A PA 1 This section points out that 'obstruction vt coastal views cannot;-be mitigated to : ins ignitiaanoe., but tails to address the;:.boach : C-�� racreatidnal character or the area as:. a historical .resource that j , would be irretrievably lost if the project is approved. If you have any questions regardinq these comments:, please i contact Curtis Possum at (no) 322-e217. i 8inoer'aly, > • ;; A. I ��rax $•;"ei�NctRs r Ch i - Division of Research and Plannih* 2-46 t • - f J I 1 'I'9 l'S PETITION IS ADDRESSED TO LAURA PHILLIPS AT THE i D1E;PARTMENT OF C0W60FITY DEVELOPMENT, P.O. BOX 190,HUNTING%ON BEACH, CV.92648 PRONE 714 636-5271 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED,' WISH ,TO- .RAOTEST THE PROPOSED BUILDING OF THREE 3-STORY STRUCTUA:ES• ON, THE OCEAN SIDE O-F_,PA'CI-FIC COAST _ HIGHWAY, SOUTH OF:�THE'YO'L"D-°tiU,NTINQTON BEACH PIER, KNOWN AS THE PIERSIDE RESTAURANTS .DEVEL:OPAfENT. WE '-DO NOT FEEL TH,AT'IRIVATE RESTAURANTS SHOULD BE BUILT ON; i - PUBLIC BEACH LAND. f•- _ i LV 4.4azi L&�a L& ate:..._ ..:........_.....__.;:- I ( ��{/1 I I ' 1 l V�.� I� � �1��� �•1' L•1 y � 1 �l ` I v�1 Al _ T Ag Ly I L MAIL:OR• PHONECOMMENT.S MUST BE RECEIVED AT ADDRESS ABOVE THROUGH MONDAYa•wSEPTEMBER .10 , , 1990• SEPT 18, :1990`-�PLANN.ING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON EIR, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS-AT 7 PM . DECISION KILL BE MADE TO APPROVE 'OR REJECT THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT EVENING. • 2-47 i -iU-. . 1. ..... 1 ' TH35 'PFTITTON IS ADDRESSED- TO LAURA PHILLI.PS AT. THE D.EPA RTMENTOF COUAIC?NITY DEVELOPMENT,, :P.=O. BOX '190,11UNT.INGT'.ON. BEACH, CA. b26481 PHONE 714 536-5-27.I ' WE, THE. UNUERS:IG.NEU, ' W.IS}d TO PROTEST THE: PROPOSED BUILDING OF THREE 3—STORY., ST,RUCTUR,ES ON THE OCEAN $IDE" OE 'PACI.FIC COAST' HIGHWAY, SOUTH OF THE OLD 11UNTINGION BEACH. PIER, KNOWN AS THE PIERSIDE RESTAURANTS 6EVELOPMf;NT. WE DO NOT FEEL TIiAT PRIVATE RESTAVRAN,TS' SHOULD. BE. BUILT U.N PUBLIC BEACH LAND.. i WE WANT THE I3.EACII LAND. FREE OF ANY N.EW STRUCTURES EXCEPT FOIL THE REBUILDING OF THE PIER , & A LIFEGUARD STATION IF REQUIRED. MODEST SIZE SNACK BARS COULD, DE AD.D.ED, TO• T11E NEW PIER, ef .16 1 v i - -o i i � , rrr ■ ■� Y.i�� EMI.--_ - 1 Ir�� :. MAIL OR- PHONE COMMENTS MUST -BE ;RECEIVED .AT :.ADDRESS ,ABOV.E THROUGH MONDAY, SEPTEMSEV10, 19.90 SEPT 18, 1990 . PLAN,N!.NG• COMMI SSI-ON " PUBLIC, HEARING ON EI.R, j CONDITION.AL USE PERMIT, .-COASTAL DEVELO.�t'IENT PER.AIIT.. IN,....TflE CITY COU14CIL CHAMBERS AT ? Phi . DECISION WILL`.3e .`h1AAE°T0 I APPROVE OR REJECT THIS DEVELOPMENT -THAT . EVENING 2-48 r FROM N F. 1 i LEAGUE FOR COASTAL PROTECTION •, . i •` _ `'.1`5271'Wottiiiahuii �,�,le " Built ingtoi -B`eitcl1.CA 92t547 r � ;:' .Septembe► 1q,,1990,?• �•. _:� Mtn�Y um • . b� "•1ta � ,� � . 'h 5 t v vu n, m Lam' {, ;•i..i{. � 1rt`. V�j`ay.8Y cia.•1'1 ... _�� :•,":r � ....5. .,.�,} -. ., .-.. ura�n Ass tc e - 1 city of, u 1 i g'pn _ . ..".w. ... , ,. A r. Ikpaiuiteii of Cotni»tutlty'I7avclo.pment UO Main SttLet Iiunttugtoi113cac11,,CA'`92da6� ' c"'" ' `� li orr1C0 Dix 4216�g .n. r , Q ssi_ . I.Francisco, CA 9414-11„ ;V -: Rr. Draft Su4i ileille ul-Eny 'rurt'metitnl'-�I100ac't Rcpoi C.y.O-Z RestA-urailncvetop111ce1t j ARDOFDIR:B."t'ORS Finni Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Itttpact Report 82-2 - -r,. i• ;' I =, �:-�'::� - v e��,--.a.{ ;y'-.l:e L�^l ZY fir. "�` •..P. A- .✓:. ��4' .. '- iis Swan Y r r itGc Favor Plcisc liiclude theac coinmerits ln:i our-revlew of the sub/ec.�'D;<<fI:SEIit.� 1e miti ticd:pubtle ralne Faber zr ,. s--- -'ichaol Feeney :, -. : use luid enjoynleni of this picrsidc Rtrs is of vital importance to peopic throughout SouUlem e:,da Her,iey �' t,idifornia. The Longue consideis U)ic project of statewide significance for die Nium management bare Hattu)• of public hu-ids idons our oasQ ne w ; ,F, ' w 5 I ~*Y + .n JackRon w _' • r fi- ,bent Knecht ',_. Wr>wholclica ie"eels s ji ion t1lc racuiistnUluu oC-the''Ii l t ngtorrti'Bencli`Pier`,;fit d He nripl ud ad Lundbors, MD. 11:City-.for-sel''tC0 a pier tle3iKTr llal="iiini�itattls i11c�41sua1 Integrlt� o"f'Li161'1igWr1G plGt�lcv�Wrt. rn otth�rr ;In.addition;.we umin.ll)()Iic rcrt;nt.suppCllt.uf cltva gig a lied`Whitttp"ler--``plaza•Afi tl1c foot•of the I'1.D. ita Scott. „I?ierra TtUs will"v�stl-y.tt7ptovc p�iysici lL ee.<h'_access and broaden visual access for visitors to the Von der Muhl plor and bcudh. -norable Alan Stormy ,e stavnezer Howcvcr,.a�cacaiuot�ghec witli the C1ty's>curi�nt pplans fnrtaheFPlcistd�Rsluyr,ants Proposal ..bort Salniok - �Uur objecnairs Ire boxed on the loss ofs gn�ic�nf public vlewL'-fN1I1 along P1.lt3c oast,l�lghway, eitle �itfyurd ti ' 14) tile-ioss of n•substiinttal,�il(iUfWil-f p01511b pilrlutlg foe'iectr,:atioilal use o^il�e iet;clt,itnd a a �v'bViil illnd giia`te disousiioii=of Fhci'li�jlvcs'111ar would avoid or minimize Huse impacts. Laavy,panoral Counsof )NARARY MElrit3 ERS O:VEkALL PR��JIICT OI3JT,CTS'>r o e Ho:.arable. F 1. The project oU cct.ivcs(US1,1R pages 12-17) cherticlerite t111S ptrlCCt AS It ptivat.e-development ,or Soft' to SCCVC-ASra "dots'i'�iown�busss�gcneratu�g nittuctic .' ,�T�i uUjccuvc=iswt�lul .esfb clnI Y " - 'fin view_of tile ,'forin-Ay dedicated W this-valuable WYAcY&&1c t; .o bee, l iel p1, 011y. A trorC�ipj.roptlate.,pbJecti'vc wwlA asst�tit priutityyttu wttswl tie��xx+..ttidcnl tLcrcatlonat' I;ltony aieteaann _, s , uso'o iclr 1h� txuch iiricl pies,nitcl_pravide,for,protectlon of�ppblicyvlews of the:beach and, surflinc`frclm PvCH;"Ort1y Kttcr°cllc s :nat)1ic.ttecd�.xalc v v should consideration ba nand G.Brown "" g1=1-l0'prov1S1dl1`o1h n,6fY-&A l'clated anti non coaswl-depetidAnt visitor serving commercial ' .: LI'.•1C ... ... business, G, - - �.�`e z.•,s'a E.- F"_ n ,a.C:�!-,'LY '"i^(' la•'o'%t tit G4.r'ta�+.f..i-y�,..i-e�.-.1 t .'�..::n t• u l'RO.TE.C'I'ION::OFP�F3LLCS�'IFWS°F:ROM ALONG PACIFIC COAST H14 IG 'AY I - 2a. There is no specific project objecuv_c.(DSE1R page 17)to protect public vlows. However Ui; Final Elk for Ilse Downtown St-,--cific Plan inahA numerous mfernccs to the protection of l)iblic views from along PCH (Section 210, SliNtMARY "...1nCO1pOrttil0ri Of Qevelopmcnt standards t11at 1�cescrv�.views to ttie owai 0;^rssjx�nsc to tlii,D--PA1u1lent Of Palic{ and Reci• ittlon response 112a.":.,let these.louatluns thc:grade difforential between Ule lx:ach and 1'ae:1llc Coact Nlghway would effectively screul rJ�at'kln�¢.cttuctums fl'oill view.": arni response 3 also i�liu.ed to tng:sritimt'urds states fhiit all"slies $flown in die Plur, tire:lvcuted 'below Ole grade of Pacl:lc Coast ii1g115� y and would not.bc �'tsi_b1e flonl•t11e Highway." 2-49 I FROM P Y ?b.. We submit that Jic present plan for major reslnurtints wets not evaluatcd in the earlier EIR turd spat UuA new pieta igrlorcS "dcsl9n atttndards"called for In Ulc 1982 EIR. Furthermore, �_5 parking structures proposed at the time were represented as "invisible" from PCH. The proposed plerside paildng 6u'ucwrc --even without suvewtra shod on top--would block existing views or dre:candy beach and su.rnlltc from.PCH, i . 2c. Public views from PCH of ilic sandy tx:ach and surfline arc;rare:in Otc Orangt;County n;gion, and tliat area firm Huntingtoh Street. to 7th St'rcct and from 9Ut Suut to 1 lth Sttt St nre very _ special and dcterve.protect}on. A brief glimpse or the beach and surfline is vis;tile ►vlt�tt' the i HunUngwn Cliffs rise-up from IN: Bolsa C}»ea lowlands. Proceeding dowricoast the Imm glimpse of Ute sandy beach and surnine ri-olil PCIl is located oil uut .irvinr• Coast. 2d, Public views of the ocean, including.rite staidy Wach taid utirlliiic arc;by fttrrriory sucriic than mcrcly a view of'the oecat's lroiicon, t'rjvntt' owner or uuuEiutl property are wntl uwurr of the i extra value of beach slid suriline. views and this eXplains why tiler's are so marry private homes built,on the edge of etecp coasuai bluffs. Protection of these rare public views aro of paramount importance in planning const-al development on public lvlds. 2e Protection of public views enmRipassing the beach and surfline should Ix included as a design Celli Lion fur altonuillvt pl;uts. Optitrn` far eltematives shnutd include the minlmuin standard of pi existing viewx(i.e. rat increasing t9ie lineal footage of view blockage under cnisting cirvtamst:uices aloe PCH). The potmutial alternadvc or increasing t.1t:,existltlg F _ view by cIoaticin of a Pier P1ucK without ro lacement of Maxwells nesmuraht on the seaward side;of PCH mould prove to be.0 more viable option than the Open Space alternadve discussed (DSE-IR pages 56-38) if the downeoast side of tltc pler.wcre planned in similar fashion to rite upconst side of the TID Picr with inercascd parking sited below tut entranced bluiltop park, 'In ibis manner Ui6 City could cuver cost:gI generated by parking fpcs. INCREASE OF PUBLIC PARKING FOR 11F.ACH USE AS A PROJECT _ PRIORITY 3a. Thz s{xclflc prpjeci objeciivc(DSEIR page. 17) is"to.preservc existing public parking opportuiiltie6 ouritntly�located on-slw,' Existing parking is docwirented to be 193 parking spaces lit the parking lot. In-addition 14 parking cpitces will be lost on PCIi aid require Itlili= tioll bringing the 101:il nUR1bCr of existing spaces io 207. It stands to reason Uiat If 127 parkin.;spaces tire reyuirzd for Maxwells' 10,000 sf restaurant., then .SOB parking 1 spaces are r:.Iuired to servicc 40,(V) sf of"major restaurants, Assuming that 575 total p�-kin,, spaces are provided Indic pmj4cl, diem Ut re, will only bu 67 upitws remaining for hezch use. At.this existing stiinda:d the project is 140 spaces short on public parking, A -rnativ-ly this 140 space sheitfall.m,.ans that Uu projcct is curnnitly 11,024 sf over- _ designed with "major restaurant" sppace(i.e.. if public parking weir-die only critedon ror determination and protection of,exlsting views was disallowtd). 3b, The DSEIR states (page 27). "demand for(public)pArkitlp would bra significe-itly gn:att:r if - additional parking was provided," This statement r000gtuzes that 193 (or 207) exlsdng parking spaces fe l Ahon of demand i'or-public use. Howcyor,nowhere in Lhe DSEIR is there F — i(i any kind of analysis as to what Is a rcasonablc dcniaW at prvi ry or in Uie far.-seeable future. As rite regional population contint:es t:o Increase,tlrc dctnatld for public parking al lire beach - will also go up. The DSEIR thee,fo►e.falls to tak:, ilito account any buund rationale for measuring.an appropriate level cf parking to providt; rot-tltis site. 3c. Th;: Crliforrtle.Department of Parks and Rect;;at.ion has already provided this analysis for dre upcaest side of tlic Pier, and it touhuuves us to;reply the srme standard to the PlGrside project, ne beach's capaciiv for ucoommodating hcoplc s dcterminsd as die basis for the amount of ! parkiirg provided. 'tiv: typical maximuin stunduiu used by State Parks for rcereationfl carrying capacity oil SouLlem California beaches Is 100 sf per person Within the I)r'st 100 feel. from the water, Beach user density Nn]rer than 100 feet.from the water is drastictilly reduced 2-50 I FROM in 1,()(X)sf per person.-The caning capacity-is then divided by 3 persons per autotnWlc to detennino(litnumb*r of parking spaces r�uiiZd, divcn that rite Mich of ehoreline covered by the Picrsldc project Is approxi1rla1Cly.95 -.urinal feet anti that:.tho-width;of the-beach Is 300 t ft. !fM6wa that ttbznar Ing-dcm andTo j e-Pie rsi a• .RAS O 6 ..paees.for 1;140±ridivid ls. ? 3d. Given that the pat'kirig_demand at-Huntingion Beach Pleixide Area lncluQea recitiatioiinl uAes of i the HB Pier as well as the beach, it is plal'i chat if these maxiinum parking etandattis were to apply anywhorc, they should-baappli.ad:to this site.--. 3e, _In approval'of a plan by tlic City to develop thtt upcoast parkin;Area(botween the bike path tind.PCH).the-Department of Parks and.Recreation made th Ituportant findings: (1)gtat a _pproposes! "hit or tbsWui•ruit whs=not tili appiprl natu use-for-his st 0j_)arlilatid,!but ffiA:an inwipreGve-surling muscuin ntiaht b> fltfproprietc;_(2)lttkt till;,ptiikirig stiiactum must be designed so as-to preserve public viows from P_CH`of the sandy-brach and surfline•,,and,(3) that atiy shortfall of public parking displamd by over-ronimermializadon of the down(;oast - Plerslde_aroa.could_nat.mitigated.-on_statc parr}dnd,or�_t}lc unec�;t5.t_ itfc,of the HA i?�t:•�._,,._M , 3f._..AU.var1ations of_1he,E g."Kei nstde..�tnject:l aye_lxe>t tcp�zaci�tcd.as:'atal�d AioJ�.c::. tn� cl�;_..,_� :_. Planning criteria for_this k)tx)Ject should assurc,tliat pArl:ing pruvisions aru mut_u11•t;itc, Ham.eve:t,.titt,SElk_b�eman :Hlictc acce,a.�ingte pAikln ,s.p ce.to�ltlMUI;�f1000 40r t=r�ation,picrside commercial and downtown buFiness.. Accotntncxiatlon-of parking for..., public.m- r�e.pll_ah,tand_picrslcic comtrcni tl:-;needs to N sti tlgl�ttor►�,'and;Ili. iYing l�ottt.u`is at mid•day•on weekends in the.swiiincr soeson, Ni.y9lattg short of ttiat.would shorwhtuigt tii"e _ pubttc to_ fioin this property_r{ htflillyebelnrrgs. MAJOR RESTAURANT C,OMMERCLALY E�'LLOPME1tT v r 4a.` The s-clfic ppr6et:ojectives(D,SE1-_,sage 1'7)�dctlne-11ie dcvelolii'ent of ros-fMi nts•�and coiiiarelclalYfacilI6Cs—ap iV—Pi•iak for'the bcstrli�,�i5iag public na 1,busiL goL11,`From tilts proj•e`ct C - description Jr would be.morc accu .tlie�objative as dlt;'develaprnent of rssd`urant:s for thc'ni7n�bct;cfi(Fb`tnfi pill)iic,.titid"c�itiitidt�clat`fa llltics"ttpiic��titirtC"Ior'dic'bcach r 4b. .Plaasc.cxpl'aiii the me-itiodology by.;wlilcl;; e 40,000'sr figurLb was:ariJYM at acto nrhodatittg`nan=beRcl reiatei�;rtcin=ccrasial�aependenr."�itaJor tostaur;�iu °cvtniti �i;31 �y �� deve,)opmc►it oil this land dedicaled to public recreauionsl purposes. i _ SEARCH FOR MEANINGFUL ALTERNATIVES 5a, Tnc preceding cammcnts give arttplc directlott for defitilti4 trasrl[t1e platulittg t:r{te;tia 11ttm~ . .- ..�-•w!lich-tu-begin-cnntitivt;ting-n}tetztat.lves-wlticli•wlll AvGid1or-minimise-aitiventa-+rnptl�ts•on-the� . public's visual and physicai access to die beach,and c;nitanw rwmational opportunitiu for all f � ... . -..---- oplo who..use.az?ci•apprer;i•ttte•tl�e-coast;�I�alteti><ativcs-ptevldcel�iti•d�>~SE�t(pt�es;54.60) r lack merit. _ Altenlitives 1 and 3 do not allow for ti)c n-h-pier plactt which everyone supports, and they do not -rmcdy the existing•f�r+nidalilc,�isuRl-a1atyslcal oUslt�tetion•iviaxw�llrs reslauratt� = 1 t•epibFents to people who visit the beach and pier. q - .41tculativc 2 provides no revenue source to nraku it iessslble ���� i 5b. Please rbfer to the utttichcd matrix which summarizes existjng conditions, proposed - - .developmetit,-att6 potential_envlx_ctiunntati.}�aecc:ptnblo�alteta:�tives..nP.ltrin�ng_;:nteria.for,_,.,. Rhematives should include the following: ^aO 1 Creation of anew plor plaza at ihe-fotit-oi the pier; - Any new parking strictures-ix:de sfgri id to preserve public: views of the beach and � surllino as soon.from PCH. 2=5 1 I FR�)M P. 4 I i -- I 3a Increased Parking with Open Space (i.e. no "major restaurmit"on soaward side of PCH). 3b Protection of existing views along PCH by lim he v iting tiew ago o o a blockf build t anaxununi of 3W lineal foot. `a 4a Provision of IRO parking spaces for roeroational beach parking at the Pierside area 4b ProvlRion of 2 parking spaces per 100 Nf of currimurvial dovrlopment to be applied avAn overall plaiuiing criteria for die Pierside AmA. i �Tlutnk you for the opportunity to submit these.comme s for your roview, Sincerely, Lorraine Faher Bdard•Mentixr, Orange Coast Representatiw LeRgue for Coastal Protection Attachment I I I I ' I i I 2-52 FROM P. b. EXISTING PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE . j e..CON.DI:TIO:N PROJECT "S_UGOE.S.TIONS iewc &nit No.view-of stun y � Protect ext'stmg views surCzone&-horizon;<`• bcsch.No.-Y cw•of surf of,sandy bcAch; FROM 1:P.-CH_ .T.. .. with=300a1:.(32%)oft.: zonei..(views;blocked aurf7onc and liorliott wtrd.950 ft.lineal by propos%i parking (require terracing of beach'frontage.blockqd sttuewit),. .- a^. any.ncwp,&rking I by buildiings; (buildings include :, .\few-of.ocean.-horizon ..,. .w MAxwell's:Dv►lghcs .witli. P S30 fl•(58?lo).ofw:; Potential, and`L rceiiiAm HQ) tui il.9S.�ft.lineal ,..,y.� view hyy.removal or — lx;ach frontage blocked rulocatlon of Maxwells -•- - by`t�uilRlutbti.:: :._- tu2nd:elury on.inland aide of.PCH slockage.ol':views by buildings not to exceed a00 lineal feet as a '- - . ..., , _ .- .... - :;�A . -, .` ,.. ,. &" alriilli111Ut11•shllt(1itt.�l, B EAC.H. _ - . A= A_ atntatti existing ; r wttl ?01 ',pac;es with 67 s aces 'public lieaciy parking at ` P,AR-K1NG evtiilab�e Sc�r'Puti;ic ; Ailvic forpiitill"c-` a tn�"tvtl7tttn:= ' - y Ucacli uscon" ` _t b xch'uscon c �• x :;:_zv We:uZlN '`�'` '` weekerniis`Lw -'r tx Pottrii!`P.11ncr„asa of, (inclines IA 'spa-es,on (l ased`tipoti>40;000t public beach-parking PC N)' scf of*46. "� spaces, ' n - reg'�uurants,.with 127 sp"aME ITTirei'i per - (Ptaside:l cacti 10,000 s ) carrying capacity 380 spaces plus addlsionta'spacesfor . , a � �- � - pier tecreation)..•- COMMERCIAL. y.,5. wit►t • ,U 's; . 7 C:s7THREE107T. 10INTSt 40;000 s 1'. '(71=�c) -S:P-AC E= .' " ;rescty d;for non bed+rh rcaeitied for noit�bcaeh ,0 n S ace; -Nt)r= n:lalc;il; cc;oastal: iel'atcd;iipn co:tsii�l 1 major=rpescaurttnts" s _ dcticienc"inajor, dependent"in9Vor`_ - t1�tniira,it cetituurants;' Seet{stus 0u6"•• 20;000 ' - J •• 1T •}• • - .••. Y 4/'� .9t with 30/V Illi .... .—.�: - _. .. ........� rt� .., ;r• -, .r,:,;.- mserved for"major - w + trratsurPtnl -' incrcasa 'irtaJor- r�a m.teur$rit;'squa p i - ' p►otecting views attd providing 2 parking spaces per:100's.f,-.. PIER_ PLAZA I •- I I DEPA.-ZTpAENT OF CO MUNITY DEVELOPMENT I / ✓ �i ING DIVISION of czr- d 4 ppr r i 2-54 Z13.CA 9 off$ CC.Pta.r.v. i 4 _a y t� SOD COMMU� I� t _ J:.. .+ .51:'t s a., . J CA go 53 j _. /)Gl�.1s.�r.�YJ�zGo . =%�x.�y.lt•_cl_. . .c�.�.a. y ' i 61) vw��- - i I i r /La 1 ,2-54 if " .. dee r ,7-411u 1 : coct I i i - i I _ I 2-56 •-September 6 . 1990 w ., Laura`.Phi l Yips •-• � �.� -- ... � .-. ,.. ,,_, �.,_p � � , x Planning Department City of Huntington Beach ,: . .. 2000 Main Street ism• ...,:.= `K.�.- -Hu.nt_i ngto�n ..Beach , ..�a ..,•cc„ - _ ,,k;.. _� ' . 92648 - -Ms Ph-i 11•-ips i The following comments ; questions and observa-ta,o.ns are ip.s:t few. I wish to-� -ask the-•departme`nt to i-ftI'ude - ' `fhe—Pierside -.;.,... Restaurant. Draft; EIR to .be submitted for Planing Commission ' review and...,approva.1 1 . TI^ would like to see a discussion that relates the prpject,- �:.. •• -1 i - on the -changing composition o.f� ;±.t,he�Ldowntown�.are`a�lirather-' than" a-n--inadequate supplemental to a 1.982, EIR . _ 2 . Please- relate the Projec:t s' env :r.onme:n•tal impact `toother proj'gcts 'that� are in the surrounding downtown area to show a true traffic..-.a.nd crime tmp.act ., 3 . This ', EIR does .not•=deal :with alternate �, sitera�s as .;&; bas for W ,J!Uaoementir&b9d-r-d' ng, the use and"`tak'ing o.f pubs is land 3efore this can. be addressed pr:operl.y. :. want ,_ do see. k�3 - 'comparison impa_.cts with _s_- s,im• :lar.Z--Frio ec��-""ccrm os ,,i4on � "on " 3M . j P. other nee by available ?and both privately and city owned . _. _ .. 4 . 7-h-= doy not believe 't:lia=t 'ttie` mindset. traffic and' pa.rkin5 requires no mitigation because this is--••a,s.malle.r project than K.+� W . _pxev Lou sly-pr.cosed adequae;l,y_�answers .m�it.i5a'tion . rtainly -_--_the impact is greea-te'r that NO PROJECT . Please answerwith mitigation for the :proposed project . Thank Chauncey Alexander `� { r .m .. „•L .*� .� �� ' 8072 Dd-f H --vunti ngton Beach , Ca �; ;-�' v - .4 i OF. i 2-57 _w i 4 j i � r,L i 2-58 a i i y i f - SEPTEMBER 7 ,. 1990 LAURA ' PHILLIP5, • PLANNING DEPAR.T�iENT j CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . 2000 MAIN STRFE`T (?._. �g94 HUNTINGTON `BEACH -CA . 92648 MS . PHILLIPS I WISH TO SUBMIT THE:;FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS REGUARD'INGG"-•'THC---` DRAFT-lEIR: -AND�:•SUPPL`EMEN'TAL.--E.IR FOR - PIERSIDE i RESTAURANT-- COMPLEX OR,,WHATEVER YOU .CHOOSE TO BE CALLING THIS � PROJECT ON.-THE OCEANS IDE_ OF_. PCH AT .-THIS. 'fihME PROJECT ON THE ..O'CEA.NSIDE" .OF:_RCH• A7,_ T--HIS TIME . -- 1 - HOW DO `YOU~ CONSIDER` A--1982-EIR- AS THE BASIS FOR ;A PROJECT THAT- WAS -NON-EXISTENT . -.THE..:; CURRENT PROJECT PROPONENTS,_.ANDDEV.ELOPERS-WERE LIKEWISE NOT"IN THE PICTURE IN 19 82... j 2 . _ WHAT IMPACT.-ON THE:-PEOPLE DO,-YOU ^'SEE OCCURING AS -A RESULT OF ALLOWING PRIVATE~OEVcLOPMENT'- PROJECT-S TO " TAKE`. PLACE ON I PUBI:iC- LAND-;: -T-HUE-''RESTR-IC + Tt�IG* =l1St , VIEWS OF AND; ACCESS TO PUBLIC',-BEACHI - 3 iN PUBLIC "`MEE7YNGS" "RE6i4RDIi+1GTHI6=--PROJECT MEMBERS OF HB PLANNING.-...STAFF„STA-T;ED.�THAIT. LAtQ USE,WAS, NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONS-IDERATI4N . I DISAGRtE 7HE '.OXFORD7'DICTIONARY DEFINES . ENVIRONMENTAL" --AS- �-:-�REL-ATED-=TO- 'SURROUND'I'NGS , ESPECIALLY THAT _[� PART AFFECTING• PEOP.L.E-'•S..-L:IVE:S .f�=-.ON, THAT BASIS . PLEASE ANSWER WHY ALTERNATE~, SITES THAT WOULD NOT AFFECT GENERAL PUBLIC ACCESS ANb VIEWS- -HAVE-'-- OT`BEEN-=.'CONSIDERED? THE PROJECT PROPOSED -ON-` THE OCEANSIDE BLOCKS FREE VIEW .FROM PCH AND CAUSES INTIMIDATION FOR THOSE SEEKING_TO PARK AS BEACHGOERS . - 4 . WHAT COST=TO�THE.-TAXPAYER. W,I!.L-RESULT FROM THE-ADMITTED INCREASED CREME. POTENTIAL IN A PARKING STRUCTURE? HOW DOES .S THE CITY PLAN- TO' 'HITIGATE' PUBl:.' SAFETY IN THIS PARKING STRUCTURE? S . WHAT AFFECT WILL""THIS PROJECT HAVE ON THE VIEWS OF THOSE PROJECTS ( BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ) ON THE INLAND SIDE OF PCH? HAVE THESE BUYERS BEEN INFORMED AND IS THERE A METHOD IN PLACE TO INSURE CONTINUED HONESTY . REGARDING POTENTIAL VIEW DISRUPTION? THE CITY DOES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SEE THAT A PROJECT THEY JOIN WILL BE ABOVE BOARD IN DISCLOSURES . t ' i 6 . HAVE YOU CHECKED THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY WITH LENDERS? SE SPECIFIC . HAVE YOU CHECKED THE FINANCIAL RISK AND SUCCESS j WITH OTHER SEASIDE VENTURES - NOTABLY MARINA PACIFICA IN LONG i BEACH , LONG BEACH MARINA ( BETWEEN BEL MONT SHORE AND SEAL I y� ^4 EEACH, SEAPORT VILLAGE IN SAN PEDRO)? HAVE YOU ALSO COMPARED THE. SUCCEESS WITH THE .COST TO -THE CITY IN EXPENDITURES? BE . 2-69 SPECIFIC:. j 7 HAVE YOU AS PROTECTORS OF OURCI`TY RESOURCES MET YOUR -OBLIGATION TO THE PEOPLE IN MAKING THE BEACH: AND I:T.'S V.I:.EW AVAILABLE TO THE MOST NUMBER OF .. PEOPLE , FOR - THEIR ENJOYMENT I SCENIC, "NATURAL ; CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL) OF THE OCEAN..- BEACH AND RELATED AREA AS THE STATE" 'LANDS COMMISSION: EXPRESSED AS A RESPONS-IB'ILITY OF APPOINTED OR ELECTED CONSERVATORS. FOR THE CITIZENS IN. PRE.SENTING:"THIS EI_R."WRITTEN IN 1982 AND: SUPPLEMENTEO ONLY FOR° THIS NEWPROJE-CT? JUSTIFY THIS , PLEASE . SINCERELY j ���i'� -. �= Z LUG JO CHRISTIAN-CRAI.G 529 LAKE STREET HUNTING.TON BEACH., CA": 92648 i 2-60 n Y I i � _ F �a; < ,• _ R a, y SEPT_EMBE 7;1990 • S r ,.d - ,a,-�� ' J . .. a:-r6j-�.�^.,,dye r+„_ <.. 'hr+ _ w9�t . . -F. 3s.•, . �LAUR•A"PHILLLIPS PLANNING<DEPT CITY OF HUNTING_ TQN._.BEACH. 2000 `MAIN ST T . t HUNT-I NG70N' f; M5 PHILLIP5`: THE FOLLOWING ARE QUESTIONS OR1''COMMENTS I BELIEVE NEED TO BE -� ADDRESSED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIR..' FOR P_.IERS.I,DE ` I .RESTAURANT.PR0PQ.SAL . -` I;;BELIEVE�THEY ;EI.TH ARE -NOT'�AD6RES$ED < OR`ARE'"INAD'EQUATELY AD�RESSED� F1S IT STANDS NOW 1 WHY WERE OTHER SITES NOT CONSIDERED? THERE, AREw„ OTHER -AVAILABLE SITES. .ON T,EZ>INLAND S-TD��,OF.�hPCH:� BOTH- NORTH• ANDr SOUTH" OF MAIN STREET THAT ARE ;NOT ONLY SUITABLE BUT WOULD HAVE, LF;SSF_OF A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT . - 2 . WHAT IMPACT WILL THE PROJECT HAVE ON THE VIEW FROM PROPERTIES ON THE INLAND SIDE OF PCH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY J-3 ACRQSS, FROM:,;THE PROJECT? it 3 .. ,WHAT,� PE.RCENTAGE LOSS OF VIEW WILL RESULT FOR FOOT TRAFFIC i o�L bNG`;P'CH.;"'FOR AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC , FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE �-Y "INLAND 'SIDE OF PCH? 4 , WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EXTENSIVE AND IRREPLACEABLE VIEW � OF THE PIER THAT NOW EXISTS FROM SOUTH OF THE PIER? I J 5 5 . WHAT IMPACT WILL CARS IN THE PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE / HAVE ON AIR QUALITY IN THE AREA AS THEY SIT WAITING TO EXIT I J�tO ONTO PCH ( REFERRING TO EXHAUST FUMES? ) 6 . WHAT CRIMINAL CONCERNS ARE ANTICIPATED WITH THE PARKING STRUCTURE? WHAT MITIGATION IS PLANNED, WHEN WOULD THE PLAN -� BE PLACED INTO EFFECT AND WHAT WILL BE THE COST IN TERMS OF DOLLARS AND POLICE MANPOWER? 7 WHAT FLOODING AND STORM-SEA DAMAGE POTENTIAL IS THERE FOR I THIS SITE? WHAT WILL BE DONE AND AT WHAT DOLLAR COST TO -g PREVENT FLOODING AND TO CLAN UP FLOODING WHEN IT DOES OCCUR? i S . WHAT 1S THE ADVISABILITY OF OMITTED OR REDUCED FUTURE p BUILDING ON THE OCEAN SIDE OF PCH TO LEAVE THIS AREA AS A j-1 BUFFER BETWEEN THE OCEAN ( STORM DAMAGE -POTENTIAL ) AND DEVELOPMENT? THANK YOU , ' �-/Z)i" �. TERRY DOLTON 17892 SHOREHAM LN . HUNTINGTON BEACH CA , 92649 � 2=61- i Septembeir `6, 1990 -L-aur:a Phillips , P'lann:ing 'Dept . City ,of Hu-ntington Beach 2000 Main St . 'Huntington Beach.,. Sa . 92648 Ms . Phi1'l.ipsc" 1 . Why was a 1982 EIR -used' as 'the basis for 'a 11990 project that -was. never. u:nd.er cons derat:kon:- -at -the tame of the 1982 I EIR ( 89-2-.)?. i . I 2-.. I want to see al.`er:nate sites discussed :a's a m-itigation - of e,niro:nmenta:l impact on a Iocaiti-o-n that is ' unique , `more than any other longitudinal-lat'itudinaa :lie In this City . L Why , o:n such a special and, -unique site -was a commonplace E development such as restaurarn�Ycommer,cia•1 never given alternate site consideration? 3 . -Why is the significance of taaci:ng :Pub-l:ic hand .•fo.r 'private use not considered in an envir:onme.ntal mpact report? Certa-inly taking public r".ecreational .1a.nd and converting it into private, .development requIr.i:ng _pay =-for :use a:nd viewing is ` i an e•nv%ro.nme.n.tal impact? What safety measures a,re going to 'be taLk•e:n and Lat what - dollar cost to. the Public to prot•ect "Mhose peoply using the +„L e.nc:losed parking. bu.1 Ld`i:ng.., stated `by our ow-n pot i;ce to be a Policeman 's nightmare? S . What measures are be;- g ta:lren for the safe aegress az.nd egress of Junior Lifeguards. trying to g-et in and out Lifeguard Headquarters?- Thank you Sal 'y'_Gra;ham _ 5161 Gelding Cir . ' ^' Huntington Beach , Ca . 92649 n»P<:rt .COMMUNITY i 2-62 r • 1 Laura^ -Ph,i1:li.pt P1'ann}ng "0`ept': r ��• City' of • -u4 nti-n9tonL each-- = Main St _ :..; F-lu,htl 1,g Beach ,. Ca` .926�48 7, I Ms- Rlii-l.lps -t - I :. ,;am_. ,submitting the following concerns and questions for i - consideration in- the incomplete PIERSIDE DRAFT EIR ( 1982 ) & i PIERSIDE. DRAFT EIR:: SUPPLEMENT . .1 , - J. do✓ not.-see 'any attempt to deal with economic concerns as they :r-e.1-aae "`'`to other businesses in the area . Certainly . youu,must a;g.ree that this is going to be an environmental . .the `.will -be an economic impact which most definitely translates into ' an environmental impact . I want to see this addressed and how an alternate site consideration might affect the same businesses . 2 . 1 want to see the EIR address the economic basis for this project . Originally the 1982 project was said to be proposed as a springboard for the inland development . This is already taking place on the inland side without this project . Can you show me a legitimate positive influence - this project can ! now have on the inland projects? 3 . How many parking spaces are set aside for the dining? How many for the potential use of rooftop and balcony dining? - � We all know this will be done and Mr . Chodos indicated that himself at - ' a town meeting . How many parking spaces are set aside for the proposed increase in retail space? How many are then left for the beachgoer? 4 . If valet parking is used , how is that going to effect the parking for beachgoers and what will be done to mitigate that? Be specific please . i j 5 . How will this project 's parkins needs fit in with the Parking needs of surrounding projects and existing business Im-S j and beach. needs? Show me how this has been studied. i 6 . You have indicated that land use is not considered in your EIR. Why would you not consider the use of public land ! and the effect it will have on the users? What effect will " i it have on the use of the non-restaurant goers regarding view from PCH • and ease in parking to use the beach? �T h k u , Richard Graham 5161. Gelding Cir . �' � r� ;70 - Huntington Beach , Ca . I 92649 t _ 2-63 I I i _ EC { September 6, 1990 S~` 1�' 1 � 1990 • DC?Afi;K .y7 ur COMMUNITY Di:vCLUPiviLNT PLANNING.DIYIbIOIV j - Dear Ms . Phillips , i I am responding to one of. many protest flyers going around HB regarding the proposed Pierside project on the beach. I would like you . to hear what many of us are thinking but not everyone takes or makes the time ,to write or attend council meetings . ! L. i C r. horrendous . The whole aea o_ building on the bea-.. s Huntington Beach is very fortunate to have a long stretch of beat—iful beach for people to enjoy year rourd. • Don' t let these money monger developers spoil any more beach! H-4ntinq_on Beach has an abundance o: restaurants and shops throuyi:out the entire city, and also in the new buildings on Main Street. For God' s sake, let' s keep this a beach city! ! ! California only has unspoiled coastline le't?cr people =o enjoy --- it is .sick to even Ta_NK of . building ANYT-HING on our beaches besides fire rings, public , :est=ooms and lifeguard stations . ! No, one wants a bunch of buildings ruining the scenery, the sand, the whole look of the coastline. I : NO BC'T_T-DING ON THE BEACH! ! ! ! LEAVE IT AS I.S! ! ! ! I I hope �Or. all the residents, visitors and future genera ions thaL 'Chis ridiculous idea of building .on the beach does \OT pass. I WE DON'T WANT IT! ! ! ! ' I i .Sincerelv,- Lis /Thomas -.5•o6�� lct : Street ! Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i -16-3256 i i 2-64 9-1 Huntin-Bo.1q..ro -Lane '..gt;on" Beach 1990 CA 92:kij��- DCAMXP,.MT OF pLA[4P.;:N*,P �:VVON 1 . k99O September Z Departm.ent .�Qf iqpmmu.nity-, Development P. 0.- ao x 19 0 .. . - P. Huntington, Beach F-17_C*9264.8--� :.Li . e�. E,n 'J. e A t t en t i-on. -1.4.ura.--Phillips. ? I am writing to- protest- the concept and the plan which would permit :the .building ..of. three 3-story restaurants restaurants on .the beach ac. 'BoUth o-f the -hunt.ing t qn, a c It is -itd -e- n ffWg t dif�'9?e kdli-` C V_f-v``,- p 0 i v ki I_'We'd'councill.�:641`d 11 o fl� fin f &f their ble6ti6g . �;T-. - -C'61 :V4 b If I F.ffi..'not" fiii�siikj_ thle" i6f&f�'C'btiffi�--slgio5rp t, P,i - .-T� -;;!Z1.1 1 --1 " .- .- the respcknq"' biii"'v_'_-'-P P'roteetrng kt�rt'epl 66 "k t 0- -n& for the. use-,of k1l Oedpl'6' O � believ6 they 46dd 61:1ow -is proposed giveaway. The various-assessments' of pi . A impact., -cir-rulation and tkiiie-as�seSsmen't, d,6' ndf'fully de"aii-i with the bks1-'i6-cc'3�t erVgiit6nir �6'f our limited beach resources We must not allow any more buildings on our very limited open hor_iz_6ns'" t',o - the sea, (certainly not on public land) . The council--must find other ways to raise revenue. Let the developers' y, a d.'bu " si_ o,f' PCH for their restaurant , P :i'� n%. e P_ dev6lo' 1D'ment,.- I , for one, would enjoy a restaurant set back a respectlul?'dist�.nce from the treasure that is Huntington Beach ,-Z.;65 •p r'h. '1:.Cyi.jam• � �sr...•r TV �� 7r'iu-�--•� 1 . 1990 DE�nR't� ►ti f or . } r�, ` • r C.0mMUNIYY'. E ZL 0P.,ij, NT , ( ol � t 2-66 r I Sept. 5 , 1990 _ ....�... r�.., a ,,;y �, - vs.+ `T,aura Phillips :.... . �C-�Yt. ;► �g9Q pity of xuntington peach _rr�>tit�YtitiEN u: 2000 Mip.in ..S,t.. .. _:_� �,,, i,:iv`*t'v_topm UAT mm ars p-_xNr1+NG OIVISII::ri i memb.ers of the Planning ^ommission _eac's:`.... na,^radars._ _.. .,... °rs`-:a . '"pis -i:e`tter --add oi,,6-ntal-.--tr~?vyar+� %ep art.:=fox the •r;rc;iczed- 7 fer5= cue restaurant com-cjex south of the u.'R. pier. 'a^ cieep_y�cei':ce:nerd-= iat'-the= ?.l.a,r� t4e._- 7- d_cje: . re.t address tWO 7:a'cr .-zc` "r.•s 3af f tci e::j:t.:�� v?�i�y.�` SJ=.> l•�:��C L'e�TiYy_��ti'J�r.�':�'wvt1;8 f )urB O @beVsl©DT.2Y:t -in-GrJ'wn ,`0'ni'�',. T?,'- =tti:au' area' �e.�.:.e: �.11� W;i'-hin �}.:_. �T a, "u r ter_:;. _a_ml�l ., h ay. �e ';'T fit t :' =t. rcaosed`-pro:1•ec.t.�- =°f=: ._.ko :oet�ke:?, ser- �i Gus ly , -iieeds to eWr u e d i v 2"82 6 ;, i. r 4;{L~...cTl :=4utbr,vbla r_=Te1St.ed impacts as s :l �r•e= r;. T := - aoeaZ:n'Ot_ lbzk..'':�r x youMp�. 'e o+hex-pos :i:'� Ftior.S j daie3:tour: !�t.., corrpiex. T , orvore; -aTeea.y j r +, this r.•rc 'ec'ma. concerned about one. _utare economic �;�pacts � � y :i'�go"se for �t-hose :ex.<_�s :in-q-�Ard r�ew resteura :e.. I = ira:=tie':; t-r ue :r-e6evralap„v: t e2. ?owever`, T r eal `ze t'zi s i is not the subject or purpose of an :,. T.� . n_ ?r �h e i mti 4 d"i'a t e " o r^. cvr`r `ar ea=-�';��`—s i s i? � 'o- i t e e th at w or k c u.i t e ;rell without the negative impacts cn the beac', setting, restriction. o< vi-ewshed., -distructior. of a _hi_storical building, traffic d :�..he::beach .. r+ 'M + , _ .�.}ti T•.'- .hei e are _our, -o_r, five poes' bilities , bvt the .*wo sites m recon.mending for considera" on are both across '�.^.:t, or. the j inland .side from the beach. These are:a. '';Te area _`rQ::ti::g ? t�. oetweeY 1 st tree t and Huntington Street. ^he 'two.rblock area be.weep Main S`. and 6 th St^ee t - ^so ''rcr +_g p. v. ( the ^i„y. already owns a consider- _ - -a Ii =vo=tion of land in this two 'clock area '�cnowr, as. W.Phse i i i i j page 2. F, 1 .R fr.oir. Lone i - i - i 7 'm concerned that •the entire downtown .redevelopment area could be doomed to .failure.. it is becomtn.g more obvious that j the downtown area cannot support any moss -:r.etail :or commercial than what exits and .is being built.. , - We do not have the drawing :pacer, parking, freeway access:, or \� anything unique enough -to support more-commercial. You .only need view the failure of ^kola' s mowmsquare commercial., pi,.er �. Colony 's Cffice Space ,and the five res'aur.ants now vacant An the downtown. i TT. :he second major concern with the T.,R, is that it doesn' t acdreas the :impacts -of traffic .and parking .coagesti on for .beach goers and those t:ry:ir_g to find there way into down`t-own. Speci`ically, .Y am concerned' when the _.? says :no automobile related impacts, when the Cal-trans R "_'..R. fo.r t'h,e _w{:den'ing o_ - �+ will i :fir + i ?C.q. says there wi 11 be cons._dera.ble�:�mpac�s h._s area a Lew short years witho�a consideration of .?iers:ide Village: ..he in terseo`Cion of -!via.in ,t. .and is a major concern f-cr . those I vping for eco:r:ori.c sacoess in�the downtown. :A_s -an exa:,.ple i Th C,)i ' fr i r f ? r i poor a�arr._ng: .e .,_s.y. S tar- :end she deve.l.ope� o_ ie_. Go:i.cny I had the ouDc`'t n-i ty to .widen 'gain ,5;,.. and -get -up two le-t i lanes wino south on ?Main St. Yrzstead th.e :er.tranc-e is the -:ew downtown was narrowed and three 1-arge rate galtis were planted in what was .hi.stori cally part of ;iai n 'St. _ the Ca_-tr an.s '. study :states �ha t °�y the y eer 2�OJ., this j in'Ce.rsection will�be cper.ating - ,a . , r levels of .servl,ce.l j T also object to rierside Village on . the ,groands that Y and my fa:nily irembers will be denied access to an area of beach have used for over 70 years. -his is .land that was :speeiff.cal ly: �- ee t aside for nubl ,c access and recrea:,ion. Tt was not intended fcr a commercial development! .Thank You. a-es A. Lane 6317 ~Tanki ort _"_ve r;ur:..ing.on 3each, Ca 02648 i i i 2-68 i - September 6, 1990 RECEIVED Department of Community Development Post office Box 190 Huntington' Beach; California 92648 1990 j Attention; Laura Phillips DEPARTMENT os• � L_ COMMUNITY DEYELOPIVENT'•, P YISION j Dear Ms. Phillips: -_-- ...,.._- ___. .. � PL4NfVING-DI As business and proper-ty owners of block #101.along Pacific Coast Highway, " we are s.rongly opposeCto" the re.sta.urant mt--p de as it"currently - ' exists. The obstruction of view crewtedby the development,as proposed w.il1 N• - �- 1 have a direct impact on our._p_ropen.y, 166ase0_at_.1 1"YrPGH-anc;- 1 i'2, 1 1�, 116_and 118 Second Street. Our property-liesbetween Second and take Streets with two lots on Pacific Coast" Highway, all.a-re within tlte-redevelopr6int zone. There seems to be some confusion within the city about the restaurant developrnen- as being presented to the-public. The -project description,as:.rsgde. available-to- the public at the para.'2) states, "All [bldgs.] primarily one story with small second story elements that'.are 25 feet or less in height (exclusive of noo-f elements)." Yet, theyEIR �Dra;:_anal Dia�reihs-,deseri> es. The development as of 25 feet above PCH plus 10 add- � .' it}onal `feet for roofing.and other zr.chitectu,al eiements. .. - r 4.1_"� According to the design plans in the EIR-bldg. "c" (which is proposed,.td be. in front_ of block !01) exceeds-.the 25'foot height..rinimum f.or.�,..o.v,.ex---t-wo°',hind`s the`wioth` of the building. The' ier"n inology o` height is••i-mmaterial.. It really doesn't matter if the beach view is restricted by,-a roof_e"le.m_ en;;,_o.r,a third stcr};�e-b'.ockage 3-S_ feet tall cons titutes'ioview. The proposed viewing corridors.ar-e an insult to our coastline—They do not provide �- I optimum visibility from the high�-a`y, walkways, or..-business-and residential-area along PCH. The corridors merely-serve to .extend a direct view to those driving south on the city streets of Second and,Lake-. _ _z .-_- In the "Project Description" (p e.1- ara.3) the r-o .osed_ buif in 'sLL-a;a designed to - F__- P" P P � 6 improve PCH views._o.f.._the-sun-f; yet"the`ohI'y views left will be the two 100 foot 1Q,� wide viewing corridors at Second and what used to be Third Street. t!� How will these viewing corridors bene!it block 101 `or-any.•poten.1%al_gr.owth? L___• doubt that many buyers would want to purciiaae-axone-half M;I-Non collar condo on our property site only to view the backside of a°'restaurant corro!ex:,-)"i-- 1 &ir. Cl:odcs states that, "Direct views in ,so..rne .locations will be ,blocked.,_but-eVei, In these locations, obii^,ued or angled views.e.f-vtne-.ocean 'wil!"be'aysilable." This is not .rue of block #101 as impacted by building c. The redeveloprrien"t -c thA block should no; be limited to specific obfique views as wov.'d be mandated by .the restaurant configuration. I If i _2.69 i The EIR (pge,40-sec.4.3.2) states, "views.. from. the-:northbound 'lane of,,PCH' l.( are also [currently] visually obstructed by median landscaping along the high- �- way. In defense of a reasonable person, ;does a narrow grassy median dffoird the same view restriction as several 35 foot tall structures? . As property owners of over 35% of block #101, we have not committed land to any devcloper, and may seek independent utilization of our land. We are strongly opposed to this view obstruction, and the. arrangement of the viewing j corridors, is the city prepared to mitigate the. .property devaluations we will suffer should this construction be approved? The restaurants are planned to rise 35 .beet above the highway. is this really necessary to accomplish the city's goal-of increased public viewing? Cannot The general design focus on continuity with the existing coastline; rather than scar it with trendy mediterranean .architecture? A!ternaze considerations should be examined: 1.) The development should be limited to a height no, to exceed that of Pacific Coast. Highway and :be of construction as to not ln,er- fore with ocean views from existing structures, sidewalks and o;he; public .rights-of-way.and private domain as may currently exist. Such a revision could camouflage a moderate development from obstructing. the panorama as i- currently exists with Dwight''s Snack 3ar; it is virtually undetected from the °highway yet serves the public i without diminishing .the .seaward view. . 2.) Realign and widen the viewing corridors. Huntington Beach has and should continue to pride itself for the unblemished views of the seascape. The ocean side of PCH should not be scarred with obstructions that interfere with the natural scenery afforded to so many daily i commuters, tourists and -residents. Think about our neighboring shorelines. To the south along Newport Beach there is no open view of the surf from the highway; to .the north, at Bolsa.Chica State Beach, the ocean view is blocked by the con:igura:tion of the shoreline. It is only along Pacific Coast Highway inthis city .that residents,and visitors have a Q�V panoramic view of the coastline. IT IS WORTH SAVING, and should.not be res,ricted to those persons willing to I loiter in a public prome•�ade - or patrons: cf a glass enclosed eatery ato;, a parking j lot. T;.e Californiz Coas'al Act (1976)"states, "The projection of the states natural and scenic resources is a �parEmount concern to-present and future residents of the state and nation." if diversity of our beach is the necessity that mart' of you 1-,_Ave been led—to believe, then at n,:nimum, focus- your efforts.. owards protecting ;ilt' natu-=i vIPy' as it exiS:s today, from all ,70:':'S .a10!1fl Pacific Coast .HI'gh vat'. �:E 5-i�.Ot i�� led J)' rEVeTI�Ja c?E<'i' crnl i-:ons :o lose sigh: of �'=h -w,e -have. Louise Fiorillo 2-70 Rat 0eck - 09i07"yG 16:50 2 7147555648 SWS OC 02 i i I i September 7, 1990 _ city of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 - Attn: Laura Phillips, Planning Department . Chairwoman Geri Ortega and Members of the Planning Commission Mayor Tom Mays and Members of the City Council Re: Draft EIR-90-2 Pierside Restaurant Development Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The California Environmental Quality Act was established to protect the environment by informing decision makers and the public of the kinds of environmental effects that a project may have, and further to identify ways to avoid or reduce negative environmental effects. The document prepared by the Community Development Department, dated July, 1990 perhaps adequately serves as a focus or "scoping" mechanism to reveal "selected" potential environmental inpaots, but it is far from adequate in meeting the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. . The document is not only lacking in its technical and legal adequacy, but it also fails to provide both the public and you as decision makers with the best information possible as, to the effect of this project on the environment, and thus totally fails to provide you with the information upon which to make an informed decision. In order to provide the Commission/Council/Public with adequate information upon which to make . an informed decision in regard to this project, I strongly recommend that the following iaaues' be addressed and bq, included in ! the Draft EIR and that the Draft EIR document. than. ba recirculated when this information is publip.ly -disclosed. i 2-71 i i 89i87i9B !6 '3.@ 2 7:147555640 8.W5 '0C �- i . I City of Hunta.ng,tcn beach septembe:r 7 , 19:9..0 Page 2 A. -LEkAL ADEQuACj' Or, JHE CJJrQZLIBT AND. THE_'IHIT1,AL AnIQX California aaad law requixos. a responsible ,agency to make an objective g:ood�-faith effort; :at full daeo3ooure of all significant environmental -off scto and alternatives. Further, the City must disclose the data or evidence upon which it:rsliss in conducting' an, initial study. The initial study impossas various environmental impacts. Several of the environmental areas, it was determined -in the: report, will not be significalntly impacted'. However; the ',ahedklist .and the initial. study ;performed'.by the Planning staff is - deficient b.ecAusa .it does not �disolpae the data or evidence upon which the persons conducting the .'study relied. This directly violates the 1.98.8 Appel-late •Court" decision in _. Suns role '..�..,Chun � Qf Mendpd ro .,(3488:).. 207 Cal.App.3:d °396 wharein the Court found that.`. Omer*. conclusions of the cheokliet provided no vehicle fo:r judicial review, M. ,thus cracking down on the naked' init.ia.l �study chacklict approach. This Court- decision zeaffirzed the purpose and intent:cf Cr, Q4 and n 1980 .Appollste Court decision which established a, low. 'substantial evidence" threshold for requiring an EZR, see ErJaDSgor ;A st eat Y', rJ&v cif Hayward _. (1960) 106 Cal.App. 36 9'88 . (so* also Citizens Assoriat an . For SeneibI'4 PAY„0,QpMInt of the BiKhQg, Area V. County. of 1nY-Q (1985) 172 Ca1.App.3d The caves cited above will definitely establish the l.e.gal inadeVacy of the checklist and. initial study herein, Furthermore,. reliance on they out-of-date EIR-92-2 does not adsquately 'address short, long, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and alternatives that this project will have. At minimum, ;the following should be addressed to hake- this document legally adequate ta. austain a Judicial challenge: I. Checklist Iton, . l.: en' titIOd, "Earth". Cue to-. the _ excavation for the'�dev®l:opiaant of. a two level' subterranean P' drkinq`° aetructur*, the pro j ec,t sne�y have: a. Pic nifi.oant impact o»' .5eolog,ic - structure&. _ 4; 2.72 r B9/O7/92 1ES1 2 7147555646 6W5 OC 04 i City of Huntington Beach september 7, 1990 Page 3 2 .• Checklist Ttem 2 . entitled "Air Quality". The DEIR S _ should address how this project will be consistent - with the Southcoast Air Quality Management Plan. 3 . Checklist Item 3 . entitled "Water". The DEIR should address the impact on surface and ground M water quality, waste generation, treatment and r�- diaposal . Further,, the site is located within the FP�3 Zone, and the DEIR should address flood hazards and the potential threat to the public within 'quasi-publio" buildings. - 4 . Checklist Item 7 . entitled "Light and Clare" . The project is within an established State scenic highway. The proposed development with generate additional light and glare thereby impacting niqhttime scenic views from the Pacific Coast Highway to -the ocean. 5. Checklist Item S . entitled "Land Usew. The downtown Specific Plan, District 10, for which this proposal alleges to _be consistent, in part, states i - that " visitor serving commercial uses most j appropriate for this District are beach-related and complimentary to activities which occur around the pier, such as fishing, surfing, and sunbathing. . Equally important as new commercial activities which may be accommodated is to ensure that the ' major emphasis in this District is public opnnspaoe. The pier and beach area must remain C accessible to . th• public for free recreational use, " The development proposed is not consistent - with the provisions of this District. To make the Specific Plan consistency finding, in accordance with state law, that the character of restaurants proposed is consistent with "beach-related activities" is a great misinterpretation of the intent. of the specific Plan. If the proposal is to I continue as:..indicated in.-:the DEIR, the Specific Plait and the, Local Coastal. Program must be amended. j The Specific Plan further states, "The extent and ! - intensity of development in District 3 and further 2-73 7147353649 Bw5 CC 05 I � I , City of Huntin1ton Be.b. September 7, i9.90 Page 4 i inland will. directly .determina the amount of j revitalizailon, which cart ovoui to' the .pier and beaoh-relatad ,.coioularcial uzea° which can be accommodated." This DEIR does not address the S - - market demand .for this development. With the axis development on the inland side of ,Pacific - Coast Highway, and that which .=is proposed, this DEIR must addreav any negative economic impacts this ,proposal. will have on existing and future businesses in the downtown- area. i 6. Checklist Item 13. entitled -"Transportation- Circulation- -The DEIR should address 'cumulative impacts that existing and continued development i.e.., - "buildout"t will have -on existing and 'future tranmpo-rtation systems. A detailed traffic study - should be ,prepared for, this project 'which should include a study at "bu 'ldout", of the -entire downtown area addressing ekisting and .future _ average daily traffic volumes; traffic ge`neration., traffic distribution, -intersection capacity utilization analysis, along with -current. and proposed capacities of local- roads -and paoific Coast Highway:. Ths analys is-;-provided is narrow in scope and does not address cumulative, 'Impacts. 7 . Checklist Item 14. entitled ."Public Services". The DEIR should identify the additional cost of providing police, fire, 'walte ., road, -aind sewer _._ services.. Further, the .proposal 'sh'ould di-scuss the i tax revenue thi°s development:, expected to j B. L .AL :AbEQUAQY". 121'_tHE . )RAET- EIR. 1 . CFOA :A1t rnati. a :p.rolac A,nnglye.. The ;3u:nmar� c.f h1te r not ivss does.not :p_ov-ids �a "suf f icient range of reasonable al-tetnat�ve,s. �'` Th'are �shouid be �a proposed -range :of -Alternative•e for' review, and I S would.;r,e,cb=;snd ,a' a in um th® be .a�iended something 1-ike "th's .foI low-in g. ,with °ar'alyazs <o! eaah.4 i 2-.74 i j .. - 89�67:9N 1E•: 72 $ 7147555648 BWS OC 06 I _ City of Huntington 8aac� September 7, 1990 Page 5 i I (b) Preservation of Maxwell's Restaurant -and conversion of the remaining area to open I spaoe. (c) Preservation of Maxwell's Restaurant with ttf. l addition of the two restaurants, as proposid;' in the project. ! (d) Relocation of the, proposed development on the Inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. The Appellate Court .d6cision in LaurglUiills ' Homeowners Associ tion v. City Council (1978) -83. Ca1:App.3d 515, requires public agencies to .either mitigate impacts or j adopt feasible alternatives; and in the Appellate Court decision . in J&urei xeigtLg. Tyal2rovement Association V. - $ggonts of tale University of California, (1988) 47 Cal . 3d 376, the Court declared an EIR discussion of project description and alternatives inadequate and reaffirmed the Frign s of Mammoth mandate. 2. , Site _Alt-prnatives- Analvsiai In the J&urel.:Heights case cited above and in two Goleta cases the` Appellate Courts have required the consid:aration -Of off-site alternatives. A broad range of alternatives must be presented for consideration, - and the public must be granted the opportunity to comment on the alternatives. Section 5. 0 entitled 1A1tjrnatiy%s" of the DEIR eiroumvents the intent of these laws and merely defers to the Qut-of-die final EIR 82-2 , which was prepared nearly eight years ago. In citizens of Golata Valle v. goard of Supervino__rs (1988) 197 Cal.App. 3d 1167 , the court declared an EIR inadequate for failure. to evaluate alternative project .sites and further clarified the requirement to evaluate such 1 alternatives. j 3 , 'CEQA' was amended in 1989, (AS 3180)• which amendment i.s` found.'in• Public. Resources Code Section 71081.6. This Section of CEQA now requiros that a city shall adopt a "monitoring and reporting program" to ensurd �compliinca during the project implementation. That means that all of the issues i 2-75 ?r w I - 0gip7i90 J6.i'13 X 71_0551.64IS OWS' OC B7. City of Huntington Beach September T, 1990 _ Page 6 i i must be addressed and miti.geition measur*a muet be 5- establishe' d for any adverse- impacts identified. ��bi� • prior to certification. of a.:;final. ElR. 4 . Since the proposed project:Yis on the coastal aid* oP Pacific Coast Highway and involves a. public easement which is the aubjeot of litigation and concern by the state 'La-nds Co�arsiamion, there must I be included in this EIR dooument. sufficient information for the public and the decision making bodies. - The State hands Commission. has found that to divest the public of this easement � 3 appears to breach the cit li fiduciar duties as: a pp Y -fiduciary: trustee There are several attachments submitted to you by the State Lands C6=i'ssion "that seam to have 'been overtly omir,tte.d and should have been. included in thin Draft EIR for public review. I would strongly suggest that all of the attachments submitted by the,State Lands- Comm.iasicon be included -. in this Draft SIR-and that it be recirculated in accordance with State law. C. goNgLUSION The public, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Huntington Beach are being deprived from having -- all of the information required under CEQA which will be necessary to make a decision in regard., to this project. The Draft EIR simply does not give the public nor the decision _ makers sufficient awareness upon which to make an informed decision in this matter. Therefore, if the EIR is not inproved to the point of being legally sufficient, it must not be certifiedby the City Council, or if it is, it will undoubtedly be challenged and a court,,-will order the City tc redo tha Draft EIR. The Planning Commission' recorTM*nds and the City Council has the final authority and responsibility to create a positive environment for the citizens of Huntington. Beach and to those beach goes that."help maintain economic stability of .our city. it it. iiaperat ve .that the •'City Council sarve the co=unity• ;a's. ra a whole ther. than ;spec;iftl pzivate development interest,$, and the document frori which you make a decision on thic project, at a irdninun must 2-76 09�07i90 :6:53 � — $ 7147555646 BWS QC ©s I i City of Huntington Beach September 7 , 1990 _. Page 7 I i addregl in de-tail all of the issues listed above in this letter, ' I urge you -to reconsider the adequacy of this environmental document. _once those issues have boon Adequately addressed and included in the subsequent Draft EIR, that ..document, should b1 disclosed to the public and recirculated so that the public can make their views known to you. As their elected officials, your decision should be - based upon fully disclosed environmental affects, the mitigation of impacts, and feasible alternatives to the project and project site. Sincerely, J Y M. PATTERSON Huntington Beach Homeowner i Attorney at Low dap/LTR90123:slb cc state Lands Commission California Coastal Commission Huntington Beach Planning comniss"iori e rJ 5 er1 i Huntington teach city council � ��7�V, 1 T 2-77 1r A I Debbie Cook 6692 Shetland Girdle Huntington Beach,.CA 92648 ^ .(714) 841.-4484 ;� as� September 7, 1990 Laura Philips,Planner City of Huntington Beach a• 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Comments to SEIR90-2 Since the preparation of.th&.82-2 EIR, the state of'the artof - alvric xechniquesbas changed _ considerably. As stated on page 6 of 90-.2, "(82 2) was reviewed.for completeness". 82-2 was prepared for zoning:purposes only. Not.a single project was:presented or discussed. The exclusion of land.use,.earth changes, seismic safety, air qualft,vl ddal hazard,natural resources, and public services;demonstrates a blatant disregard of the lead,agency in T_ disclosing and-discussing all major points of view. .Significant n�ew,circumstances, f including information,have arisen which bear directly on this project. - The low degree of public need for restaurants does not warrant the hurried manner in which this SEIR yeas prepared. This repot should include a list of.the names,qualifications, and professional.disciplines-of persons who were primarily responsible for preparing the SEIR 7-3 _ or any of the significant backgTound'apers. The following are my corlments to'SE R 90- 1. Land use is IhZ issue here as stated by the Statetands Commission and supported by T^ i the Attorney General's office. 2. The taldtlg of a public recreational easement for private commercial gain is extrern ely significant. Does the inclusion of the 1932 deed and public easement force��ou to T- awnit that land use.is Ih�.issue? - 3. Earth changes (subsidence), as recently reported in the press, have historically been a_ problem in Huntington Beach yet monitoring was discontinued a decade ago. Do you have some empil-ical datz which allows you the comfort of idertif-zng it as of no significance? 4. As demonstrated in recent litigation, the mapping of faults in Huntington Beach has ' 'r- oeen anvthing but precise. What are the most recent dates and by what firm of any gc;oloa c reports you used in dete.•-rrunine seismic safety? 5. Concern-has a.readybeen expressed by the Planning Commission because of expected ridal flooding of a submerged p2rking`strueture. How many.timesper-year should-we` - expect flooding? 6. Huntington Bench expe;-ien�eS z;�;gccassion:l riot on the beach. Wo�,1d i•t`not be more _ difficult for police and fife to offer assistance when hfO 6d by,parking garages and increased density? 2-78 w 1 j 4I I 1 7. The history section of the introduction io 82-2 does not include any reference to the I T"/0 history of the land in District 10. 8. Section`3.3 of 82-2 states "the proposed project includes"336'acres of coastal land, lying across PCH from a public beach," Does this not lead the reader to believe that projects are not planned for the ocean side of PCH? There is no discussion of land use i for District 10 in 82-2. 9. Page 39 of 82-2 states "cross-block consolidations along PCH will not block ` viewscapes because 30' wide breezeways are required to be preserved in the existing right-of-ways." This statement refers to the blockage of 3rd Street by Main Pier Phase i I yet stairwells and a six foot high wall have been constructed across this viewscape. Is this the kind of view,opportunity we can expect from the proposed project? i - 10. 82-2 states that "views from the bluffs and from PCH will be preserved".'Doesn't this _ further mislead the reader into believing that projects are not planned for the,ocean side I T 3 of PCH. 11. In 82-2, District 10 is the only district which is left out of the charts for "Full Buildout f T N Traffic and Modified Traffic Scenario",further leading the reader to believe that no projects are planned for the ocean side of PCH. 12. The "Proposed Circulation Schematic" (Figure 13a 82-2) shows "possible parking _ 5 structures" in District 10 'north and south of the pier. No mention is made of any other project. Please tell me where 75,000 square feet of development is mentioned in 82-2. I 13. Figure 8 (82-2)refers to District 10 as "pier commercial". This seems to be another & 1 attempt to confuse the reader regarding the scope of any future development. I I A District 10 is excluded in the project description, setting, impact, and mitigation i T` 17` sections of EIR 82-2. 15. If left turns are not possible into the project (pg.24), what impact does this have on the I ')" planned relocation of.the 5th street signal to 6th street. 16. Will U-turns be permirred at the above relocated intersection and how many are I ` - expexted. 11. The new parking structure planned for the area northwest of the pier will be using the T-40 6th street signal for ingress and egress. How will the signal be affected by additional vehicles trying to make a U-turn? 1 18. Removal of 14 on-street parking spaces (pg.24) for the widening of PCH needs to be d replaced. 19. The data used for "existing public parking utilization" (pg.25) was derived from the Lake (now 1st) Street parking lot. it is important to point out that this parldng lot ll nornally,provides un-manned metered parking. The lo'Cis only manned during peak j - suruner hours. How did you derive par);ing demand from metered parkaig? 10. The.data you used; as stated on page 25 of 90-2, was collected for the year 1989. -- THE PIER WAS .CLOSED I?v 19891 Pr;or.to closure of the pier; the city estimates that 1.5 Trillion visitors per year visited the oier. If you estimate 3 per sons per car, then that 2-79 i is:.the.equivalent.of.5.00,00.0-,car 369• :carspei.day. Haveyouu figumd' hat`into your,data? :21. _Parking.meters-are<not,em_ptiedievery day. R6% does-.hat--act!affeet:your.utiliz:cion T i uses. Yo.0:cant fi ure: .eak. .eriods.on meters:: tre&tw.o'times' er month. I g g P P � P 22. :P.arkid meters-afforded�the.o ortunit ao: o"for hrnt strolls-on the°seivice:road or 8 op Y g onto;the p.ier: :It:also,gave-surfers:am0pportunity:to ".check,out":thesurf. Will new par-king be.hourly.rate,.day rate,comp.arab'le to:ciry:ates? 23. If;code.T..e res'Maxwellsao:have:100spaces-for'heir M000'square'feet, and:you sa��, 1.00 is adequate, why then;do.they need,27Cc more-on-weekends,.(p:g.77). Does j - 3.6,:00.0 square:fect cif apace really steed 7:11.-spaces? 24. Beach:parking is in highest demand:at a peak per od`for:restaumnts--on weekends in - the middle of,the day Kpg.27). Will'beachparking'be set-aside.:for1he:exclusive use-of -thebeach,goer.?or,will the beach goen.take a"rback-seat- the-restaurant'goer? Is-it possible:that every:available.space.codld be-occiip edby arestauranvgoer. 25• The State of California.assigns:aimaximum carrying capacity of 1200;people-to the smtch.of beach.serviced.by the Lake�Street:par�ng':lot. 'i3sing heirfigure of 3,persons i per vehicle,the parking lot:should,accornodate 400"spaces for:tht beach goer alone. _ Add this number to tho 5.60:spaces required by node for ithe.restaurants,artdyoahiLve 900 spaces which is-what should actually be builtxo claim ihatyou are,improving ";access" to the:beach. 26. The.population:oMuntington Beach and.Grange-'County.has increased dramatically since the parking lot was built-in 1970. Increaseapopulation means increaszd demand T" � on our recreational-resources. Shouldn't the cit be. in io improve.parking-supply instead.of.deteriorating it? 27. Since the sidewalks will be eliminated along.PCH:(p.g.36);will dogs be-permitted on + T -3 d the"promenade" around the project? 28. Your parking queue analysis (pg.38) is flawed due to use of data from when the pier ( - 3 _. was closed. 29. What is the impact of a queue of more than.9 cars on arterial street system? , T _- 30. The pier is also a visually important resource (pg.39). The proposed project will block: 1 -33 j that resource. - 3 1 Is an indirect view one which requires muTors. Can you define indirect view (pb.48). 1 32. The height of the project is 30% higher than Maxwells,not"the same as Maxwells" as T-35 stated on page 48. 33. Most people don't vie .w the pier from the:beach (pg.50), or the water, or outer space. ` T-3� Most view the pier from PCH. 7 1 reflecting'w-indows (pg:50) blind the b.,ach goer in the evening. y y {pa 52)? How much I -- 35. What time of the day will shadows >;e cast on the sand beach beach at each hour of the.dav?- i 2-80 i •-r i I I I I 36, Homeowner views from the new Pier Colony are negatively impacted and disclosure I T- 37 11 was not made to the new.buyers. How will the city"mitigate the reduced property values. j 37, Stating that the document.is a Supplemental EIR(pg.54) is not an excuse for not considering off-site.alternatives, The 82=2 did not discuss off-site alternatives nor could it: There was no pierside project in 1982 so it would-have been impossible to i address off-site aliernaaves.for a project that didn't exist. 38. The rebuilding of the pier required a separate and new EIR. Why doesn't this project? f _ 39. The fooMrin of the new pier is the proposed pier plaza. The restaurants are no more the footprint for the pier (pg.56) than the restrooms are the footprint of the lifeguard headquarters. Y 40. The proposed restaurants are not for the"beach going public" (pg.56). In fact, sandy I -T- �3 bare feet are not allowed. 41. You mention additional sales tax revenue on page 56 but you fail to offset this with the loss of parking revenue. This amount should be included in this report. 42. until now, access to the beach has never been a problem. In fact, the city has won i awards for its parking lot design. The beach service road has too much access and too much congestion. Will this "improved access" increase congestion? If so,then how - will you mitigate. If not, then you're statement is a farse. 43. You have left out realistic alternatives (pg.58) which should be sought through f 1-- community involvement. 44. Page 61 states that this project will provide "additional parking for downtown". This statement is preposterous. On the one hand you say that there can never be enough beach parking and then you argue that you have additional parking for downtown. In effect you have given the same parking spaces to the beach goer, the restaurant goer, i and now the downtown merchant. i 45. This report should include a study on how the price of parking affects residential I T— '� stretets and parking utilization. 46. The nature of the surrounding beach parking lots affects parking utilization. The lot just south of Lake Street is an overnight camping facility. Will this lot continue to be for campers? Finally, your overview of the other projects in the downtown area (pg. 63) is another indication of the lack of research done for this SEIR. The State of California will not allow w a surf museum in the parking structure planned for the north side of the pier. The State reserves the beach for the beach goer--what a novel idea. This structure does not include restroorn facilities, or a community facility. Town Sauare,has:been taken over by Resolution Trust because the com nercial space wasn't leasing..Pierside Pavilion has r 50 ample space "for lease" which could be easily converted to restaurant space. The 20O i Block Main Street parking strucLre has a shortlzll of parking per city code. The projecmd revenue for this structure falls a million dollars short per year from repaving its debt 711•never beimplemented--tine bulldoze-has taken the place of service. Heritage Square w historic preservation. The Waterfront Hilton has an occupancy:ace wet below opt *t al. j 2-81 I I If i _ { i i I A1L in•all`the"City of Huntington:Heach,has a°distssat:tack record far:*develc--nt: If this, - project is approved;,how.-much.more.can we.:afford to lose l Shan::tim gain us,lor s term pain. - Sincerely, I Debbie Cook i i i i I i I • I i I i I I I i • i i 2.82 e � I I I I \ MARK.-:A.-.,...MASSARA, ESQ. 105 :Surf. ;Street Pacifica, California 94044" #415-359-5272 FAX #415-359-5278 Ms. Laura Phillips Soptember 3 , 1990 Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Alain street;' Department of community Development i Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 90-2 j Pierside Restaurant Development Our File No P2400-0 1 Dear Ms . Phillips : i I represent the Surfrider Foundation. The Surfrider Foundation is a California nonprofit corporation'.engaged in protection and enhancement of coastal environments through education, research and conservation. Surfrider.rnaintains its ��^ I principal office in the City of Huntington Beach. Surfrider has watched the City of, Huntington Beach persist with development of the pierside area with some dismay. Now comes the city with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "SEIRI' ) and the document fails altogether to discuss significant _ adverse impacts to recreation and land use from the project. Among others , the SEIR is specifically deficient with respect to the following: 1. LAND USE. j - The Surfrider Foundation agrees completely with the State Lands , the California Office of the Attorney General and others who have attempted to inform the City of Huntington Beach _ that commercial development is not consistent with the public's ownership of this - area. The area is dedicated by easement to the public for recreation. A series of restaurants can by no stretch of the imagination be considered recreational use . `_ i Ms La:ur;a':Phl'la-:ps Se:ptemb.er ;'3:, ':199:0 Page `.Two _ - ;Tha= Citty -of Huntington-=�Seach ':.ori y ;pos:gee:ae an ownership interest -h this :property inasmuch :ass it s "'truF�tee '.tn Y insure -.tha ,pub'ilc I,s :.rights are not snj:ur*d. -To have the Cray U itael'f :attesapt to .divest he ;public of; ;it6exarca�s-ed *-'fights i IS :a .very ::di-sturb:in9 ..b.re•ach of faduciary `duty,. The btl gati on 'of ..c:are which :a trustee .owes .to .its b.ensf c a'ry .is '=the h: the°gt.=duty known to :a:aw,.. A breach :of _this •:duty-`f:.or :-commerc'ildi 'ga;im --canri�t :be tol:eratsd. I j :Tf the City -were ,.- --.a,mK yze tha pro j est .in axiz -- :the .rec.reaton :,easement :.that bur.dans the progeny, ;this project ='1 :_cannot :go ..,:forwar.d _-a;s :proposed.. "The Surf.rlder --'Founda:_Ion ``has con.c_lude.d -that _no _,overriding :-cons derations .-.or Mit. ;gata'on _ measurers .:could .:poss.ib:1_y yrec.onc l°e 'the ';nature .of ,this ;proposal with :the .pub:Yic B .:r.iaght :to .rac.re—e ::on "the �grogarty. :Further, -not ,,:only 1s :the -S.EIR de:fic :ent ::fox ,Ia'ilure 'to -address •the :above rsf:erenced :-adver_se ..-impacts 'to <il`an'd use `arid rec;reat_on, ::but .-,add ti on-aljy 'the .pr&j-ect :cannot °,go °fo-watd t .becaus.e .it ..is :.il:lagal as a :br:eacli -:off 'the ,f "duciary ' uty that t2 8 City >ow.es -the ~public.. .Until -this pr.41imirraxy -issue "is re961.ve 1':!scus.sion of .zonmerc. -al ieva'l op :.-df -the �pr-q erty .ys preniatur-4, _ .Clearly -,any .;attempt .to _rater .quest ions )re.garaing 1`th' %use -to "w.crk .c.onducted .on the :prior -MIR ::is ':unacceptable .(-:S )e tiSI IR, pg. ,5.4):. Not :only was .this wand `..use 'issue :.not :addr---assed II)i "thee pri:o HEIR, :the City -may _have �volunta�nlly *ithheld -,this / Inf.ormati.on .from t he public xrevaew process,. Zec-acme tBOX's vi ab.ili ty .depends -:on ltil-1 :disclosure-a:f .z:1'1 x-d-l'+evant = rnt.-Or'mat dn, any -attempt .by :the :C.ity -.to -gloss cover :the 'e'asement$ `that ', rd'en this - rop-op --will be v ew$d by .the courts :,ass :an attempt °to frustrate -the goals o:f CEQA. = " '2 . 'LASS OF :S.C.ENIC 'QF '-_THE -P.IER, .BENCH LAND `OCExm, The pro j:ect ser:i:ou9l,y mpac't�s 'view sh'4ds "that nclud`a th.e ocean, ':waves., -,whit tewa ter„ sand, 'pier :and .,horizon, ,The -SEIR is defl.ciant in its analy.s'is -.of •these impacts.. :Rather than' submit .that -the :pub.lic i �t be :h-appy 'to-view th'e lbe�aeh from• 'in _. between tine : .bu ldings (SEI_R:, .pg,. 140) the SEIR :ou4h to :identify ' ways to preserve :the vaa.u'able w e.wsheiis ;now :ay.a .fable,.,__ `Tc attempt to -view the beach :from in between `the building$,_ while' traveling 3.5mph (.or fa'ster.) ,;a1•on'g ;'PCH iz .brit :only Impractical but most certainly a traf`i c ha••ra_3. 2-84 I - Ms. Laura Phillips September 3 , 1990 -- Page Three - Similarly, the SEIR identifies the silhouetted nature of the =building as- somehow mitigating lost viewsheds (SIER, pg. 4.0) The analysis::.is -limp and deficient because looking for the beach through a:'staggered building is .no more satisfying than '] through a perfect: square. �- 1 Further, identification of the existence of. "indirect views" as positive feature of the project is incorrect. (SIER pg. 48) . Indirect views are merely an unsatisfactory result of the significant� adverss impact to aesthetics the project 3 . PARKING ANALYSIS. The project is deficient inasmuch as it fails to note - and analyze the increased parking necessary to accommodate surfers who will now need to park in order to assess wave quality. Currently surfers may simply drive along PCH south of - the pier area and assess wave quality. Once the project obscures the beach and surf zone ;area surfers will have to park in order to assess wave quality. With over 300,000 surfers living in _ orange County (an estimated 250,000 within biking distance of surf in Huntington Beach) , perhaps as many as 1000 new parking spaces should be created. Regardless, because the SEIR fails to _ Q� investigate this significant adverse impact the public and City v officials cannot adequately evaluate the significance of this impact. - Further, pg. 61 of the SEIS states that the project will j accomplish objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan by providing ! more downtown retail and beach access parking. This statement is incorrect. It should read that downtown retail parking will be - increased AT THE EXPENSE OF BEACH ACCESS PARKING. Certainly all the commercial\retail expansion along main street will benefit from additional parking at the beach. I 4 . TRAFFIC The City of Huntington Beach has apparently failed to do a traffic study for some 10-15 -years . Therefore, any assumptions and\or -conclusions. contained in the SEIS regarding (�- traffic and\or circulation impacts from the proposed project are outdated and -of questionable validity. i i i i 2-85 i I Ms.' ..Laura "•Phi Ll ips September .3 , _1:9 9.0 H Page .Four i --5 . •ALTERNATIVE :`SI.TES ` I It dz --not =::acoeptab:l:e to ..rally ,:on `the earlier -EIR :for this ,project :f.or dis.C.uss.i•on o:f jal.ternative a tes '(.See SEIR Mpg. i - 55 ) . The .authori-ty :.cited therein ("CEQA, 'Sect"ion .157 8+5) -,does not justify -_failure :to °f.ully ..invest'i.ga:te :an .impact in ::an SEI°R where the issue was Inadequately addreas-ad =in :the '`firs.t =EIR! :The California Courts .ct ;'Appeal :-h-ave :mandated :rather etr c't requirements regarding �me:aninagf•u.l 1nvas.t1g.ation, of ::alterna•tive sites. Not only ,:i:s,-the . pri.or.-E:IR'-s .invels'tigati&n dt alternative it, ..but nwif° rmataongarin aen 'e forsites :defa : g mt _ public :z•ac.raation ..('S:ee item :No.. 1 , :above) require now inVes.ti�gati.on :into :alternative rives,. Sa-sed .:upon `the _forego-ing;., --the :Surfrider -Fo•und'ation :finds that .City -of :Huntington Beach cannot :-approve the .propoeed improvements unto l .the above •.refer_enc4d ilssues :are ,fair.ly 'met ,arid _ -dealt -w-Loth.. To :do s-o violates CEQA and "Ca`lifor.nia state 1aw. �I Surfrider v112 .continue 'to -f. ght this.;;pro j--act .until the =:easement :for public x-ecreation :is -addresssd :in 'a :.mesnin:gf.u`1 -manner 'if 'Surfr.i.der 'Foundation --can ':be ::of '.any -asalstance, please -.don't hesitate 'to -:contact '.the sunders 'gne-d. S'incereYy, Nark .A. .'Mass"ara i . I - 2-86 I - I , Gd I ' I — i � i I ' j 10 September 1990 C3 PAGES SUBMITTED VIA FAX To 960-1575 PER LP/9-10-90) Laura Phillips Associate Planner Department oy Comzunity Development City of ntintington Beach - 2000 Main Street Evntington Beach, CA 92648 I - SUBOECT: NOP DZIR #90-2 r)-V?LO2MEhT . Dear Nis. ?hillips : I air opposed to any and all commercwalizatior of the public beach specs. i^al'y designated and re e._red to . in :he above mentioned document. After review of this Supplementel' EIR490-2 , i have the following q%tag4ions and observations to make relative to the enviro=e tal impact that would occur - not only t0 the downtown residents - but to the merchants and visitors a1=ke: 1 . 0 EXZ C U T:V s, s uT'IMS,RY ?age 4 : it is noted that "the project-Is effects to traffic and parking are aot identiwied as significant. " See ccmments and questions below. 4 .0 ;XIST_NG SETTING, I?iPACTS , ETC. ?age 5: it states public. parking data was co?lectsd V-�, for the area in 1°89 . With the closure c: the pier, does this seem like ,realistic compilationn, o= data? I -- Face 27: Maxwell' s is noted as raving 80 spaces. j -;._}er cou.Tltinc their spaces I 4-ound this fi—ure to be v,� 1 _ 77 . You also note }*:at on weekends they take an i additional 47 spaces from 240 of the public lot. Why is this allowed and does the City gain funding f o= these additional places taken from the public? Your formula for restaurant parking is 10 spaces fo= every 1000 so. it. o¢ space. There Fore , at present ��� - "iaxwellIs should have 100 parking spaces , v::^.ich V indicates their present 77 spaces represents a shortfall. Do you consider taking public parki^.g on . i the weekend short`al1 mitigation? i - 'age 31 Fig . 4 .2. 4: Acain, accord--m `G, No,-,-. rOr=ula for parking spaces , the total restaurant rootage will ! - be 46 , 000 so. Ft 460 spaces . Total heron P. anned .or she develooment is 635 whit^ leaves 175 _cr beach :elated' =on-restaurant parking we c,.:: =ntly have 240 -- (less 47 on weekends ;cr r,axwell ' s sh.ort=a_, ) . why is less ,parking being des` gzated for beach use? I 2-87 i , Page Two _. COMMENTS & QUESTIONS RE DEIR 490-2 " K'DE 9/10/90 - Not addressed in the DIM IR: City Its.ued park .Yng stickers currently allow residents and non-residents to If / park in beach parking lots and on P.CE designated areas. AX these parking stickers going to be phased out and ii not, where will 'stickerparking be allowed? Not addressed is the DEI•R: The state and lifeguards of the Beach Division who work out of L'ifaguard headquarters at PCE and Lake are issued pa.rk'_• ng v � stickers to .park: in -t-he lot immediaae.ly adjacent .to heado-uarters . Where will they park .and .how will this be monito_ed should this project proc-eed? -- 2 . 0 INTRODUCT ON: Page 6 : why is LAND us-. not considered to be of Y Significant concern? 3 . 0 FROJECT DESCRIPTION: ?aae 18 : Wry was the E:iviror.3er_til B.oard _na_t ene 0=` � 1 the Agencies Consult.ed in `the :NO? .p:ocee.u.r-e? 4 . 0 F. STT_NG S?TT_:'G, ID:?AC^S & 14lm7L-:T?0?\ Xi .SL'RR -age 39: `Re the plan in-olementatien to cual_'_y PC3 `vim State Scent c Highway. _ _ it is stated that regarding the exi.Stinq Setting you :vlarl to "enhance and prdtect aesthetic and scenic values . " Row ;possibly _ aual':v as a scenic hig:l-:way w+ th the propcs-ed obs4_Lctiors - on the beach ebscuri::c all tut cbo:tive 1� views of what we cu:.rentl' enjoy? - - ?age 40 : It is state 4 1G1 the 3 -nro.nosed buildings' K•_11 indeed obst:uct direct the o= the ocean. Why, would this alone be considered? 0_ all the•` aavironmental inpacts in this docrm. en;, it, above all , +6 the most out—«aceous . An obvious alt'ernat_ve to this would be the choice o-E an alternate location.. Why was an alternative Site no Chosen ;or rh;s Ell:(? Dace 52 : Shade an S ad ow. It is stated that .. anticipated shadows wili rot sicz4 -0_cantly af,ect Pier. , Colony. This politic^ is reiterated on ?ace 2 of the ,nvi ronnental Checklist glee the=e will be _no i'.^.._vr_ I- O. air movement , i^..ois Ur9 , change � r-I 4Tat etc . - 17OWeve" , how can a pe-scn 1 el isve the-.-a w' ..l be n O V impact on an ow-ner of a unit., =ac n- ?C and the ocean; T_:C'^ a 35' h,.ah bu-Id.-ing directly ac«.css :he street?. ' ?ace 53 : Roc'_ ter«aae azi seccn d story u,ning areas -richt. C_ett- On—site elevated ocean VlnWS , h11t will 2-88 Page Three COMMENTS & QUEST& IS DEIR #90-2 KDE 9/10/90 � Y�1 they not also create off-site further obst_ucted view? (co01 J ` 5 . 0 ALTERNATIVES Page 55 : This is a comment only, that the choice of , f_ 'N Alternative 1 or 2 are the only honorable decisions the VV II City caa make for an enri*onmenta?ly superior project. Paap 57 : reference is made to Maxwell ' s as a potentially historic structure, and following on page � 58 as an historical structure. Ts it or is it not an historical structure? The downtown residents are very con-ez:zed about measures that most ?robably will be taken to mitigate short'al? parking in the downtovn redevelo"imen.t, that being, numbered street cul-de-sacs. 2t is past the V r stage ef- being a rumo_ ; it has been discussed at P_u:::erous city meetinCs; has !:)Oen_ defeated O ce ; and is reari_^.g it' S uyly head a:ain. What are the CitY' s plans for n.-=b9red street Cur.—ce—sacs? Thank y or the cpaortun.ty to review DEt:�=90--:. Since-ply,, h. Dia..ne Easte,l{ng .- 203 Cighth Street mounting on Beach, CA 92648 i - 2-89 t_a .� 1. 3 + , •.#. f,' i .,� l �\� �/ 4• si 1:\ 'to .;� �x 'j ,�i.• f;I n /.'u `�� r�1• ` f- ..' 4. .l' • #t �°i a .y - ,". .. .1. v� S'jl ��`'{ �; b1 #' 1 �! °��� ,� t�', !S/ ii /��, j t' 1f �;. ' t �' 1.. :f. :y t"� U!i 1} I 1 ( ! A! �.;) {'•Y � t!, � k �.�G.y J..� �'.. "+ f%t ' .r' lt�a `�" •` �y �'y' ,+'•'S !I ti 4. - - �, S:1 '-i .. ,i q Y a � i It t ty l yl rl A `rp (AV WLMIi P-S (`1Stj Cot L 81511,i� bidlIouheY t MaArJr: 'r AtjAYI 0(,c Fv?r 0ooT&e rUj 7/4� 02 Pp-oXIV, rTY 10) Ou—( C) � 3 A 211,Q Pc;�vl (r"f�S v.�ouob tNbrcAl� 7/r4( 774 0P- wrl c14 T 4, L Wr.-9 1QQr l'-I�c'tiJ i (vct Itv a rJD T6 t,v��.uD� ors rc�" to -b l► (7Hff Pu&.rC Q�aCq AQL b(SMrrSfEy;> A--? PW5oL 3 N Th'L(S lntp1.YmC- T1gd_I THEY ARE /JO-( fit) f;X , Gpr,:,St�S2Eb A�3 PA21 ox A Cog,,j,?P-C,AL PecTsg rY' CZ PPo,Ttc?`, 7PF- �rSCQr�iron) Dom n9c`T'SA.� �u��� • r r P a (o'J Oar PCAB Ll C. 7,�EA-M, 0'2 . .. w r`i N Pk 9 Z- I' APISAS . T/;CZ 17 N'a P2ov3c71 !s D5-M-rakD 4; o,e Ly:'NC ACQ=� P. C.11, '2pM (11/S' C'GLAQLy /NDICA-,RR P2o,31s�7'13 3E cotjS!D4QRD i;Y �1J D!47?Zrc7 Pi`AI-L I Bo rf4 or wNlclf APF ok-; `tNiff dG5AVJ S'rDH (Y, ,T�!crS1 3 y r��vEC i�rSC�rPTo�� ,A!orrlFI O)ja 1S' C'aNCLubs 7NA7-T'N5 OR/C4jAL IN``j—1 oj ' R. �, R, a� -� WA2 'T*7j CoNpr�>RQ A, ly. A Nd 7 (NC; uDrr.%C-t) 7' iC'T inn) 43 LevsIV, ��Jl t-,e I cor✓�� A�3.Arn% r Ti��2� !S f.,� ��'�&R&ntC� � fc,�YL.PlJ� c u ''�-' �N ��,r� �R Q.C. H. , �rJ �b�r oU r 7'�rR2� ri 2gYr fZ t 5 `PE PVLSLI �z A-EeMCKk Y FoQ F?PCRP-A`T%oii ' A 3. IN /93 /11.;� H�aLt /N Pg-JPC& OF `�`r-� sT,a'� GrzC�•%!t ��r ,�S' l�' `tip r All)tY .-? 15v'3L!` ?�?�(✓�N�l j'� r,, r.� '✓tip ^�t���r1J ( r'.'i'J.� •` �? O I��/� ;l�i G�'•�J i TtluS C)L3CB IN&A/N IFORC-tf:c- V Ng r-OAXt.us'loN `i A?'_Dz'r7Tzlc�' j� / 1 t� 2� j`10'�"Cor,�rD 2t�b i�o� eDMNts2c�.AL Dea/cic�L' Na % �cN . Yi7v ►r ,I AcGA/rJ r 7�1/Ya,2 I r.3o DrSCuSSlolJ o.;r Co.MNI,5 AL -'T>,kU�2LOPL-NIMN;I IN rVrIP/C?r /O 14L oti1."L`/ !!���ll6GoG�?8c7 Q� �(f7-p iS1841 D(S-cusSnb LuI!aa �'of41'$LE YFr?K/>vC L uc u2� Sl 3 (';7_5A. IN D/si7�/c7a iU�if,l 62 A Trri-AC, Ir OF- L( S/T�P� �tioc`cDlti �'IGtc2 io, C!,?Ct�A�/oil �.ffRN(alr'C' >ULLrP 7-f4E PM-?u4_'73' p' 7-hr.lS ,S?c70,'JI I�,ICLurE �rs72/C i"s (o f.11 � 1`uQ7N�2 SuPPoQ`r,�G 'T t�LQ CooCLuS/o% THA7t— 7,714a k C wkS. o�'� Gn.NSl>-'Q g7/o G Fr C4 MM r--2CrA L ZV9 L--)k I PI-AIJ A2Qp INCL.uDe4 3EACA�,' A4) - Sr�aRLII�>✓ Y�..orJ. Co�D�►��•�e-3`+Si'���i"''Ta 3�acN �ouL�t/AKJ, 2 u�AC`! ��X~'�li�ll.� 3�hCfj 3GU.Fi/A2D � 4-,j c.5? S"I AN W r j N ,Ati 4 "Q LAiJ !.6.P�� ��2lilry k29A . F(g TsecPI A S7bQlC I t<�V.0 .H ���1a210rzf- NC- ST'( vRI) HA �o,S:; 3��/.i F �--- b> Ivi/.K Rapt 11J1r/z 1 rV./� i(Iv��G/J �-26V(t>e3 AAA rti�Rz47iA.)!- VISUAL C-5CAe r2�C/Lt/25 .l �L l� f'`Fn-lz rl/ja CF a %? oCar4N r A tib ea% z-o,),4 YG / 1^-. 1 L L /uC /? W S _>/rCZ!f/,o/J ^? 771q& >jZJ , 17'I' l -.:.? 'o2i'!�/� `GwI.JGv�.� r �i!F ~urc rZ i' TZ A-C ja L 72 1 /' 2-92 Co�zM L 5.b GLNE2ALLY MCSrAse7,hzzTc !N,pAcTY F"QoM F'/-/E Pi-AA) WILL 1,�F PCs',—HVff '0ii , T/�g% PLAiJ CALLS rok DPAMA,777C j(vLP2oVVvteu-I'E To ` He BLurF: AP-,OA OF 7-,Ye P/.V2 /i-g 1:)Fu,51..opa/mauTOF A PA)Zk w(I q A 61�� a1L� A An;D /aWDscAP(N(- . .. Maws Ff201A TKL BLq;rFS AIJ> R-aom L1. ?t-= JJo PA2K((tC cS uciuQc�( P'o2 CLkAM✓OLE ! CAIJ F3vi4.l' W(�oSL�OPL ULL LZ ti;DS I�gGI�� 1 I1L r RAC `� P. C, /1. ENE Y�L A.ti CALLS' lr-b� 7,,YT Roz�i,r,1 ` ro/,,,' pi• `j NR P(R2 P\0>TNE Ry-i2imto(J CR7I 0liCS /,6-A/N + 7,49 GtiZ.y (AZti'il CF` 2>(siZ2(C7'/o /S "-?,,�fi0?Ai!C/J ? P/''�2 ( AND 2i77-1J 1(0/j Or I N—x b / 7oP.? Pb� `•i P/J `?:GfPf,'�2�� P�rioS I IN,r^0,2ti!T/ f-'okJpdG2� 1 >sL%."P I:-' BR ?RBSffP-V4>, (JD PARk(+ e-S?RucTLc2 7C2 L-xA.m Lg( [Aim z E gv(%7"�,j96S'? 7�P L j,-kTEA)Z> I1�C✓x �r,'r 2A�� �� 't.G.I�• �LL2?C lidTb "1N 7— (� jJFQI�/iJrr 'To- //..FLY ljo .1�L /J R3 ?u/L i�Q N A !'0 V14 W lJ/Cf4 ^x0�a 7�S' ��A>R Oz ?, C. )-'. , Fu2FN�2� ?'rI/S �H_e"i%c/J v v S i ATC13 i HA?' i' V(,L -I FROM j C. 1�5E �2 ��2V��,i( .�i;nR�?ro2 / {jo PKGt7 C% �.F �1/JY 1��,t1tJ/ h'�UCI °. ' i CC/vih�n�CYAL,�rvkcoP�aIE�c:T' CL LD !- A.�(� R_/vt J(.,�jlt2 C°Gl, SI�E��:JiorJ �02 !S(��Cl�/D �// jf! , ✓8 A. j A L x E✓A (ictj r- 2Lk(NQC'P-A.�R �GI/Ec /j 1, vi�S ,( a , ,J'! LFI.t' S! �1�� �(Z� _ rjs 2-93 I 14ou-) bes-8 'uc7,1zilA �y i NTC 7.4rS Sc P, /P /!c/J OP: Fop 14J 7,yL 0Aj l—Kr29 rS ivo ME/JTr,J CoMMLA RC IA zztiT/ OR A li C ic ��R c A•i;o ti SPF-c� Rasu�'rNC- r=2oN; S�Lf-! ,��:�diec:cP�Ma�:SG'� �u.B�rL ,��oMM�N� ArJ1) ��SPo�S� — 1��:,;��i�uC C•oM��°�.P.rroti IJi�girytiiC*-� .rig .1� =�, I�53 �'=PA2�'lCN I Of� �"',�i2K.0 kN� ��'r??A ?i.0•ll.� A;�M 02 A�JDuM - -P B 9. �2 4 ' '; 1983 y A -Q?PNRP� $Tg1 / LL%l�inT/�� iQ ¢c�' 1.`;]nr:;`i��L /�N� 'C':Gl'.9/'✓iG2,.^/RZ '�Ui�DGu_ l-.• U" %G ,) Gm 11JFaA.$lB . (�Lf-Cn r 20NT- Pj�or"'Ek y 'JJiL.L BL /J��D .D ..o RAC-GlJN'IG�JAr� LJ C 7r,' G,iG k,b�� rotii�! Qaai i"V„isL I Ve %ice (iy8 r.V1M5_1 ATE 1licrtirTy, i4F2€ rs Fjn, A Cry %r►'• �crzL- c;r- 7wLz— wA<"'J;-icJG S`;zuc%urzER 1 AO 'vSSuR C-s �r��LrrJ� rS N13 i F_EARrS3LF 3>uc" 6 i He P16,A1 rjA7-xk iA&-e. r�Z-3 f Atij SEA WALL, SlZL . C.``,Y_dd, pAPAgl/C= S N�R> 75, T3� S�?L�c rr p,tiDci h',Qi2 =-�F3�3iLc'Y SZtD/�'J �,�� irJCL✓�r5 lti t"N� "rliC� �Rc2I , . �.�vL: ,Pfv��+,;�;`U,�..S t•�c 15=!r�' CoF�s�'���t� 'J2 .,`sic.,���~ .. r n n/ 1 1 �!Rr Ic I'�r rJ' 'S 77�v..�.-r i'Ile 1 <<IF?C— L1iU�Sr'OIJ�.> /'•C 0 �! !L )J �P.�/L .l ✓ , 2� ? r�%�l/ fC 2-94 Cf r(-'cN(; rMAcLY T/" , )rJT`t`P-uc'rio1uP 7b A Ntj Z5 u.b y C)`7`H S rT�4 ro k 0k k K IO& r?VCMuQ< I�j '"r'L- T-ItiAL 'rzePo al—WLrte Navak CAk2�T� J 7SCc1A 74 ALw Cap � 171S 01;V10GfE' 7,qA l']—f!g . '. fZ. �Z (fo Iviq IEZCiAL avr/cGoP�tf� rs4TR/c(`7-�--I\J A/Jp RLaVAAJ Iv��2 Co��SiDS2�J Li,NG2e�M �u,clf eo�f�tN'Gec'��L �7�✓���/�M� rA-1f. C,� S NoY`�✓��1 F�LLL ro vulT��y nuBcrC� ?A.2Krr.;C- ST2vci;��� IN DrS'I� rc`.'"�'e•,U RND �C�d��, 0 r«vEN GJo;c�� �i4 Llrl�LIr A Sussaou�u`r` �. Arab y—>✓u;�y, E. T, F�, oG- � I AS A auRLimal l'A.L G�qA Gu1u.EL11j9-P, S'B--ToAj (/a, )C 7141/1 a►'Pof:7-u.Nr7`Y 'D coklfQ?-dr Y6 C/ 7-r a 2-95 S`e;ptemb®r 7 , 1990 Laura :Phillips3. Community 'Development .Dept. �,. t.,; :Planning Division' 2000 Main .Street SE Huntington Beach, CA .92648 _ `Uraaarn�enT tw CQn/!NUNII'-Y •C£V :'0�.!i4ft�T Dear Laura As a long time :resident of Iiuzit#4-ton :Beach :and -a ;pers-dn who frequently uses the City 'Beach-, T haye. 'been .inhere t,e4 in the .pro- posed Pi•ersi.de :Restaurant 'Plan <and :how ;;t will :af�'ect the :public's use of our fine beach and pier. .I have %attendet -one of th-e workshop _ meetings, watched :Channel 3 and '.have thoroughly .rea-d the Environ- mental Impact Report .90 - 2 . My ,chief .:concern .ass how the proposed development will _affect those of us -who use the beach-often and 'i _ want to be sure that 'th•e -public's -use',of this beach -:will 'not be, - hindered in any way by th-e development, "_'here are two -serious _flaws In the. . rfoxmatlon -and data used in the RTR that a`hould be :brought to :your .attent.ia.n .so that an accurate assassment :of the park'irg situation. c'an be :wade. The first inaccuracy Is on ;page 25: -in a -discuasion ,of existing parking utiiization.. This. ,whoZs -lot ie. metered at the ,present time The see ters .Ere .used during what could -be d-escr.i b.e•d yes the •off' .,season or whent:,e public noes net us:e the Tot to �spacity.. ' ''?ire public. can pay for as .little :as 15 :minutes -or •up to :several ho,urs:, - -depending on their length of stay at th°e -bealcn or..pi_e+ .I -fa: 1 'to understand how the author of the EIR could ,get a�-.y -figures from the 'lifeguard �[_a station that could accurately portray. the .nutber of. t&rB- tha use lot in the .off season. The .only time that you could. .accu_tLTely regis ter the cars using the 'lot is :du�:ing th'e aumme.r iseasor -wh-en I gate is manned by an attendant .and each car .pays a _fee to ent-er. Also mF-ny pa.-king pass ca-r:s, use this 1.6t and a count of these is not routinely taken.. � To further compound the use of .inaccurate aata . the writer uses the average monthly revenue as a tasis for the .rest OIL ^.is conclusions . The second assumption that- leads to inaccurate conclusions .is that r„axwe.11' s parking lot of 80 .spaces is autonat.ically expanded to 127 spaces on weekends.. Apparently th .s information was based on a discussion with the controller .at Maxwell' s Restaurant. 1, believe you will find that according to. their:.iease, .dddstiani -:spec s -3 car, be ava::lab19 to Maxwe111 s only if t:iey notify. the City in .adv.ana and that they pay for the use •of the extra -spec`es. •N,axw:ell ' s only_us s the extra on an occasional basis. 2-ss .u- V V. . . :.` It is erroneous. to conclude that the public parking, lot has only 193 spaces ( 240 spaces .min'us 47 spaces reassigned to Maxwell's X_3 Restaurant ) . This assumption leads the reader to think that the general public only .has the opportunity to use 193 spaces on weekends cvO}, during the summer. Basing the need for public parking in a new facility on this kind of flawed information and data puts the entire EIR in question. X_�J I don't see any reference to -the loss of public parking on Pacific I Coast Highway when a third travel lane is added. There is also the problem of lifeguard parking if a new parking facility is established I have some specific questions that I would like to have answered about the proposed project. 1. Who will make the decision about the number of guaranteed public parking spaces? 2 . Will the parking fee be the same as adjacent perking lots? 3. Will there be provision for short time public parking simular to present metered parking? 4. When there is need for additional public parking ( extremel hot weather, holidays or special events ) who will make the decision about availability? Sincerely, Tom Noble 8111 Atwater Circle #101 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2-s7 1 i GENERAL RESPONSES Many of the comments on the -DSEIR dealt`=with issues brought up :by more than one of the commentors. The following lgener4l responses 'to comments address those comments which are of general interest and provide information on the basic characteristics of the .project and the.DSfiR.. These general respons- es -are referred to in the specific responses to comments, -where applicable, by their index number as presented below.. GR-1 LAND USE AND LEGAL TITLE ISSUES Several commentors _questioned why land -use compatibility and other land use issues were not addressed or updated in '.SEIR '90-2. Some of the commentors based their comment or questions regarding the., legality of the .proposed land use because of alleged use restrictions �contalmed in the City of Huntington - Beach's title to the property. Other commentors questioned the compatibility of the project with surrounding land .uses .and.-'whether existing plans for the pier redevelopment actually included the- :proposed project.. Additional commentors questioned whether the project would induce additional beachside development. _ This response is .broken into three parts. The first :addresses the land use 'and title questions, the second addresses-the land use compatibility ques- tions, .and the third addresses the additional beachside development issue. Legal Restrictions on Use Of Propertx: 'In response to the Notice of Preparation .for Development of .the Pierside :property site, the State Lands Commission and several commentors have questioned the legality -of the .City's - proposed uses, claiming that prior deeds restrict the property, precluding the proposed commercial uses. The C:ity's position is twofold: first,. the City asserts that its title to the property does allow the uses contemplated in SEIR 90-2. With respect to this document, such legal title issues are not relevant to CEQA, but should be resolved by the City • Council . CEQA focuses on the physical impacts of the project, not the underlying legal ownership of-the property or legal issues brought up concerning easements. Secondly, even� if:i:t - were determined that the proposed uses are not allowed by the City's deed, the SEIR would still be adequate because the easement issue .is not relevant'•to CEQA. Appropriate Land Use. ' Several commentors have .raised questions regardimg whether the proposed land use is an appropriate use for the site. Questions-of, land use compatibility with surrounding. uses and whether the project .is prop- erly placed within the downtown/pier area have been raised. Many comments 09/26/90(CH6001%GENERAL.CMT) 3-1 s bring up a basic question of whether the proposed project was. ever included in previously adopted plans for redevelopment of the area, in particular whether the project is actually included in the Downtown Specific Plan. It should be noted that the uses now existing on the property, i .e. , restaurant, fast food, beach related concessions and parking, are identical to the uses proposed in the pending application and reviewed in Draft SEIR 90-2. The proposed project is a continuation of existing uses and an intensification of the uses on this site. This would result in greater site coverage, but is not a change in the type of land use. The project is designed to enhance the pier and access to it by increas- ing the size of the pedestrian plaza at the foot of the pier. Ultimately, the City Council must decide on the appropriateness of the proposed project when it considers the proposed Conditional Use Permit which is necessary for construc- tion of the project. The City Council has the discretion of either approving the CUP or finding that the uses are not appropriate and denying the CUP. Permitted Land Uses Contemplated In Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed uses are contemplated in the adopted Downtown Specific Plan approved by the City in 1983 and in the City's Coastal Element. Specifically, the site is zoned Downtown Specific Plan District 10 (Pier related commercial-), and desig- -- nated .on the General Plan Land Use Maps as Visitor Serving Commerc.ia.l . The Downtown Specific Plan was adopted after several public meetings in - accordance with City and State guidelines. EIR 82-2 was .circulated for public review, and was certified prior to -adoption of the Specific Plan. In a number of places in both documents, development of restaurants, mixed commercial uses, _ tiered parking and multi-level buildings are clearly included. The following citations are noted: 1983 Adopted Downtown Specific Plan 1. Figure 3.1 clearly indicates continuation of a restaurant at the Maxwell 's site, expansion of the boardwalk, and an "attraction" _. with a pedestrian overcrossing of PCH. The "attraction" with a development is shown as "Pier Head Mixed Use Development". 2. Page 24 comments on the design concept at the head of the pier "as - the focus- for the greatest intensity of future development. . . de- velopment activities will create a major activity node at the pier- head". 09/26/90(CHB001%GENERAL.CMT) 3-2 3. Figure 3.2 shows the :proposed land uses for 11 districts. The proposed Pierside Restaurants project is within District 10, clear- ly marked as Commerci--al Visitor Serving. 4. Page 31 provides text describing the permitted uses in Di-strict 10. - Specifically mentioned uses for the siteare commercial development on the ocean side of PCH, provision of additional parking through use of parking structures, multi-level commercial uses, and restau- rant uses adjacent to the pier. , . Inaddition, the Pier-Head node development is mentioned as being of primary importance in the revitalization efforts of downtown. 5. Page 52 indicates that possible .uses at the .Pier/Boardwalk include ". . .new dining establishment in -a multi-level area and the neces- sary parking to support these functions-. . :Pedestrian movement, strolling, window shopping and eating should -be the primary focus of this area EIR 82-2 6. Section 1.0, Introduction, states that the EIR analyzes the effects of the Downtown Specific Plan and explains that the Specific Plan - is actually an outgrowth of an earlier wCoastal Land Use Plan for the pier/downtown area. The Project 'Map on page 4 and all -.study maps throughout the EIR clearly. .-include the Pier, Pier-Head area, lands on the ocean side of PCH and the remaining downtown area. Even though the text in Section 3.0 states the project --.area "includes 336 acres of coastal land lying across PCH from a ,public beach", all other project descriptions and maps throughout the%-E1R include the proposed project site .and its proposed uses. 7. Section 4.3, Land Use, Zoning and Population, addresses development of the site and cumulative development as reflected in Figure 8, _ Specific Plan Zoning Districts. District 10 is designated Commer- cial/Recreation. 8. Parking structures at the site -are specifically called out. ,and analyzed in Section 4.4, and are included in Figure 13a. Subterra- nean parking structures are acknowledged again in Section 4.1 in a - discussion of grading impacts. 9. The proposed land uses for the project site are included in the Y traffic analysis done for EIR 82-2,: Greer and Company prepared the 09/26/90(CHB001%.GENERAL.CMT) 3-3 traffic analysis assuming 100,000 square feet (sq. ft.) Restau- rant/Commercial uses. j Subsequent Traffic Study Updates by Greer and Company - 10. The initial traffic analysis for. EIR 82-2 assumed the following uses for the site: 30,000 sq. ft. of quality restaurant; 30,000 sq. ft. of other restaurant and 40,000 sq. ft. of specialty retail . (See appendix of revised traffic report in SEIR 90-2) . 11 . The traffic analysis was updated in 1987 when adjustments were made in the Downtown Specific Plan which scaled back many of the pro- jected uses. The assumptions for the site were reduced in 1987 to 87,500 square feet total development for the site. This base was used by LSA in assessing circulation effects. 12. The traffic analysis was again updated in 1989 to reflect 40,000 square feet. Please also see Response PS-15 for more information _ on traffic analysis and cumulative development assumed for the analysis in SEIR 90-2. Downtown Specific Plan (Revised) Adopted 1989 13. After public hearings, the City Council updated and revised the Downtown Specific Plan. Throughout the document's text, in the legal description, and in all maps included in the document, mixed use commercial development of the Pier-Head area, which includes the proposed development site, is clearly indicated. Section 4.12 provides the intended commercial uses for District 10. Permitted Uses, Minimum Parcel Size, Maximum Density, Maximum Height, Maximum Site Coverage and Yard Setbacks are included in this section (pages 127 through 129) . The proposed project is consistent with these provisions. Also included in the Downtown Specific Plan are the official City zoning maps for the site. Please see Ordinance No. 2646-C in the Appendix of the 1989 Downtown Specific Plan, desig- nating the zoning and zoning regulations, for the site consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. In summary, the project is clearly included in all of the plans presented to the public over the past eight years and is contemplated in planning the existing and proposed uses adjacent to the site, including the recently com- pleted Pierside Pavilion Complex. located across Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) , 09/26/90(CH6001*,GENERAL.CMT) 3-4 I the approved parking structure proposed on. the north side of the Pier, and the reconstruction of the Pier. Impacts of Additional Beachside Development. Several commentors noted that the project could lead to further development on the coast side of PCH. It should be noted that the project site, an existing residential com- plex, and the proposed parking structure north of the Pier are the only sites currently not zoned for open space or public. recreation uses along the entire 8.5 mile stretch of the City's beachfront." The project site has been designated for commercial uses in all approved - planning programs as noted above. The balance of the City's shoreline is designated "open space." No additional private commercial development could be allowed under the Open Space designation. As. noted above, the project represents an intensification of existing land. uses and development rather than a change in land use or permitted land _ use: The primary environmental effects of this intensification will be the- adverse impacts to. visual resources, i .e. ,- Ioss of view, and the impacts to the historic structure, i .e. , demolition of Maxwell 's Restaurant, that are noted in SEIR 90-2. If the Council approves the project, a Statement of Overriding - Considerations stating how benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects will be necessary. - GR-2 OFF-SITE ALTERNAT.IYES Several commentors requested analysis- of off-site alternatives for this project, i .e. , sites located at other .than: the south side of the Huntington Beach Pier. They cited recent Court rulings [the Goleta cases) to support the requirement for analyzing off-site alternatives. - The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126(d)) state the following requirements: "Alternatives to the Proposed Action. Describe a range of reasonable - alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project-:which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." SEIR 90-2 described a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. The City takes the position that CEQA.does not require off-site alternati:ves;.to be considered because language of the guidelines includes the word, "or",,. sand -- that the selection of the site for this type o..f; deve.lopment in .the 1983 .Down- 09/26/90(CHB001%GENERAL.CMT) .3-5 town Speci f i c P1 an set forth. a chai n of 1 and use approval s that has 1 ead to _ consideration of the Pierside Restaurants proposal . As noted in the SEIR, the commercial designation for the site was selec- ted as part of the overall .Downtown Specific Plan analyzed in FEIR 82-2. There are other locations within the City and the Downtown Specific Plan area that are commercially zoned and would be appropriate for the construction of restaurants; however, the City, seeks the development of this particular site because of its relationship to the City's Pier improvement project and its furtherance of the Downtown Specific Plans objectives. No other site is immed- iately adjacent to the Huntington Beach Pier (with the exception of the site immediately north of the Pier, where a parking structure has been approved) . No other site would meet the City's primary project objectives of establishing a plaza at the foot of the Pier and providing an urban focus at the confluence of Main Street, PCH and the Pier. Alternative sites could be considered for restaurants; indeed, many such sites are possible. However, no alternative site could possibly meet the _ City's objectives with respect to this specific. pierside location. Any restau- rant project at a different site would have fundamentally different objectives and, therefore, would constitute a different, rather than alternative, project. Therefore, an analysis of alternative sites is unnecessary. GR-3 ADDITIONAL ON-SITE ALTERNATIVES - LOWER INTENSITY - Draft SEIR 90-2 examined three alternatives for the site in Section 5.0. Several commentors requested inclusion of additional alternatives having an intensity between the proposed project and maintaining the site -in its current condition (No Project) . In defining such alternatives, a primary objective would be to reduce the environmental impacts of the proposed project, i .e. , the adverse effect on visual resources and the potentially historic structure. Various commentors suggested consideration of lower intensity alterna- tives. Such alternatives include the following: _ Fewer restaurants (one or two) • Widened view corridors • Lower buildings • No .buildings higher than PCH In general , the more intense the uses, the greater the visual impacts of the project, al.though' any -use=more intense than the current use will have some — degree of adverse v,i.sual. impacts. Depending on the site plan developed for 09/26/90(CH8001%.GENERAL.CMT) 3-6 such alternatives, the visual impacts :might be .reduced., but would not 'be elimi- nated. It is not the purpose ,of CEQA to .provide an exhaustive array of alterna- tives. The alternatives suggested .by commentors that are summarized above are variations of alternatives already discussed in the Draft SEIR. Common sense would indicate that less intensity would lessen the identified '.visual impacts. To provide a full analysis of each suggested alternative is not required by — CEQA and would not provide the decision=.makers .with significantly different analysis than already existing in SEIR 90-.2. 09/26/90(CHBOOI%GENERAL.CMT) 3- .. . ,,RESPONSES TO OUESTIONSASKED -AT THE JULY,25. :1990 WORKSHOP NO 1 .ON SEIR 90-2 W1-1 Please refer to General Response G-1 for a discussion of this issue. W1.-2 The traffic analysis detailing the impacts of the proposed project is contained in SEIR 90-2. W1-3 Nightclub uses are allowed incidental to restaurant uses and are parked at the same rate. Conversion of the restaurant to exclusive nightclub use would require the issuance of a Conditional Use Per- mit. Such a CUP is not being requested now. Any new application for a nightclub would be subject to public review before the Plan- ning Commission under a new CUP. -- W1-4 Please refer to General Response G-2 for a discussion of this issue. W1-5 SEIR No. 90-2 details the visual impacts of the project, including the significant adverse impacts caused by the intensification of use on the site. - W1-6 Economic feasibility is not an issue under CEQA, but should best be responded to by the applicant, including the Huntington Beach Re- development Agency. W1-7 The 25 foot height limit is measured from the level of the pier at PCH to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, or to the _ deck line of a mansard roof or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. In response .to public concerns and to comply with code, the City will recommend a condition of approval that will require the building to meet code. Review of the final building form by the Design Review Board and Planning - Commission will be required to assure that concerns are addressed. - W1-8 The additional ten feet is measured from the 25 foot level , and is for items such as mechanical devices, chimneys, and solar energy equipment. Elevator equipment only may project 14' above the 25 ' limit. W1-9 This question asks consideration of a lower intensity alternative within a range between the No Project alternative and the proposed 09/25/90(CHB001%GENERAL.CMT) 4-1 s. . project. Please refer to General Response. G'-3 for a d'i"scuss.i-on of this class of alternatives. W1-10 This issue i.s analyzed. i.m SUR 90-2. Cars will enter the project at street level: from. a ri°ght in only access near Main: Street.. Cars will exit the street. l-evel: parking, at. aright- out, only exit near Lake Street. Cars. wi-111 enter and exit the lower pa:rki-ng level s at a. signal*ized. entrance opposite Lake Street. W11-11 The acceleration and dece:lleratton lanes are in. addit on to the six lanes of traffic on PCH and' meet. City standards for' such facil- ities. W1-12 The parking study contained in! SEIR 90, 2' ind'i:cates that there is sufficient commerciiall parking; for: th.i's proj.ect.. W1-13 The- rooftop dining, space is, intended for- use by. walk. i:n: patrons and is not be-i ng- parked;. W1-14 View perspectives of the project are contained; iin, SEIR 90-2, in the Visual Impacts Sect.i,on:. WI-15 Park-ing: _fees h-ave not ,been determined: at thiis time.. W1-16 It has not been determined whether -Hunting!ton Beach. Parking Passes. will be honored. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AT THE PLANNMG COMMISSION: MEETING OCTOBER' 2`1., 1990 PC-1 Rais,ing the structure .three: addi.ti!onal feet would; marginaltl.y tn- crease the visual' impacts of the project by a small amount. How- ever, the project can be constructed. at the proposed elevation and _ be in compl i ance with:. a•ll. appl i•cabl a City cod'es,, and no- adverse - impacts to public safety would occur. . _ PC-2 Please refer to General. Response G-1 for a discussion of lower intensity alternatives. PC-3 The alternatives analysis in. EIR -No. 82-2 considered: alternatives for the downtown area on a broad level incl-ud.ing• a lower intensity alternative for the entire area. The alternatives analysis i!n SEIR 90-2 analyzes specific alternative:: -uses for :this si.te,. The issue. 09/26/90(CH8001',GENERAL.CMT) 4-2 r � of alternative sites for the project is addressed in General Response G-2. PC-4 Please refer to General Response G-2 for a discussion of alterna- tive .site analysis. PC-5 The proposed uses are consistent with adopted Coastal and Downtown Specific Plan policies; please refer to Response PC-3 for a discus- - sion of alternatives previously covered. PC-6 SEIR 90-2 acknowledges the significant adverse impacts of the pro- ject on viewshed. PC-7 Comment noted. The project is consistent with the City's Coastal Element and the Downtown Specific Plan, as summarized in FEIR 82-2,. — Section 2. PC-8 Such indirect views would allow some visibility of the ocean through the view corridors. These views may be oblique, depending on the location. PC-9 The proposed buildings are taller than the existing Maxwell 's. The — lower intensity alternatives are discussed in General Response G-3. PC-10 A video arcade is currently located on the site and would remain an allowed use. No such use is presently proposed. PC-11 The proposed project is approximately 56,000 square feet. Minor _ variations may be permitted subject to Director review, within the 56,000 square foot envelope. PC-12 .The proposal consists of three buildings. Two of the buildings - will house one restaurant each. The third will have one or two restaurants. PC-13 A shuttlebus system to alleviate downtown parking and traffic prob- lems could be considered by the City independently of this project. SEIR 90-2 concludes that adequate parking and circulation facil- ities are available to support the project; therefore, a shuttlebus system is not required for this specific project. PC-14 SEIR 90-2. acknowledges the significant adverse impacts of the pro- ject on visual resources. The opinion of the commentor in opposi- 09/26/90(CH6001%GENERAL.CMT) 4-3 tion to these impacts will be taken into consideration by the deci- sion makers. PC-15 The parking structure allows parking for both beach going use and . uses on the site. During major storms, beach going use is not an- ticipated to be a major factor. The operator may consider requir- ing closure of the lower level'-when high tide and major storms coincide. PC-16 The comment represents the opinion of the Commentor regarding the height of the buildings, and shall be considered by the decision makers. PC-17 It is acknowledged that portions of Building C may block views from across the street. This adverse effect is noted in SEIR 90-2. PC-18 The Commentor's objections to this effect will be considered by the decision makers. Please refer '-to Responses W1-7 and W1-8 for a discussion of height. limits. Approximately 2/3 of Building C is 28 feet tall . PC-19 SEIR 90-2 acknowledges the significant adverse impacts of the pro- ject on visual resources. This comment expresses the Commentor's opinion that the acknowledged adverse impacts are not acceptable to her. This opinion shall be taken into consideration by the deci- sion makers. PC-20 The raised curb and shrubs in the median act to interrupt views from the inland side of PCH to the ocean. In addition, views are interrupted by the existing Maxwell'-s, Dwights, the lifeguard sta- tion and other landscaping. - PC-21 This comment represents the opinion of the Commentor that : views - -should not be obstructed from public right-of-way or private prop- erty. SEIR 90-2 acknowledges that the project,' as proposed, will -- result in significant adverse impacts to visual resources. , 'The Commentor's opinion that such impacts should not occur shall be taken into consideration by the decision makers. PC-22 The traffic analysis in SEIR 90-2 is based upon build out of. the Downtown Specific Plan with build out of the Waterfront Project included, and therefore represents a cumulative bui-ld out condi- tion. 09/26/90(CH5001%GENERAL.CMT) 4-4 PC-23 The two access points provided , are adequate for the 635 parking places proposed. A queuing analysis is contained in the traffic analysis in Appendix D`," page 20. PC-24 As noted in Response PC-22, the traffic analysis is based upon build out conditions in the Downtown Specific Plan area, and is consistent with City of Huntington Beach planning for the downtown. - PC-25 Please refer to General Response G-2 for a discussion of alterna- tive sites. PC-26 The statement regarding 30,000 square feet has been modified by the commentor in subsequent comments W-1 through 5. As noted on page 8 of SEIR 90-2, the EIR 82-2, completed for the Downtown Specific Plan, documented the environmental impacts for a maximum develop- ment of 75,000 square feet on this site, in addition to the square footage contained in the structure housing Maxwell 's Restaurant. - PC-27 Please refer to General Response G-2 for a discussion of alterna- tive sites. RESPONSE TO COMMENT - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOT-1 ;The City acknowledges that an encroachment permit will be required :should the project infringe on any State right-of-way. RESPONSE TO COMMENT - CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY REGIONAL INFORMATION CENTER CAI-1 Comment noted. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - JIM OTTERSON, AUGUST 23, 1990 Where applicable, these response to comments have been included in the attached revised Pierside Restaurant Circulation and Parking Analysis, revision -- date September 11, 1990. PS-1 Title page. So noted. Prepared under Supervision of Leslie E. _ Card, (RCE #34410, RTE #322) . RTE/RCE stamps have been included on the title page of the report. PS-2 - Number all Tables -in body of report. So noted. All Tables in the - body of the report have been numbered. 09/26/90(CH3001%GENERAL.CMT) 4-5 I i PS-3- Refer to Figures, and Tables: by number- and: page,.. S& noted=.- Refer- ence. to-all' Fi'g,ures and: Tables in the. text 1;s: by number and. page... PS-4 Inc.lude Execut.i-ve Summary at. beg-nn.iing o:f report.. So- noted.. An! Execut.i ve. Summary at the: beg, n i n ng:'of the report, tb-at summarizes _ the: r:es,ul ts, of the analysis a,s well as th-e findings aond' conc-Tusi!on!s has been i'ncTuded. PS-5 Provi,de copy of reference documents or per•.t.i:nent po:r:t:ion there. of (Greer. Study,, Crommel i:n Study,. etc..)!.. So= noted'.. A, copy of refer- ence., documents• used: in the: ci rculat.i on: ands parking: study has= been imc-l:uded: i n Appendix R of the; revised: s;tudy.- A, complete. Wbl'i,o:- graphy has- al-s-o beenn included:. PS-6 Submit 3 bound: copies, of the: rev:i.sed, study, fbir review. So noted:_ _ Three: bound` copies• of. the: revised. cfrculat.Tonr study., will' be s;ubmi.t ted to; Jim: Ot.ter:son:,, City Tr:affi;c Engi.neer... PS-7 Pag.e 1,: Paragraph: 4:. The: Pters:i;de: Yi'laag:e Devealopmen_t. project wa-s-. - previously submitted: for approval :: However•,: the, applfcati:on was: fic stwi rT: p . re iin afudy has been: changed toj reflect this: understanding- PS-8 Page: 2-, Paragraph; 3.. A, parking; an-alysts: ofF the! Lakes Street. Tot.�wa's conducted. based on informat.i-:on for d'ailTy r'evenue streamf for a• one year. period'. The find;i'ng4-.of th4s an•aTys:i;s were verified by the-• Crewl'eader of' Beach, Operat.i,ons,. A typical, survey was; not condu:c.ted as 1) th.e. seasonal! variation could• not. be: d'educ:ed from: a single event= or Mingle period' survey,, 21), the v'a.ri'a.t.ion between' days was co iftm. ed' by the Crewl!e:ad`er, of the parking: loot„ and; 3): the. Crewleader confirmed:' that, a hiJ'sto.ri:c°a-.T- record' search: was. more appropriate tQ: ob.talm a 'tempo;rali p:arkitng� prof i'l'e.. With regards• to. the: Ins;t.i_tu,te o:f Tr:ansportati+on Engineers (ITE) parkiing; gene-rat-ton rates for s4ti Ta.r, beach en:vl ronment. r:a •,taur•an,t.. uses.,. no d'ata, ts: awa,fl able: from; the.-ITE Vark.ingr Genera.tJ n Manual., 2nd` Edit:ion.. H''owever,, parking; gene:ratlon rates for Qual ty,° Restau; rants. (.turnover rates of; one: hour or:, longer)` range between; T.17 and' 15'..89' spaces, per 1,,000= square feet (;TSF). The •C-i'ty of Huntiington: Beach rater Is an-, approxi-mate. average of tKts;-range., -SANDAL s imx: Early' has. no di':r..ect. parking; rates fa.r ;beach restaurants. rn the:,S:an. 09/26/.90(CHB00.1'•.GENERAL.CMT) 4-� Diego Traffic Generators Manual., January, 1990. . Of the locations surveyed fn the SANDAG study, one restaurant, Anthony's Fish Grotto _. is a quality restaurant-and exhibits a parking rate of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Surveys of parking activity from other local sites, such as John Dominus, Ancient Mariner and Cano's, was not proposed in our origi- nal scope, because a survey at these locations would similarly record a given day and not define the seasonal variations. Howev- er, for informational purposes the parking rates for quality:- restaurants from the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach have been identified. The City of Irvine parking ordinance re- quires quality restaurants to provide 1 space/75 gross square feet of floor area up to 6,000 square feet plus 1 space/55 square 'feet of floor area over 6,000 gross square feet. The City, of Newport Beach parking ordinance requires restaurant to provide parking at a rate of 1 space per 40 square feet of floor area. It should be noted that the City of. Huntington Beach parking ordi- nance requires a parking rate of 10.0 spaces per TSF fo' iettaurant uses. Observed parking rates for the proposed Maxwell 's Restaurant of 10.0 spaces per TSF are consistent with the City of Huntington Beach parking ordinance. PS-9 Page 2, Paragraph 5. The purpose of the revenue information was used to determine the percentage -of utilization of the parking lot. - The results of this survey provide a comparison of summer versus non-summer and weekday versus weekend parking activity at the Lake Street lot. Although daily revenues are not collected, parking by annual permit is factored into the summer versus non-summer esti- mates. PS-10. Page 3, Paragraph 1. So noted. Revenue stream information for the public Lake Street lot and information regarding the normalization process have been include in Appendix C of the revised study. --- PS-11 Page 3, Paragraph 2. So noted. The word "approximately" on page 3, paragraph 2 �has been struck. The hours during which the 47 spaces are assigned to Maxwell 's are the weekend evening dinner hours between approximately 5:00 p.m. and closing of the restaurant during the summer months. The determination for the required addi- tional 47 parking spaces was made solely at the discretion of Maxwell 's operator.. It should be noted, however, that for purposes 09/26/90(CH8001,-GENERAL.CMT) 4-7 L of determi:n ng a conserv,attve park-i:ng demand ;estimate the 47 .addi- _ t•.i.onal spaces were assumed to "be util-ized 1by the :restaurant ii-uri ng all summer .weekend periods..• PS-12 Page 5, Paragraph 3. The estimated peak demand :for summer weekend parking was 193 spaces.. It 'was noted in the parki-.n.g study that the parki:n.g accumulation for the beach attraction ( ..e..:, the periiod roughly between 10::00 :a..�m. !and .3,:00 ;p..m..) .would Abe :sign: fitantly greater if -additional parking were :provided.. PS-13 ,Page 9, Para_gr.aph 1. So ;noted. That is a correct statement and an iimportant toncl,usion. It :i:m.pl ies that flaxwelI's tends to ioperate - with a ;parkng supply Tess than what is required by City code. Up to the City code is required; however, for peak :conditions, hence the request for the 47 spaces. PS=14 Page 13, Pa.ragnaph 2. So .noted. The typo error i:n the word ";pre= vious" 'has been corrected in the revised study. 'PS-15 Page 14., :Paragraph 3. As ,noted in the Downtown Specific �Pl an. - Traffic Analysis for Pr000sed Density Reduction i:n the Downtown Core Area, .prepared by 'Greer & Co.. ,in April 4, 1989, density re- ductions in the downtown area resulted in :a 13% trip :reduction:; ?n the original Huntington Beach Downtown Specific .Plan .pea'k hour:-And daily traffic volumes. This study was prepared assuming develop- ment of the Pierside Village project. As identified in our nal Pierside Restaurant -Circulati m and Parking Analysis studyi- he currently proposed Pierside Restaurant project will generate 68% fewer peak :hour trips as compared to the previous :Pierside V111age project. The peak 'hour traffic volumes at the intersection of,LAke Street and Pacific Coast Highway presented in the Pierside Restau- rant Circulation and Parking. Analysis are based on The Waterfront - Traffic Imoact Analysis, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc.•; in January, 1988. The Waterfront study is based on the original-,flun- tington Beach Downtown Specific `Plan prior to the application of _. the proposed density reductions and prior to the reduction in trips generated by the proposed Pierside project. . Therefore, to represent forecast conditions with the proposed Down,- town Core Area density reductions; -the 13% peak hour trip reduction was applied to the cumulative Downtown Specific Plan and committed growth traffic volumes. This reduction was applied to :the through, — movements along Pacific Coast Highway, the ;northbo.und right.: and 09/25/90(CN8001%GENERAI.CMT) 4- i a S southbound :leftturn volumes, and the westbound right and left turn volumes at the intersection of Lake -Street .and Pacific Coast High- way. These turn movements are not associated with the project trip assignment and would be affected by the reduced Downtown Specific Plan intensities. All other turn volumes were reduced by 68% to represent the reduction in trips generated by the proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project. — PS-16 Page 14, Paragraph 4. Trip distribution- for the proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project is based on the Downtown Specific Plan - Traffic Analysis for Proposed Density Reduction in the Down- town Core Area, prepared by Greer & Co. , in April 4, '1989. This study identified general distribution patterns for several zones within the City of Huntington Beach Downtown Core Area. Project trips were assigned to the project access location assuming routes which facilitated inbound and outbound access to Pacific Coast Highway for travel along the major travel corridors. As a result, 35% of the inbound peak hour trips were assigned at the Pacific _. Coast Highway driveway and 65% were assigned at the Lake Street .entrance. Outbound peak hour trips were assigned assuming 45% utilization of the Pacific Coast Highway egress and 55% utilization of the Lake Street exit. Trip reductions were applied uniformly at all inbound and outbound project access locations. PS-17 Page 15. So noted. The ICU summaries for weekday and weekend - traffic turn volumes have been combined and are presented in Table C of the revised circulation and parking study. PS-18 Page 15, Paragraph 3. The average a.m. peak hour inbound beach traffic volumes are based on a four day survey of the Lake Street parking lot conducted by the parking attendants in June, 1990. Inbound traffic volumes were recorded in one hour intervals between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and the average inbound summer weekday (average of three days) and weekend traffic volumes were identified for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. PS-19 Page 15, Paragraph 4. The peak summer day cannot be specifically defined, as this day is speculative. A number of peak days, such as the Fourth of July, Memorial day weekend and any hot summer day, may exceed capacity. Therefore, a peak day was not identified, nor were turn movement counts collected for this period as a part of this analysis. One reason that the peak day was not identified is — that it is not appropriate to mitigate traffic for a small portion 09/26/90(CHB001 -GEKERAL.CMT) .4-9 of the overall annual traffic profile. This "ts simila.r to .not provi:di ng 100% parking at a shopping center for .the daybefore Christmas. PS-20 Page .16, Paragraph :2. •So noted.,. Reference to 'the direction.-of Pacific Coast Highway .has been "revised !to show Pacifi-.c :Coast •#ligh way as the north/south street as opposed to the east/west :street. 'Reference U-turn opportunity -along Pacific 'Coast Highway has been changed from Fifth Street .to Sixth Street. 'In addition., 'it 'is noted that the right turn only lane :at Lake .Street (first Street) will take priority over an acceleration lane existing the project site. PS-21 Page 16, -Paragraph 2.. -So noted.. •Handicapped ,access route's from Pacific Coast Highway to the .beach area :through the :project "shall be included i-n the design of the pedestrian ci:rcu-Tation. In -addi- tion, curb :cuts at the intersections of Pacific Coast Hi"ghwayand Main, and Pacific -Coast Highway and .Lake Street shall Abe-included in this Aes•i"gn. The traffic study has been modified to reflect this additional text. PS-22 Page 16, Paragraph 3. Pedestrian. access and pedestrian flow will be -maintained through the :project-.site. As indicated i.n thetext-, the sidewalk along the southerly.:side of 'Coast Highway is .proposed to ,be eliminated, reinforcing pedestrian use of the Pierside Resta- urant's promenade and eliminating pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along the .Coast Highway at the right in-, :r .ght out l ocati'ons PS-23 Page 14. So noted. The site .plans reflecting the beach access- and lower parking level have been included in the :revised study..- PS-24 Page 17. As ind"icated in the project .site plan Pacific Coast�:Hijjh- -way level in .Fi.gure 6 of the study, an acceleration "lane has..been - included at the right turn out. The inbound right turn only pocket into the site is also .i ncl uded in the site plan and is approxi- mately 150 feet long. PS-25 Page 18, Paragraph 1. The applicant has indicated that pedestrian/ bicycle facilities will be located throughout the project_prome- nade: In. addition, as indicated in the text, pedestrian/bi`cy-cle paths will be accommodated along. the Strand. Elevations and ..c;ross sections have been previously submitted as part of the overall Conditional Use Permit application. 09/26/90(CNB001%G-cNERAL.CMT) 4-10 f PS-26 Page 18, Paragraph 2. So noted. Future bus turnouts have been identified on the site plan, and the graphics has been updated. PS-27 Page 18, Page 3.: The actual gate operation and valet selection have not been made at the time of preparation of the study. How- ever, the rate of 305 vehicle per hour is a representatively con- servative estimate of the capacity of a gated access. With respect to the valet service, additional text and recommendations are made to ensure that the service selected operates at a service rate equivalent to the gate capacity. This service is to be monitored, and if the service rate is deficient, creating queues beyond the 44 _ feet identified, additional staff must be accommodated or the valet service point moved further from the driveway. It is the applicant's intention to select the appropriate gate design and valet service that would reflect the parameters described in the analysis. PS-28 Page 18, Paragraph 4. So noted. The intended meaning of the second sentence is merely a discussion of why the inbound p.m. peak hour traffic volumes were selected. For purposes of this analysis, the arrival rate is based on the inbound p.m. peak hour traffic volume. The inbound p.m. peak hour represents a worst case sce- nario based on the fact that the combination of restaurant and beach arrivals during this peak hour are greater than the inbound a.m. peak hour beach arrivals. PS-29 Page 18 (bottom of page) . Table heading has been relocated to the next page. PS-30 Page 19 Table. As- presented previously in response to comment #16, trip distribution for the proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project is based on the Downtown Specific Plan - Traffic Analysis for Proposed Density Reduction in the Downtown Core Area, prepared by Greer & Co. , in April 4, 1989. This study identified general distribution patterns for several zones within the City of Hunting- - ton Beach Downtown Core Area. Project trips were assigned to the. project access location assuming routes which facilitated inbound and outbound access to Pacific Coast Highway for travel along the major travel corridors. As a result, 35% of the inbound peak hour trips were assigned at the Pacific Coast Highway driveway and 65% were. assigned �at the Lake Street entrance. 09/25/90(CH8001••GENERAL.CMT) 4-1 1 PS-31 Page 19 Table. As presented previousl:y ,in response to�_comment ,#18, the -average peak .hour A nbound l beach traffic .volumes are .based on a four day survey of the Lake":Street parking :lot conducted `by 'the parking attendants in June, 1990. `Inbound trafftc �volumes were re- corded in one hour intervals between "6:00 --a.m. .,and 1 00 p.m. , ,-and the average inbound :summer -weekday `(average -of .three days) :an'd weekend traffic volumes were identif ed �`for'both :a m. and p.m. Oak hours. These volumes are termed average::because -they reflect week- - day data averaged over three -days,' :and •weekend :data 'that was :col.- lected .on an arbitrary day .wi'thin the :summer months. PS-32 Page 19, Paragraph 1. A discussion of the peak -summer =weekend demand is provided in the second :.paragraph on Page -20. PS-33 Page 19, Paragraph 1. The reader is ;referred to ,the ;Crommelin Report, where it -is ,stated that -305- vehi•61es per hour is a M-n—e sand one-half second per vehicle headway-. The Cromm6lin :regort�dots '•n'dt assume .-a uniform .arrival :rate, but -assumes peak 'p-Tatoons.. The - purpose of this queuing analysis As' to -provide =adequate insurance that .park-i,ng queues �wil l not be created 'whi`ch would subttar tfailly conflict with :the arterial ..street :system, causing 'hazardous 4br unsafe .operating conditions, 'and :creating "1'i.aW ifi�es ffor t1f �Ctty. PS-34 Page 19, -Paragraph 3/Page .20., Page 20,, Paragraph 1. Aeviitew -.'of the s.i'.te pl an _.does indicate that approximately =130 'feet area available: to accommodate vehicular storage.. The text :df the -cfr-cul4tton study :has :been modified to :re,f.Tec.t this :change. Thl-s ;modi`fi:cation: does not affect .the results :of :the queuing analysis :A ifull size:_ site pa an has been submitted ,with the rorig�i nal 'Gondi�t�ironil ''se. Permit submittal . PS-35 ICU:Sheets.. As presented :previ-ously in -response 'to !comment 415;, - forecast turn volumes -at the -intersection of .Luke -Street -and Pacific-Coast .Highway are taken from the approved and 'certiffed-• °. Waterfront Traffic )Impact Analvsj�s:, ;prepared 'by 1-SA -Assoc-ifiates; Inc. , in January, 1988. As the attached ,workshe'et indicates, 'two' peak hour trip reductions were applied to the 'cumulative and fcoin" mitted growth traffic .volume movement-s. The `13% peak 'hour -trip'. reduction was applied to the through tmovements al'ong 'Pactfit 'Coas 'Highway, the northbound right and southbound left turn vollumes, and--. the .westbound right -and left turn''vol,umes at the fntersect°ioh'-°of ' Lake -Street -and Pacific -Coast .H:ighway. All other turn yolumes` rere 09/26/90(CHB001*GENERAL.CMT) 4-12 i I I , i i reduced by 58% too.rePresen-t::-the- reduction i nv tri ps!,generated by the; proposed -Pi ers.i de;.Restaurant-,Devel:opment -Project This ICU methodology is similar to the approach used in the approved and cer0fied City documentst forathe Wate,r,-ront, rojectY;r thelHol-1 --Seacl.�ff General Plan pr.oject,�,. the _;C:iv.ic--CenteY::.r..esi:den'--- t:i,al .proje A: and--;the--Downtown .Spec iftofV'an: be. noised that :the. -ICU,. assumptionsa..reg4rd1ng kapac1ty. a-re-,zmoreicons`er-n. vat;i;ve= than_:the: current County At sumptlonV of 1•,:700s vehi:c=l.es� pers hou_r:;:pew 1ane.i.: •In;add ition;,:;the'cl-earanc.e,..i:nt:erval,- of:ten. percent? is-more conservative:than,the-current.�Courity standard '.oft-IM ye; per:: - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS -�ZITY:•OF-HUNTINGTON-:BEACH ; WATER-;PLANNING Pl ease refer to Responses:- WP=2,.through-WPR 4_ J rcu s.,}i or, ;, - "'.f'i _ � - :_� -i i'"fi - i" fit C�r=C-r.. '1: a' ;.i'- -a, _.. WP-2 Mit .gatIon measures identif,>edmin tithe Ll988 Water, Master ilan.nshall ta .conditl_onrof project-approval_ :.,;.., bp:t� T-Z:�_ se WP-3 The project will be conditioned, i .e., through required payment of fees..at time -ofrissuanceFof: Bui-1.ding;;PLermit-, -�toi;;ensure that-supply - sources .-arei_sufLfici.en.t to: mee.t�peak: hour ,;demand .-.a-!,1 it 6&nticl'-. gated,=tfiat (implementation. ,of the �1988:�-Waterz. Master; Pl-,an�, shal l� ensuire.Ysuffici*o. water,•suppl:,ies_,-;in'-. th,e�r untown-.area X d :: ��s _. "'# � 1 rti: •.. -° �4�.. •.i; tee,_i..�j t 1 ._. --'_��'.i&: .-,`.-!..., {..�`e;. i .. ... WP-4 Please refer,_to-Response-WP ' w: y _ _ WP-S The _project.ashal l _ be -,condit ,oned;;_to•- dts.gu.is.e�, ::mas;k=%r: otherwisez. hi-de:-such.--devices=,with ntlandscape-tfeatures. ,.A v., RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .- ENVI.RONMENTAL ,80ARD.-X.IL.Y, HUNTINGTONrB EACH Cc, _ tn'i. 'C'. - . yC.j a r 3'7 ..ii 3t:=`N. !t. K` ;';y•s7; ` EB-1 Please refer to RResponses EB,2 through E6t 14;;for;;d;tscusskion :of; these i s.sues ;"a;r an-d _ . EB-2 This comment+�provides a description of the project. No further response, iss necesrstry. � - v �_ �. ;, .- P -.r ..., d t E ri:. -tic .a;i ., .. J EB-3 `,The.4_iss.ue related, t�_ parkingv�land, the -p.arking.:�-structure; .are.; addressed--in. SEI_R,-No,_;�90!2 ..'s,The :issue-of� tra=ffi�c:9congest-1 n�-at .. adjaeent •intersectii,onsr:i�s also.:addre:sis:ed inn_SEIVNo- .9.0-.2..: :=Thel _ comment does ;not ;referr . t-9.!,any:rspecific issues raised in SEIR No. 09/26/.90(CH6001;•GENERAL.CML.) ; 4w13r 90-2 which require further analysis. Please also see Responses PS-1 through PS-.35 for clarification of traffic and parking issues and revised Pierside Restaurant ,Circulation and Parking Analysis by LSA, dated September 11, 1990 (attached) . EB-4 It has not been determined whether dewatering will be required. Any dewatering that is proposed .for the project will require _com- pliance with .applicable City codes and State and federal guidelines regulating dewatering activities, which will limit the impacts of such dewatering to a level of insignificance. Prior to .issuance of any permit for dewatering, the impacts of dewatering on groundwater and underground storage tanks in the vicinity will be assessed by the Community Development Department. Compliance with existing City codes and procedures wi11 be .ensured prior .to the issuance of a dewatering permit if it is necessary. Procedures already -in' place will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. EB-5 The intensification of uses on .the project site will result in additional vehicular movement.- '-This issue is addressed in the traffic analysis in SEIR No. 90-2, Section 4.2. The project is anticipated to have a minor incremental increase of .people..using the bicycle and footpath adjacent to the project because of the intensification of commercial uses proposed at the beach .'level : The proposed uses are -similar' in scope to the commercial:.--uses exi-sting there today, but will - be slightly intensified. This_ :is not considered a significant impact. EB-6 Please refer to Responses EB-8 -through EB-14 -for responses .to" additional concerns. Any asbestos that is identified prior,-to the removal of the existing structures will require compliance 'With existing City and State regulations for asbestos removal . Rel'_iance on existing procedures .and regulations will reduce impacts-::..to- a — level of insignificance. _ EB-7 SEIR No. 90-2 acknowledges that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. This SEIR was prepared in::re- sponse to City staff's findin.gs - that a Supplemental EIR�-.A si." re- quired. EB-8 Based- upon existing geological. -information, the geological .-sub- structure under the site is composed of sand. Compliance with existing City codes and building- foundation requirements will. re- 09/26/90(CH8001'••GENERAL.CMT) 4-14 suit in a,safe structure, and reduce.geological- impacts to a level - of insignificance. _._ . EB-9 The potential for an incremental increase in restaurant waste is acknowledged; however, any odors associated with waste will be re- duced to a level of insignificance through compliance with, existing City codes and County Health Department regulations . for on-site storage of such waste. The extent to which the project may in- crease use of existing public facilities off the site is antici- pated to be so minor as to be insignificant,' and therefore, any objectionable odors created through such increased use of public — facilities are also expected to be insignificant. It should be noted that the project will provide restroom facilities on-site for patrons of the restaurants. EB-10 It is acknowledged that the project is larger . in scale than what currently exists and will produce new light and glare. However, such impacts are consistent with -the uses currently existing and - adjacent to the site, (i .e. , the Pierside Pavilion, Pacific Coast Highway and the Pier) and such an increase .is not expected to re- sult in a significant adverse impact. Please also see Draft SEIR 90-2 for discussion of these effects. EB-11 The project will result in an incremental increase in City fire services. The Fire Department has indicated that they have the -" resources to serve the project. The project will also result in increased revenues to the City which have the potential to offset any increased City costs. The project proponent estimates sales - tax revenues to the City at $150,000 to $200,000 annually, plus lease fees. EB-12 The project may cause an incremental increase in police services at the site similar to the installation of any restaurant facilities - within the vicinity. These costs are estimated by the Police Department to be $628/yearl. The Police Department has indicated that they have the facilities to serve the project. In addition, the revenues to the City generated by the site have the potential to offset any increase in City costs. As noted above, the project _- is estimated to generate $150,000 to $200,000/year in sales tax 'Memorandum from Jim Moore to Laura Phillips, June 6, 1990. 09/26/90(CHo001--.GENERAL.CMT) 4-15 I { revenue, plus lease fees, which will more than offset any incremen- tal increase in City service costs.. The project will provide additional trash cans along the beach and bike path along the project frontage. It should be noted that while the proposed project will increase patronage in the area, it is anticipated that most of the additional patronage will be drawn to the project site itself. The additional restroom facilities - located on-site and additional litter facilities located on-site, will offset potential increases in general patronage of the area. In addition, the project will provide handicapped accessible public restrooms. EB-14 Since the: primary tenants of the project will be upscale restaurant _. clientele, it is .not anticipated. that patrons of such facilities would immediately use the bike path/RV facilities or beach fire- pits. They are more likely to : use the pier and proposed pier plaza. The fast food and beach serving uses are similar in size — and scope to those that exist, which reduces the potential for an increase in nuisance littering and reduction in aesthetic qualities due to the project. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD, AUGUST 28, 1990 HBEB-1 The comment summarizes.the project request and location and gives a recommendation regarding the Draft SEIR. In the recommendation;° the Environmental Board states that SEIR 90-2 is inadequate +•and that more study is needed for traffic, parking, aesthetic,. .and cumulative impacts. Traffic, parking and cumulativd-•J mpacts are addressed below A:n _ Response EB-3. Aesthetic concerns are addressed in Responses EB-8, 9 and 10. . The recommendation that Draft SEIR 90-2 be supplemented with:;addi tional and more detailed studies is acknowledged. The City staff respectfully disagrees with the recommendation. The comment will — be considered by the decision makers prior to action on the pr.opo- sal . The City staff respectfully disagrees with the En.v.ir..onmenta-1 Board's finding that Draft SEIR 90-2 is inadequate. 'Draft SEIR• 09/26/90(CN3001,-G-cNERAL.CMT) 4-16 r., 90-2 fully addresses the significant impacts..on views and aesthet- ics caused by the proposed buildings. The SEIR also acknowledges the significant impact caused by loss of the Maxwell 's Restaurant structure due to its place in Huntington Beach's history and be- cause it is potentially eligible for the National Register of His- toric Places. These two impacts are presented in the Draft SEIR as significant impacts even after mitigation. - Traffic and parking issues are addressed in a study done by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) which is an update of Greer and Associates traffic analyses. Both analyses build into the calculations cumu- - lative downtown development. Please see Response PS-15 and General Response R-1 for additional explanation. For these reasons, City staff does not find sufficient evidence that would lead to a staff recommendation to cause additional studies to be included in a revised Draft SEIR. HBEB-2 Comment noted. HBEB-3 As noted in General Response GR-1, EIR 82-2 included a traffic analysis performed by Greer and Associates. This report was up- dated in 1987, and again in 1989, and is used as a basis for the Circulation and Parking Analysis in the Appendix to Draft SEIR 90- 2. All of-the analyses done by Greer and Associates and LSA util- ize a future base which includes downtown cumulative projects. Reference documents (Greer Study, Crommelin Study, etc.) have been included in Appendix B of a revised Pierside Restaurant Circulation - and Parking Analysis, dated September 12, 1990, attached to Final SEIR 90-2. _ Please also see. Responses PS-15 and PS-30, for additional informa- tion. Please also see General Response GR-i. HBEB-4 Comment noted. However, it is unclear what the comment regarding -- Fire Code occupancy is related to. The City will ensure that pro- per occupancy is assigned to the project and that it is enforced. — HBEB-5 Please see Response PS-24 and page 17 of the revised LSA Traffic Analysis. The issue is also addressed in Response PS-27. HBEB-6 Bus turnouts are positioned after a signal (e.g. , southbound at the proposed Pierside .Restaurant site) precisely to avoid impacting 09/25/90(CH5001'•.GENERAL.CMT) 4-17 traffic. No evidence is presented that would cast doubt on the _ proposed location of a bus turnout or to cause a bus turnout loca- tion study to be performed. HBEB-7 Comment noted. It is unclear what the comment pertains to. No - further response is possible. HBEB-8 Draft SEIR 90-2 acknowledges the significance of the impacts on views. No redesign is anticipated that would increase impacts on views and shade/shadow, as suggested in the comment. HBEB-9 Light shielding and placement will _be reviewed by the Community "- Development Department prior to release of building permits. This review, which normally takes place for all projects, will ensure that proper mitigation is implemented. HBEB-10 Comment noted. This comment will be reviewed by the decision makers prior to consideration of the SEIR�and the proposed project. HBEB-11 Comment noted. This comment will be reviewed by the decision makers prior to consideration of the' SEIR and the proposed project. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD, SEPTEMBER 8. 1990 HRB-1 The decision to prepare a SEIR is based on an evaluation of EIR requirements.. Section 21166 of the California Environmental Qua- lity Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) . sets the standard to determine whether another. EIR should be prepared when an original EIR has been prepared. Section 21166 states: . "When an Environmental - Impact Report has been prepared for .a '.pro:= ject pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental - Environmental Impact Report shall be required by the Lead Agency or by any Responsible Agency, unless one or more of the fol,lowffig events occurs: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report, i - (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will re- qui`re,`major the in the,environmdntal impact report;. ::, 09/26/90(CH3001%.GENERAL.CMT) 4-1 8 (c) - New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Environmental Impact Report was cer- tified as complete, becomes available." The third condition (c) as stated above is potentially applicable to the proposed project. Section 21166 is further explained in the CEQA Guidelines at Section 15162, with the additional language pertaining to Subsection (c) of 21166, "New Information": (B) (If] The new information shows any of the following: 1; The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed previously in the EIR; 2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; 3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; or 4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previously considered in the EIR would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment." - Based on the application of. these tests, it has been concluded by the City of Huntington Beach that a SEIR is required for the fol- lowing reasons: 1) New information regarding the level of detail represented by more specific project components could not have been known at the time FEIR No. 82-2 was certified (i .e. , components of the project represent further refinement and detail available) ; 2) The project will have one or more significant effects not - discussed previously in FEIR No. 82-2 based on implementation of the project components. In accordance with the foregoing, the analysis for this SEIR focuses on project components prepared subsequent to adoption of FEIR No. 82-2. Consistent with provisions of Public Resources Code (PRC) 21083.3, definition of a "project" in terms of implementing a redevelopment plan per CEQA` Section 21090, and the CEQA- concept of 09/26/90(CH6001••GENERAL.CMr) 4-19 i "tiering", the scope of- analysis focuses on effects on the environ- ment which were not previously examined and effects which were determined to be potentially significant environmental impacts different from, or in excess .of, those effects ;previously examined _ in prior FEIR 82-2. The STIR updates FEIR 82-2 and provides focused review of the im- pacts proposed project in the context of the larger "project the i Downtown Specific Plan and redevelopment plan. HRB-2 Comment -noted. HRB-3 The City respectfully disagrees that a second potentially signifi- cant resource would be destroyed.. The terminus of the Pacific Electric line is no longer present at the site. Should evidence of -- such a site remain buried, the following mitigation measure shall ,be-enforced by the City: An archaeologist qualified by the City shall be present during initial site preparation; grading and foundation excavation for each potential building on the site. Should archaeological or historical remains be exposed, the site monitor shall be empowered to stop excavation work until such time as artifacts can. be tested and appro- priately removed. After building completion, the City shall cause to be erected a historical monument memorialising the location of the Pa- cific Electric Line terminus: HRB-4 The checklist item referred to : (Item Id.) relates to earth re- sources, not cultural resources. The Draft SEIR acknowledges loss of the Maxwell 's Restaurant as a..potentially historic structure. HRB-5 Please see General Response GR-1. HRB-6 Circulation and Parking are addressed in the SEIR. HRB-7 The site is not a park site; it is an asphalt parking lot with restaurant and commercial structures- on it. The City respectfully- disagrees that expansion of these uses will cause a :reduction- recreation i.n> areas. 09/26/90(Ck3001•••GENERAL.CMT) 4-20 -HRB-8 The'SEIR includes extensive discussion and analysis of view disrup- tions. HRB-9 Please see General Response GR-1. HRB-10 Please see Response HRB-3. HRB-11 This is not an environmental issue required to be covered in an EIR. HRB-12 The Initial Study was prepared in light of previous. FEIR 82-2. HRB-13 Please see General Responses GR-I, GR-2, and GR-3. HRB-14 Comment noted and hereby incorporated in Final SEIR 90-2. The text of the Final SEIR will be corrected to remove references to the financial feasibility of restoring the structure. - HRB-15 In response to the Notice of Preparation/Public Meetings, some com- mentors suggested the open space alternative. , In an effort to accommodate this view, and anticipating issues arising from State _ Lands Commission assertions that the property should be reserved as open space, this alternative was included. HRB-16 The Draft SEIR is clear in its project description and its analysis - of the loss of the historical resource represented in the Maxwell 's Restaurant structure, that the Maxwell 's structure will be demol- ished, but that the use might continue in its .place on the site after new construction. HRB-17 The mitigation monitoring program is provided in the Final SEIR by incorporation at time of certification by the City Council . HRB-18 Comment noted. The opinion expressed in the comment shall be reviewed by the decision makers .prior to action on the SEIR and the proposed project. HRB-19 Comment noted. HRB-20 Comment noted. 09/26/90(CH8001%GENERAL.CMT) 4-2 1 HRB-21 Please see General Response GR-1. Comment. noted. The opinion: expressed in the comment shall be' reviewed by the decision makers prior to action on the-SEIR and the proposed project. HRB-22 Comment noted. The opinion expressed in the comment shall be reviewed by the decision makers prior to action on the SEIR and the proposed project. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - KEITH BOHRfREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RB-1 The revised language will be incorporated into the. Final SEIR. RB-2 The revised language will be incorporated into the Final SEIR. RB-3 The revised` language will be incorporated into the Final SEIR. RB-4 Comment noted. The spelling wi'1•l be corrected in the Final SEIR. RB-5 Comment noted. The Final SEIR will be corrected. RB-6 Comment noted. The Final: SEIR will: be corrected as noted. RB-7 Comment noted. The Final SEIR will be corrected as noted. RB-8 Comment noted. The corrections will be included in- the Final SEIR. RB-9 Comment noted. Revised text will be i.nc:luded i.n the Final SEIR.:;: RB-10 Comment noted:. Revised text will be included. in the Final SEIR. RB-11 Comment noted. Revised text will be included in the Final SEIR. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - COMMUNITY SERVICES. AUGUST 7. I99O CS-1 It is acknowledged that the project may result in an incremental: - i.ncrease in security problems at the lifeguard faciaity due to in.- creased vehicular and. pedestrian traffic. However, th.is increase is part of the background of such security problems due to the public use nature of the surrounding, beach areas and DowntownSpe- cific Plan areas. Any use by the public of areas surrounding the lifeguard station wi.lil to some smaTl degree,. impact the operations of the 'lifeguard facility. The lifeguard station is currently 09/26/90(CH3001%.GENERAL.CMTy 4-2 2. , r I - surrounded by uses open to the public, (beach, parking, PCH and restaurants) ; this situation will not change with the project. CS-2 The City can require ghat signs be placed on the project. site indi- cating the closure of the beach at midnight. The issues then becomes one of enforcement. CS-3 Please refer to Response CS-2. CS-4 As noted in the comment, this issue can be addressed through minor operational changes. CS-5 As noted in Response EB-11, the project will generate $150,000 to $200,000/year in sales tax revenues to the City (plus lease fees) . - CS-6 This issue is addressed in the traffic analysis in SEIR No. 90-2. CS-7 This issue is addressed in the Traffic and Circulation Section of — SEIR 90-2. The First Street intersection is anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service. Pedestrians may conflict with right turning cars, as at any normal intersection. However, given the excess capacity of the proposed right turn lane, this minor conflict will not reduce the capacity at the intersection. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - POLICE DEPARTMENT, JUNE 6. 1990 PD-1 Comment noted. City revenues from the project will more than off- set these increased costs. PD-2 Comment noted. City revenues from the project will more than off- set these increased costs. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - ED MOUNTFORD, AUGUST 21, 1990 EM-1 Please refer to General Response G-2 for a discussion of alterna- tive sites. EM-2 Based upon the initial study, SEIR No. 90-2 focuses on the issues of historic resources, traffic and visual resources to determine whether circumstances with respect to these issues have changed since EIR 82-2 was certified. SEIR 90-2 concludes that the project would have two additional significant adverse impacts not identi- 09/Z6/90(0N3001%GENERAL.CMT) 4-2 3 fied in EIR- 82-2, includi:ng impacts of :historic resources and vis- ual resources. Those impacts .were not identified in F.EIR 82-2. EM-3 Please .refer to . General Response.. G-3 for a discussion of a lower intensity alternative. EM-4 Please refer to General Response -G-2 for a discussion of off-site alternatives. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - E.J. CONLAN. AUGUST 1-6. 1990 i EC-1 Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy., the project propo- nents must provide evidence that water will be available to support the project. EC-2 Please refer to Responses WP-1 through WP-'5 for discussion of the ability of water resources to serve the project. EC-3 Comment noted. EC-4 Please refer to Responses WP-1 through WP-5-and EC-1. EC-5 Please refer to Responses EC-1 through EC-4 and WP-1 through WP=5. From a regional perspective, the - City of Huntington Beach Water Department is cooperating with regional water agencies to obtain new water supplies, and to 'more- -efficiently use existing water supplies to accommodate the growth in population/employment pro- jected for the Southern California'-Region by the Southern Califor- nia Association of Governments (SCAG) and the State Department of Finance. EC-6 The project is consistent with the-City's approved Coastal Element. EC-7 SEIR No. 90-2 acknowledges that the.project will have a signifi-c-ant adverse effect on view resources in the vicinity of the site. - Ihe - opinion of the Commentor that no additional development should be allowed on the beach side of Pacific Coast Highway should be taken into account by the decision makers. Please refer to Responses EB-12 and EB-11 for. discussion of Police and Fire protection. EC-8 The comment does not cite any additional reasons why the SE=IR should be disapproved. The Commentor requests a _public polity - which discourages any further building on the beach. Such a policy 09/26/90(CH3001•-•GENERAL.CMT) 4-24 can be considered by the decision makers. It should be noted that the SEIR could be- certified as adequately describing the impacts of the project, and the City could deny the project. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - EILEEN MURPHY, AUGUST 9. 1990- EM1-1 This is not a comment on the SEIR. No further response is required. EM1-2 A comment regarding the original EIR is noted; the supplemental EIR was completed in July of this year. EMI-3 Please refer to General Response G-1 for a discussion of land use. EM1-4 Please refer to General Response G-1 for a discussion of the City's potential legal use of the property. This is not an issue for the SEIR. _ EMI-5 This comment represents the Commentor's opinion in opposition to any private use of the public beach, and shall be considered by the decision makers. - EM1-6 This is not a comment on the SEIR. No further response is required. - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - EILEEN MURPHY, AUGUST 10, 1990 EM2-1 This is, not a comment on the SEIR. No further response is required. EM2-2 This is not a comment on the SEIR. No further response is required. EM2-3 This is not a comment on the SEIR. No further response is required. EM2-4 This is not a comment on the SEIR. No further response is required. . EM2-5 This is not a comment on the SEIR. No further response is• requitred. EM2=6 Please.refer to General Response G-1 for a -discussion of land use. 09/26/90(CH5001-%G-cNERAL.CMT) 4-2 5 EM2-7 This is .not a comment on the SEIR. No further: response is - required. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS — D. RAMOS. AUGUST 19, 1990 DR-1 Comment noted. DR-2 Th.i.s comment states the Commentor's- opin.ion in opposition to any -- commercial use of beach property. It should be noted that the project converts a parking: lot and restaurant site to more intense parking and .commercial uses. The comment shall be taken into con- _ sideration by the decision makers. DR-.1 As noted' in General Response G-1, the project will not open the way for other shoreline projects that would take away much needed open area. DR-4 The comment represents the Commentor's opinion in opposition- to any projects on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway, and shall be taken into account by.the decision makers. _ DR-5 This is not a comment on the ..SEIR. No further response is required. DR-6 SEIR' 90-2 acknowledges that the proposed project wi11 have. a sig- nificant adverse impact on visual. resources, including the view from the Pier. It should be noted that the view of the project .from the Pier will be against a backdrop of the: Pi:erside Pavilion - project, which is much larger in scope. DR-7 The Commentor states that the new Hilton Hotel and the Pavilion. _ project provide sufficient space:,for merchants who wish to do bus.i ness here. However, the City's objective for this project As. to include provision of restaurants- on this specific site to support the pier project. DR-8 This comment represents. the Commentor's opinion that the 1ncreas.ed commercial use precipitated by the project will not be in balance with the needs for public access to the beach. This opin.i:on sha14. be taken into consi.derat-Ion by the decision makers. 09/26/90(CH3001••.G-cN-cRAL.CMT) 4-26 I i RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - MR. &%MRS. DAVID BARTLETT, AUGUST 20, 1990 i - DB-1 Lowering the height of the structures to a level at or below Pacif- ic Coast Highway would incrementally reduce the negative adverse _ impacts of views over the project, and reduce the impacts of the project on viewshed from the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. However, this would not expand views of the ocean and beach, which are had between buildings. Impacts as seen from the beach and the Pier would be reduced, but would still be significant. Lower intensity alternatives are addressed in Response to Comment No. G- 3,1 and will be considered as an alternative to the project by the decision makers. DB-2 The proposed project maintains three view corridors of approximate- ly 75 feet wide, amounting to approximately 43% of the frontage. Maintenance of view corridors of at least 50% open space would result in a lower intensity project, which is addressed in Response G-3. DB-3 The project will be required to comply with all City building regu- lations regarding setbacks, open space and lot coverage that are _ applicable to the site. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - LOIS FREEMAN, AUGUST 20, 1990 LF-1 The comment states the Commentor's opinion in opposition to the project. The traffic study for the project was updated in SEIR No. 90-2, and concludes that the project will not have a significant - adverse impact on traffic beyond that identified in FEIR 82-2. FEIR 82-2 acknowledges that traffic at build out is a significant adverse impact, and Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Con- sideration on July 18, 1983. The traffic study uses standard traf- fic projection methods to project the impacts of the project upon build out. LF-2 The comment represents the author's opinion which states that an- other retail project is an inappropriate use of this land, and the land should be left as open space for all to enjoy. LF-3 Please: refer to Responses LF-4 through LF-10. 09/26/90(CH3001',GENERAL.CMT) 4-2 7 LF-4 The project will not_ open the door for other construction on the beach. Please refer to General Response -G-I for discussion of this issue. LF-5 The analysis in EIR 82-2 was focused on the cumulative effects of the build out of the entire Downtown Specific Plan. The additional analyses in SEIR 90-2 are also focused on the build out of the Downtown Specific Plan area as they affect this specific site.. . LF-6 Based upon its unique location, the project is anticipated to .be successful and is not anticipated to result in a beach slum area. It would be highly speculative to presume failure of the project and try to predict potential outcomes if this were to occur. Application of existing City and- State code requirements relating to maintenance of the property would forestall adverse environmen- tal effects. LF�-7 The issue of traffic congestion in the Pier area is addressed in _ the Traffic Section in SEIR 90=2. The traffic projections -include delivery and trash trucks, .as well as patrons of the project. LF-8 The parking projections for the area include the existing uses of M the site, as well as the proposed uses of the site, and indicates that the proposed parking structure should accommodate the existing beach parking and the proposed restaurant uses.. LF-9 SEIR 90-2 acknowledges that the :project will have a signifi.cant- ad- verse impact on views of the beach from PCH, and to projects on .the inland side of PCH. The balance of the comment reflects the' Com- mentor's opinion that these adverse impacts should not be allowed. LF-10 Please refer to General Response G-2 for a discussion of: alterna- tive sites. LF-11 Comment noted. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - K. SERAPHINE, AUGUST- 17, 1990 KS-1 FEIR 82-2 analyzes the impacts of the Downtown. Specific Plan, which include the development of 75,000 square feet of commercia-Y'reta,il in addition to the existing uses on the site. Using the. CEQA •'con- cept of tiering, -SEIR 90-2 addressed the three .topics that were identified by City staff as:requiring additional analysis, based; 09/26/9G(CN3001---GENERAL.CMT) 4-28 . upon the more .•specific land uses now. proposed. The City staff found that the project had the potential to have significant impacts not addressed in FEIR 82-2, e.g. , traffic, visual resources and historic resources. Land use issues are addressed in General Response G-1. KS-2 The project will be evaluated with respect to City building codes, and issues of liquefaction at the final design stage. Compliance with City building codes as they address the liquefaction potential of the site will reduce any such impacts to a level of insignifi- cance. KS-3 Compliance with City codes regarding the subterranean parking and any flooding potential of the lowest parking level will reduce any impacts due to flood hazards to a level of insignificance. KS-4 There is no evidence that the site of this particular project. has been subjected to intensive oil drilling and petroleum related uses. If soil contamination is discovered during final design phase, or during grading for the structures, then compliance with City building requirements would reduce any such impacts to a level of insignificance. KS-5 Please refer to Responses WP-1, WP-2, EB-11, EB-12, CS-1, CS-5 and CS-6 regarding the City's ability to provide public services to the - project. KS-6 The SEIR does document the loss of viewshed that this project will cause. However, the project is consistent with the City's adopted Coastal Element. Any decision to accept the negative impacts of the project on visual resources will be made. by the City decision makers. KS-7 Comment is noted. Please refer to Response KS-6. KS-8 Please refer to General Response G-2 regarding alternative sites for the project. KS-9 Please refer to General Response- G-3 for a discussion of lower intensity alternatives. iKS-10. SEIR 90-2 documents .the negative environmental consequences of the project on visual resources and historic resources. The decision 09/26/90(CH3001%GENERAL.CMT) 4-2 9 I i I -- makers will •be required 'to adopt a statement of overriding ,consi- derations if they choose to .proceed with the project. KS-11 Please :refer to Response KS-2. i KS-12 Please refer to Response KS-5. KS-13 Please refer to Response.KS-6. KS-14 Comment noted. The project is consistent with the adopted Local Coastal Element for the City of- Huntington Beach., which is 'based upon these policies. KS-15 Comment noted. - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - DAVID SULLIVAN, SEPTEMBER 4. 1990 DS-1 SEIR 90-2 concludes that the project will have a significant _. adverse effect on visual resources. The City has approximately 8.5 miles -of shoreline. This project-represents 1,OOO feet. RESPONSE TO COMMENT - OPR'. :SEPTEMBER 7. 1990 A-1 Comment noted. RESPONSE TO COMFF'iT - MRS. R.L. FLICK. SEPTEMBER 8. 1990 B-1 Comment noted. This comment is the opinion of the author and will be taken into consideration during the decision making process. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - STATE LANDS COMMISSION.. SEPTEMBER 17. 1996 C-1 Comment noted. C-2 Comment noted. Also, please see -General Response GR-1. C-3 Comment noted. C-4 In the existing condition, the property is developed with restau . rants, parking lot, bicycle, and-$edestri-an 'paths on the beach.- Access through the site currently:: exists and will be maintained with the proposed project. 09/26/90(CH8001--.GENERA:.CMT) 4-30 G-5 Please .--see General Response--GR-1:. C-6 SEIR 90-2 acknowledges the historical nature of Maxwell 's Restau- rant. The documentation for this finding acknowledges the relation- ship between the pier, the beach and Maxwell 's Restaurant. The historical context of the structure itself is acknowledged in the SEIR and the technical background report provided in the Appendix. This includes the historical use of the beach area and the pier area, and provides the historical context for the structure. C-7 Comment noted. C-8 Please see General Response GR-1. Please also see page 7 of the SEIR for discussion of land use issues. C-9 Please see General Response GR-1. C-10 Comment noted. C-11 The comment represents the opinion of the commentors and shall be considered by the decision makers. ~ C-12 The City respectfully disagrees with the commentor. The comment is the opinion of the commentors and will be considered- by the deci- sion makers. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - PETITIONS. SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 D-1 The comment is the opinion of the commentors and will be reviewed by the decision makers. Because no environmental issues are brought forward in the comment, no further response is required. - E-1 The comment is the opinion of the commentors and will be reviewed by the decision makers. Because no environmental issues are brought forward in the comment, no further response is required. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - LEAGUE FOR COASTAL PROTECTION. SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 F-1 Comment noted. F-2 The loss -of public, views along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is ac- knowledged as a significant impact in the SEIR. The City respect- fully disagrees with the conclusion that there is a loss of sub- 09/25/90(CHRO01%.RES?ONSE.DOC) 4-31 stantial' amount of public parking for recreation use of the public beach. Please see General Responses GR-2 and GR-3 which .address alternatives analyzed' in SEIR 90-2. F-3 The comments are opinions of-the. authors and will be considered by the decision makers. In reviewing the conditional use permit pro- posed for the project, the decision makers will be reviewing land use compatibility- and appropriate land use activities for the site. _ Because the comment does not bring up environmental issues related to the proposed project, no further response is required. F-4 The project objectives are set by.the decision makers. The parking - structure proposed on this site is below the grade of PCH, consis- tent with FEIR 82-2. The restaurant structures on top of the park- ing structure will have an ' adverse impact to public views from Pacific Coast Highway F-5 The project, in its proposed location, and the parking structures underneath are clearly indicated, i-n the Downtown Specific Plan, EIR 82-2 and the revised Downtown.. Specific Plan adopted in 1989. Please see Response to Comment OR-1 for more information. F-6 These impacts are fully discussed in SEIR 90-2 in the Visual Ampact Section. The opinions of the author regarding special views,-,:from PCH and 7th, 9th and llth streets are noted. F-7 Comment noted. Because no additional impacts beyond those'al-ready acknowledged in SEIR 90-2 are 'presented, no further response As necessary. F-8 Please see Responses F-6, F-7 and General Response GR-2. — F-9 Please note that no commitment .to mitigate for the loss of on street parking spaces on PCH on-this site has been made. Caltrans and. the City of Huntington Beach..acknowledge that the loss" of- the 14 spaces along Pacific Coast Highway will be offset by a .ne:t, tn- crease in available parking in the parking structure proposed north . of the Pier. The comment then notes that 127 parking :spaces are required..-for Maxwell 's 10,000 square foot restaurant. This is an incorrect conclusion. To meet City code, ,MaxwelIIs..would ,re.quire 100 ,spaces. — It currently has 77' spaces in normal usage; and -can -increase to 127 09/25/90(CR5001%.RESP0NSE.DOC) 4-3 2 :_ I spaces- during peak usage if .Maxwell's requests the additional space from the City.- The actual number of spaces that Maxwell 's need at peak capacity is approximately 23, for ,a total of 100. Given the operational characteristics of the existing parking lot, it is easier for Maxwell 's to take all the 47 spaces in the upper parking lot, rather than allocate 23 of the 47 spaces to Maxwell 's and the 24 remaining spaces to the public. The comment then infers that, because Maxwell 's has use of the 127 spaces under peak conditions, this parking rate be applied to all future restaurants on the site. As noted above, Maxwell 's does not use all 127 spaces; its peak us- age is in line with the City code of 100 spaces per 10,000 square feet. The future restaurants will be parked at this same rate. F-10 The City has adopted as an objective for the project the preserva- tion of the existing public parking spaces on the site. The City does not believe that resolution of any shortfall in overall beach related parking is an appropriate use for the site. Therefore, an assessment of what the beach demand for parking might be is in- appropriate. F-11 As noted in Response F-10, the City disagrees with the position that this particular site should be used to resolve any beach park- ing shortfall that may exist today or in the future. F-12 This statement represents the commentor's opinion regarding the appropriateness of the use of the site for parking facilities. These .comments shall be taken into consideration by the decision makers. F-13 The comment is noted. It should further be noted that the objec- tives of the State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) are not necessarily the same as the City of Huntington Beach, and that the Downtown Specific Plan identified this site south of the pier for commercial. uses and this site north of the pier for parking uses. DPR has acknowledged the City's Coastal Plan for commercial uses south of the Pier. DPR has also adopted a State Beach General Plan which shows a parking structure north of the pier. F-14 As noted in SEIR 90-2, the parking facilities proposed on-site would meet the requirement of the proposed land uses and existing public parking. ' The proposed parking wi l-I not meet the needs of any- existing : shortfalls for surrounding: existing or future use �. i.ncreases .in surrounding beach or downtown areas. The City's ob- 09/25/90(CH5001AESPONSE.DOC) 4-3 3 jectives for the project .do not include resolving any shortfalls in, parking. F-15 Comment noted. This recommended change would not change the find- ings presented in. the Draft SEIR. F-16 The selection of the potential size of the restaurants is driven by market analysis and operational space needs. Because the comment _ does not address an environmental issue or related impact, no fur- ther response is required. F-17 The comment is an opinion of the author and will be considered by the decision makers. F-18 The comment is an opinion of the Author and will be considered by _ the decision makers. F-19 The comment is an opinion of the- author and will be considered by the decision makers. F-20 Please refer to General Responses-GR-1, GR-2 and GR-3. -- RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - JEANNETTE C. LOTA, SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 G-1 The comment is an opinion of the author and will be considered by the decision makers. Please also see discussions in the SEIR regarding view impacts and traffic analysis. Because the comment does not bring up new information regarding view and traffic im- pacts, no further response is required. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - L. WOLFE, SEPTEMBER 6. 1990 H-1 The parking and traffic study contained in .SEIR 90-2 indicates that no additional measures are required by the project to mitigate traffic service levels along PCH •to. an adequate level of service. The Caltrans improvements are a committed project, and no addition- al mitigations have been identified to remedy any traffic increases; caused by the development. - H-2 Standard City and County health : codes will be enforced for- .the project, and will control kitchen/oven emissions and trash collet- tion. - 09/25/90(CH8001 .RESP%SE.DOC) .4-34 H-3 Standard City and State' codes which apply to all projects and the Uniform Building Code will be adhered to. H-4 Normal City procedures handled by the City Police and Fire Depart- ments would be applicable if evacuation would be necessary. H-5 Internal and surface circulation designs for parking structures and parking lots are reviewed by the Planning Department and City Engi- neer prior to issuance of Building Permits. Compliance with City standards and site plan review procedures will ensure public safe- ty within and outside the parking structure. Please also see Re- sponse W1-10.. H-6 Please see General Response GR-2. — H-7 J t is anticipated that people traveling north on PCH will enter the project primarily from the Lake Street entrance, which provides a signal left turn access. This left turn access will provide ade- quate capacity, and is analyzed in the traffic and circulation section of SEIR 90-2. Some vehicles may choose to travel north on PCH beyond the project and make a U-turn north of Main Street (no U-turns will be allowed at Main Street) . The amount of U-turning traffic is anticipated to be nominal , approximately 20 vehicles per hour during the peak. This 20 vehicles per hour represents approx- imately one-third of all vehicles entering the site from southbound _ direction. H-8 Please refer to Response W1-13 regarding parking for the rooftop dining. H-9 The State parking formula is not relevant to this site because the City is under no obligation to provide parking on this site for all - beach-going traffic in the vicinity. H-10 Please refer to Responses H-8 and H-9. H-11 Based on review of plans, it appears that delivery trucks will use the upper level service road and will not use the existing bicycle trail . H-12 Visitor : parking for the lifeguard station will be located in approximately- the same location as it is today, as noted in Res- ponse H-13. Additional parking for the lifeguard facility would be 09/25/90(CH3001%.RESPONSE.DOC) 4-3 5 included within the parking facilities on the Pierside project as part of the overall public parking on the site. H-13 Visitor parking will be accessed through the Lake Street signalized . access. H-14 Currently, junior lifeguards are dropped off on PCH. The project will improve this situation by"providing an off-street drop off _. area on the upper level of the Pierside project with direct access to the beach. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - JO CHRISTIAN CRAIG. SEPTEMBER 7. 1990 I-1 Comment noted. I-2 Please see General Response GR-1. I-3 Please-see General Response GR-1 and Responses PC-20, PC-21, EB-10, . DB-I, DB-2 and F-6. I-4 Please see General Response GR-1. I-5 The City has lighting, access andsecurity standards applicable to the project, including the parking structure. The activity of valet parking in the structure 'will also reduce the potential for _ crime. Additional cost to the taxpayer could be expected .to:.-be "-minimal and unmeasurable. I-6 Please also see Responses H-5 and. W1-10. View and aesthetic :im- pacts are described in the Draft- SEIR, which was disseminated for 45 day public review and comment. . Public hearing notices are::re- quired for notification of surrounding property owners. Planned — uses for the property have been public knowledge since first pro- posed in the Downtown Specific Plan, adopted in 1989. Please see Response to Comment GR-1 for additional discussion regarding docu- mentation of planned. multi-level parking structures, mixed use commercial and restaurant attractions' proposed for the site since 1983. I-7 Please see Response W1-6. I-8- The comment reflects an opinion- of the author regarding a -land-use decision to be decided by -the City's .Planning Commi.ssi'on -and City 09/25/90<CH3001%RESPMSE.DOQ 4-36 - , z Council .., The comment shall . be reviewed by the decision makers prior to action. Please also see General Responses GR-I, GR-2 and f GR-3. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, TERRY DALTON, SEPTEMBER 7. 1990 J-1 Comment noted. — J-2 Please see General Responses GR-1 and GR-2. J-3 Please see Response I-6. In addition, it should be pointed out that Draft SEIR 90-2 acknowledged that a significant impact on views of the beach and ocean would occur if the project is built. J-4 Foot traffic can proceed along the foot/bike path at the base of — the bluff. In addition, the project is designed for pedestrian access from the head of the pier along a promenade on the ocean side of the project. This will maintain and afford new viewing. and resting areas not now enjoyed on the site. Also, please see Res- ponse J-3. J-5 View impacts are acknowledged in Draft SEIR 90-2. Please see Res- ponses J-3 and J-4. J-6 Automobile parking structures have strict air circulation and vent- ilation requirements imposed by the City through adherence to Uni- form Building Requirements. No health risk is anticipated. J-7 Please see Response I-5. J-8 The project must comply with City requirements for flood proofing those parts of the building in the 100 year flood plain. The flood proofing would occur for portions of the parking structure if final design plans show development below the level of the 100 year flood plain. No habitable portion of any structure will be built below _ the 100 year flood plan, in conformance with existing Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines. J-9 Reduced or no development on the ocean side of PCH would propor- tionately limit storm damage potential on the site. However, given that the project must comply with existing FEMA and City building standards, the risk associated with potential storm damage is re- duced to acceptable levels. . 09/25/90(CH5001%RESPONS-e.DOC) 4-3 7 . t I i RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - CHAUNCEY ALEXANDER, SEPTEMBER 6. 1990 K-1 Please -see General Response GR-1. K-2 The traffic analysis performed for Draft SEIR 90-2 analyzed a cumu- lative worst case scenario assuming build out of the entire Down- town Specific Plan. The traffic modeling is based on Greer and Associates' 1987 traffic impact . analysis update. Police activity -- is anticipated to incrementally increase on and around the site. However, the increase in patronage at the site with addition of two restaurants and ancillary commercial uses is insignificant compared to existing beach, restaurant and commercial usage. Assuming that the pier is rebuilt, increased .activity produced by activities at the pier, combined with normal beach and downtown activity, will be far greater than the activity produced by the additional restaurant of the proposed project. Because the contribution is an insignifi- cant increase, no further analysis is warranted. K-3 Please see General Response GR-2.- K-4 Parking mitigation is incorporated into the project design in that the project includes adequate parking per City code for the uses proposed, in addition to recreating the existing public parking opportunities on site. -The public parking opportunities are iden- tical to the No Project case. The project will result in a cumula- tive impact of increased traffic in the vicinity. This impact was acknowledged in FEIR 82-2. SEIR 90-2 documents that the localized area surrounding the project will function adequately. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY SALLY GRAHAM - SEPTEMBER 6. 1990 L-1 Please see' General Response GR=1. L-2 Please see General Responses GR-1, GR-2 and GR-3. - L-3 Please see General Responses GR-1, GR-2 and GR-3. L-4 Only insignificant incremental cost increases are expected to.-occur as a result of the proposed project. Please also see Responses K-2, J-6, J-8, H-5 and WI-10. L-5 Please refer to Response H-14 for a discussion of this issue. 09/25/90(CH3001••.RESPONSE.DOC) 4-38 I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY RICHARD GRAHAM, SEPTEMBER 7. 1990 i M-1 Throughout the Downtown' Specific Plan adopted in 1983 and again in the updated plan adopted in 1989, the development planned for the site known as the Pier Head is acknowledged as a key component in '— the City's and Redevelopment Agency's economic revitalization of the Main Street/PCH area of downtown. Please see General Responses GR-1, GR-2 and GR-3 for a discussion. Because the City assumes that the economic effects of the proposed project are positive, and the comment does not bring forward any evidence to suggest that the project could have a negative economic — impact, further discussion is not warranted. Without evidence to support the assertion that there would be adverse economic effects, and further reasons to support that environmental consequence would — result from such economic impacts. (A cause and effect relation- ship must be shown according to CEQA Guidelines Section 1513), further analysis of the economic effects of the project would be _ speculative and unnecessary, according to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15145- and 15131. M-2 Please see Response M-1. M-3 Up to 442 spaces could be reserved for restaurant/commercial uses during the 1 p.m. beach peak period, leaving the 193 available for public use. Up to 460 spaces could be used for the restaurant/ commercial uses during the evening dining peak period. No parking spaces are currently set aside for a rooftop or balcony dining. M-4 The valet parking will use the parking allocated for the restaurant space. No parking allocation scheme has been developed at this time; however, prior to issuance of Certificates of Use and Occu- pancy, the project proponent will be required to submit a Parking Allocation Plan to the Director of Community Development for his approval . This plan will identify which parking spaces will be _ allocated to the public and which parking spaces will be allocated to the project. M-5 The project parking is designed to address the needs of the pro- ject, plus the existing parking located on site. It is not intended to address all potential beach needs or the needs of other surrounding projects, nor is it under any obligation to do so. 09/25/90(CH3001,RESPONSC-.DOC) 4-3 9 F ' i r I i M-6 Please see General -Response GR--1 for discussion of 1-and u`sie 'i't-sues. Please see the -Pierside Restaurant Circulati'o'n and Parking Analysis in the Appendix to SEIR•904 for „parkin.g analysis.. Please 's'ee SEIR .90-2 for view impact analys-is. j RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY LISA THOMAS - SEPTEMBER 6. 1990 N-1 The commentor mistakenly refers- to the project 'as be-ing on th-e beach. No building on the beach or the sand will occur as the .project is proposed. Development would only occur 'at the present -Maxwell 's Restaurant and associated commercial structures below and _. on the existing parking lot adjacent to Maxwell 's and the 1`#feguard station. To obtain a better understanding of the °propo"sed project and its location, please see the project descript-ion and view im- pact .analysis in Draft SEIR 90-2:. The opinions 'of 'the commentor are noted :and -will be considered by the decision makers. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY RITA HEALY --SEPTEMBER 1 1990 0-1 Please see Response N-1. The opinions opposing the project will be considered by the decision makers. RESPONSE TO COMMENT - C.R. ROBINSON, SEPTEMBER 6. 1990 P-1 Please see Response N-1. The opinions opposing the project will. be — considered �by the decision makers. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - JAMES A. LANE, SEPTEMBER 5...199.0 Q-1 Please refer to General Response GR-2 for a discussion of the•�Upic of alternative sites. Please also note that the Traffic Analysis contained in SEIR 90-2 is based upon cumulative Guild "out of. the _ area and thereby addresses the build out of the Downtown Specific Plan area. — Q-2 The comment refers to the potential economic failure of the` entire downtown redevelopment area. The writer does not substantiate his statement that the downtown area cannot support more commercial than exists today. The City maintains that the Pier is a key draw into the downtown area and that a restaurant complex at the foot of the Pier would attract more people to the downtown area:, Please also note that economic. issues are not normally addressed-in. GEQA documents unless a direct cause and effect can be shown between 09/25/90(CH3001•••RESPONSE.DOC) 4-40 = economic/social impacts and related physical impacts. Please also further discussion. see Response M-1 for fu i , Q-3 The SEIR does address the impacts of traffic and parking for beachgoers and those trying to find their way downtown. The SEIR analyzes the most affected intersections on cumulative build out basis including the intersection of Main Street and PCH. The SEIR states that the project will not cause an increase in congestion on PCH beyond that analyzed for previous projects. FEIR 82-2 (page 47) states that the Downtown Specific Plan will result in unavoid- able adverse impacts to traffic in the vicinity. In its approval of the Downtown Specific Plan, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations accepting this unavoidable adverse impact. This project generates less traffic in District 10 than was analyzed in FEIR 82-2. Therefore project traffic impacts will be less than analyzed in FEIR 82-2 and no new significant impacts will occur. However, the previously identified impacts to traffic will continue to occur. The Caltrans EIS for the widening of PCH notes that most intersec- tions in the vicinity will operate at an acceptable level of ser- vice (D or better) after implementation of the six lane widening. However, the intersection of Main and PCH will continue to operate at level of service E during peak summer months, similar to current conditions. Q-4 The comments objecting to Pierside Village represent the opinions of the comment maker and will be taken into account by the decision j makers. It should be noted that the site is currently used for parking, restaurants and lifeguard headquarters. Except for park- ing to access recreation uses, there has not been direct public recreation use of this site for a number of years. The project represents an intensification of the pre-existing uses on the site and will not take existing public recreation lands and convert them -.- to private use. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - LOUISE B. FIORILLO AND RALPH PECK SEPTEMBER 6 1990 R-1 The opinions of the commentor in opposition to the project will be taken. into account by the decision makers. The SEIR specifically acknowledges the significant adverse effect the project will have on off-site views. 09/25/90(CH3001%RESPONSE.DOC) 4-4 1 i i R-2 The SEIR project description correctly .describes the 'project. Since no evidence is provided to the contrary, no further response j is necessary. R-3 The SEIR notes the significant adverse effect that the project will - have on off-site views. Placement -of view corridors partially mitigates this impact by providing view corridors from 2nd Street and Lake Street as well as portions' of -PCH Land 'se_lected properties across PCH. Please refer to Response R-2 for a discussion of the viewing corri- dors. -We are unable to locate the statement in the SEIR that the proposed buildings are designed to improve PCH views of the surf. The impacts of building "C" are discussed in Responses PC-17 and PC-18. R-4 The impacts of the project and the impacts of the current median landscaping are discussed i°n Response PC-20. As noted above, SEIR 90-2 states the project will have a significant visual impact to visual resources. R-5 The economic impact of view blockage to 'property owners of block 101 are not relevant to CEQA; however, these impacts shall be taken into account by the decision makers. Please also see Responses M-_1 and Q-2. R-6 The objectives noted in SEIR 90-2 do not include "'increased publ-i:c viewing". The City can consider a smaller :scale project that would reduce the ;negative adverse affects on visual resources. Please refer to General Response GR-3 for discussion of this issue. R-7 Please refer to General Response GR-3 for a discussion of lower intensity alternatives. R-8 Huntington Beach has approximately eight and one half mile&..of — ocean vistas from PCH. The existing residential complex and this site are the only sites currently used for commercial or residen- tial purposes. The project represents an intensification of exist- ing uses already on the site, not a change of public uses to pri- vate ones. Environmental consequences will result from those A n- tensifications. 09/25/90(CH8001'%RESPONSE.DOM 4-42 . r a i i I RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - JERRY M. PATTERSON, SEPTEMBER 7. 1990 S-1 This comment summarizes the commentor's belief that SEIR 90-2 is not adequate. The specific reasons are cited in Comments S-2 through S-14 and are addressed below. S-2 The checklist uses FEIR 82-2 as the basis for drawing conclusions of significance. S-3 Please refer to Response to Comment EB-8 for a discussion of the earth related potential impacts to the project. S-4 The project is not of regional significance. Traffic volumes gen- erated from the site will be less than these analyzed in FEIR 82-2; therefore, air quality impacts will be less. S-5 The site is currently covered with impermeable surfaces. The new project will not change this condition. Therefore, no groundwater _. analysis is necessary. Please also refer to Response EB-4. Sewage requirements and flood control issues were addressed in FEIR 82-2. S-6 Please refer to Response T-38 for a discussion of light and glare. S-7 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of land use issues. Please refer to Response M-1 for a discussion of economic issues. S-8 The traffic study is a cumulative traffic study, addressing the build out of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Waterfront site as a baseline, and addressing intersection capacity utilization at two key streets effected by the Pierside project. Note that the pro- ject's traffic was assumed in FEIR 82-2. j S-9 Please refer to Responses EB-11 and EB-12 for a discussion of the cost of various public services to be provided for the project and — a discussion of the revenue generation from the project. S-10 Please refer to General Response GR-2 for a discussion of alterna- tives. S-11 Please refer to General Response GR-3 for a discussion of alterna- tives. 09/25/90(CHSOOI%•RESPONSE.DOC) 4-43 I S-12 The mitigation monitoring program required under CEQA will be pro- vided to the decision makers prior to certification of the final EIR. There is no requirement that the mitigation monitoring -pro- gram be circulated with the Draft E.IR. -- S-13 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a 4isoussion of the State Lands Commission and the existing use restrictions on the property. _ S-14 This comment reflects the commentor's opinion that the Draft SEIR is not adequate under CEQA and therefore could result in a success- ful legal challenge. The City believes that the Final SEIR (FSEIR), including both ,the DSEIR as corrected and the Responses to Comments, .does provide a legally adequate basis for certifying the FSEIR. I j — RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - 'DEBBIE COOK. SEPTEMBER 7. 1990 T-1 City staff reviewed FEIR 82-2 to determine its relevance to this _ project. FEI'R 82-2 was found to adequately address the environmen- tal impacts of this project for all but three areas: visual re- sources, historic resources and traffic. FEIR 82-2 has been used as the environmental clearance document for other .projects in the - Downtown Specific Plan Area in accordance with CEQA 'Sections. 15180 (projects that are part of a larger redevelopment .plan); 15162 (Supplemental EIRs) and the CEQA concept -of "tiering". Please...see Response HRB-1 for additional discussion. T-2 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of land .-use. Earth changes and seismic safety were addressed in FEIR -82.2. Refer to Response S-4 for a discussion of air quality, refer to Response J-8 for a discussion of tidal hazards, and refer to �Res- ponces EB-11 and E-12 for a discussion of public services. No on- site natural resources would be disturbed by the project in `that - the site is already developed. The significant new circumstances (i .e. , those relating to visual resources, historic resources and traffic) were identified by City staff as requiring additional environmental analysis i.n this document.. T-3 DEIR 90-2 does not make any claims regarding the public need for restaurants. However, restaurant and other visitor serving `uses have long been contemplated for this site. Please see General Response GR-1. 09/25/90(CH3001%.RESPONSE.DOC) 4-44 The report was prepared under the direction of City staff in com- pliance with CEQA with assistance from the project proponent Jona- than Chodos and LSA. . The list of preparers will be added to the FEIR. T-4 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of land use issues. T-5 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of land use issues. T-6 Compliance with City codes and proper foundation engineering will ensure that the buildings are stable, and safe within the parame- ters established by the City and the Uniform Building Code. T-7 The issue of seismic safety was addressed in FEIR 82-2. Please also see Response T-6. _ T-8 Please refer to Responses J-8 and J-9 regarding flooding in the parking structure. T-9 The occurrence of riots on the beach are extremely rare. Existing - emergency vehicle access points to the beach will be maintained. T-10 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of the refe- rences to the land in District 10. T-11 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of the in- clusion of this project site in FEIR 82-2. Note that FEIR 82-2 is based upon the specific plan for the downtown redevelopment which addressed District 10. i - T-12 This comment does not address environmental issues related to this project. The visual impacts of the project are described. in SEIR .i 90-2. T-13 As noted above, FEIR 82-2 did address the District 10 site and allowed for 75,000 square feet of development on this site. Please refer to General Response GR-1 and Response PS-15 for a discussion of this issue. 09/25/90(CH6001%RESPONSE.DOC) 4-4 5 I i i I T-14 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of the in- clusion of District 10 and FEIR 82-2. T-15 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of the in- clusion of ;District 10 in FEIR 82-2. T-16 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of the in- clusion of District 10 and FEIR 82-2. T-17 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of the in- clusion of District 10 in FEIR 82-2. - T-18 Left turns are possible into the project via the signalized inter- section at Lake Street. As noted in Response A-7, U-turns are expected to amount to approximately 20 vehicles per hour at either - the Fifth Street or Sixth Street signal , depending upon which is in operation. _ T-19 According to the City Traffic Engineer, U-turns will be permitted at the above intersection. T-20 The Sixth Street signal can accommodate the increase of 20 vehicles per hour for the U-turn movement. T-21 Please refer to Response F-9 regarding the removal of 14 on street parking spaces on PCH. T-22 It is correct that the Lake Street parking lot normally provides unmanned metered parking during off-peak periods. The parking study utilized the revenue stream from the metered lots to deter- mine the overall pattern of daily and monthly usage; however, the peak hour usage during the summer months (when parking demand is .at its greatest). was determined during the manned period of time when hourly data is -available. _ T-23 The parking structure proposed on this site is not intended to mitigate for the demand caused by the pier beyond the 239 spaces allocated to the public since 1970. T-24 Data from the parking meters was obtained from the City parking operations department, which states that parking meters are normal-' ly emptied daily. It should be noted that no attempt was made to -- determine peak hour periods from parking meter data. 09/25/90(CH8001'•.RESPONSE.DOQ 4-46 r � 1 � I i T-25 The operational details of the proposed parking structure have not been determined at this time. It is anticipated that rates will be similar to other parking structures in the vicinity. T-26 Please refer to Response F-9 regarding the demand for Maxwell 's parking. T-27 The operational details of the parking structure have not been determined at this time. Please refer to Response M-4 for a dis- cussion of requirements that will be placed on the operating plan for the parking structure. This will guarantee that the public is _ afforded the opportunity to park in the spaces reserved for public usage. T-28 As noted in Response F-10, the City respectfully disagrees with the opinion that this site should be responsible to provide parking for the adjacent beach. In addition, the comment stating that 560 parking spaces will be required by the restaurant is inaccurate. Please refer to Response F-9 for a discussion of this issue. T-29 The comment that, the population of Huntington Beach and Orange County has increased dramatically is noted. However, that does not — place an obligation on the City to provide increased parking on this site to meet such increased demand. It should further be noted that the City is taking steps to improve the parking supply - in the vicinity through the construction of a parking structure i near the north side of the pier. In addition, additional public parking will be available during off-peak periods in the pierside structure. T-30 Dogs will be allowed on the promenade. i T-31 Please refer to the discussion on pages 17 and 18 of the revised parking study (attached), which indicates that there is queuing room for approximately 37% more vehicles than anticipated in this study; therefore, any increased demand caused by the pier can be accommodated. T-32 A queue of nine or more cars is not anticipated. However, if such a queue were to develop, it would back onto the public street. The situation is similar to other parking structure or surface parking lot entrances. 09/25/90(CH8001%.RESPONSE.DOC) 4-4 7 i T-33 The proposed project will block views of portions of the pier. _ DEIR 90-2 acknowledges that the project will have significant ad- verse effects on visual resources. i T-34 Comment acknowledged.. The SEIR is hereby modified to read: "Persons travelling along PCH in both directions will continue to have limited oblique views of the beach/ocean and pier along the entire length of the project." T-35 Comment acknowledged. The SEIR is hereby modified to read: "The height of the majority of the three proposed buil- - dings in the project is approximately the same as Max- well 's restaurant, thus maintaining a building height that is generally comparable to the existing building height on-site but multiplying the bulk." T-36 The impact of the project on views from PCH was discussed in DEIR I 90-2. T-37 Please refer to Section 4.5 of the SEIR for a discussion of-light and glare impacts associated with the project and mitigation mea- sures outlined to reduce these effects. T-38 It is anticipated that shadows will . extend across the bicycle path and perhaps a small area of the beach adjacent to the bicycle path at sunrise (approximately 6-8 .a.m.) and sunset (approximately 6-8 p.m.) during the summer solstice. Please also refer to Section 4.3 of the SEIR for a discussion of the timing of shade/shadow effects on the beach area, in the vicinity of the project. Section 4.3 of the SEIR discusses the shadow effects of the development on the beach area in the vicinity of the project. T-39 New property owners in the vicinity have the opportunity to inspect the Downtown Specific Plan to determine proposed land uses adjacent to their sites. The City is under no obligation to mitigate any changes in property values that occur because of implementation of the approved Downtown Specific Plan. Because this is not an envi- ronmental issue, no further response 'is necessary. For further -- explanation, see Response M-I. 09/25/90(CH8001-••RESPONSE.DOC) 4-4 8 i I T-40 FEIR 82-2 did include District 10 in the documentation. Please refer to General Response GR-1. T-41 The rebuilding of the pier was not addressed in FEIR 82-2 and _ therefore required a separate EIR. T-42 The proposed project will enlarge the plaza at the foot of the pier by creating a public open space on the site of what is currently Maxwell 's restaurant. T-43 . The term "beachgoing public" includes a wider range of people than those with sandy bare feet. Some of the restaurant facilities will be designed to serve direct beach users with bare feet. T-44 Please refer to Responses EB-11 and EB-12 for a discussion of the ` City's revenues of the project. City revenues from the parking structure have not been determined as of this date. — T-45 Access to the beach directly from the pier area is, limited today. The statement that the beach service road has too much access and too much congestion is the opinion of the commentor with which the City disagrees; therefore, there is no requirement for additional mitigation. T-46 Please refer to General Responses GR-2 and GR-3 for a discussion of other alternatives. T-47 The statement that this project will provide additional parking for downtown is true. Additional parking will be available for other downtown uses during off-peak periods for the restaurants. During peak parking demand periods, the availability of public parking spaces on-site will remain the same as today. T-48 The City has not determined the price of parking on the site. It is anticipated the price of such parking will be similar to other parking structures in the vicinity. Any discussion of the impacts of such parking rates on residential streets would be speculative. Also see Response M-1. T-49 There is no proposal at this time to change the use of the parking lot which is south of Lake Street. 09/25/90(CH8001',RESPONSE.DOC) 4-4 9 i T-50 The City is still considering a surf museum in the parking structure planned for the north side of the pier; therefore, under CEQA this- constitutes a reasonably foreseeable project and must be included in the cumulative impact section. The author's comments regarding the success or failure of other projects in the Downtown Specific Plan area or on the Waterfront project raise economic issues that can be addressed by the Redevelopment Agency but are not required to be addressed under CEQA.. - Please also see Response M-1. T-51 This statement represents the opi.n.lon"{of- the commentor and will be _ taken into account by the decision makers... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - MARK A. MASSARA, SEPTEMBER 3.-'1990 U-1 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of recre- ation and land use. - U-2 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of land use issues. U-3 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of land use issues. U-4 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of land use - issues. U-5 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of land use issues. U-6 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of land- use issues. U-7 The EIR states that the project will have a significant -adverse effect on viewsheds. Additional alternatives that would lessen the — impacts to visual resources are discussed to General Response GR-3. There is no claim in the SEIR that the silhouetted nature of the _ buildings mitigates for lost viewsheds. The SEIR states that. the loss of viewshed is a significant adverse impact of the project. DEIR 90-2 documents the project will allow for indirect views; however, as noted in the EIR, such indirect views do not fully — mitigate for the significant adverse impacts from the project. 09/25/90(CH5001'%RESPONSE.DOC) 4-50 t U-8 . It should be noted that existing views of the surf line from PCH are limited due to existing structures on the site. Assessing surf quality while driving along PCH raises concerns regarding the at- tention that the motorist is paying to traffic conditions along PCH. The project may enhance this situation through the provision of the off-street frontage road along PCH. Surfers who wish to assess surf conditions can drive along the frontage road and assess surf quality through one of the view corridors without blocking through traffic on PCH. The concept that 1,000 new parking spaces may be needed to address the needs of surfers to assess surf quali- ty is exaggerated. The assertion that downtown retail parking will be increased at the expense of beach access parking is incorrect. '- Current beach access parking will be maintained on this site. If the commentor is implying that this site should be used to increase the supply of public beach parking, then that opinion shall be — taken into consideration by the decision makers; however, as noted in Response F-10, the City disagrees with the concept that the best use of this site would be additional public parking. U-9 The statement that the City of Huntington Beach has failed to do a traffic study for more than ten to fifteen years is incorrect. The City has updated the traffic studies in 1982, 1987 and 1989 and has prepared these traffic studies for the current project. The con- clusions of these studies remain valid. U-10 Please refer to General Response GR-2 for a discussion of alterna- tive sites. U-11 Please refer to Responses U-2 through U-11 regarding this issue. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - W. DIANE EASTERLING, SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 V-1 Please refer to Responses V-2 through V-16. . V-2 Please refer to Response T-31 for a discussion of the closure of the pier. V-3 The Maxwell site has 80 spaces according to the restaurant opera- tor. The issue of why Maxwell '.s is al=),owed to use an additional 47 spaces is an issue with Maxwell 's current lease arrangement with the City, and is not germane to the SE;rR. 09/25/90(CH6001%RESPONSE.DOC) 4-5 1 V-4 This comment again reflects concern regarding the existing parking _ conditions at the site, and is not a comment'on the 'SEIR. V-5 If all the uses peaked at the same time, then total parking demand would be "460 spaces for the restaurant plus 240 spaces for. the public lot. However, the uses do not park at the same `time. The. restaurant's peak is in the everting; beach use peaks. at .1 p.m. Based upon the current experience at Maxwells, the worst case con- dition would be a summer weekend at 1 p:m. (see Figure 4.24 in the . DEIR) . Under this condition, the restaurants would ..generate a -need for 434 spaces and the public would have the same 193 spaces ' as now. V-6 This comment again reflects concern regarding the existing par•ki,ng,. conditions at the site, and is not a comment on the SEIR. V-7. Please refer to Response H-12 for discussion of parking for 04 lifeguard facility. V-8 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of this, issue. V-9 The Environmental Board was notified of the :NOP :Process at the appropriate time. A complete mailing list '.far -the NOP %i s avai l abl e. for review. The Environmental Board's ..Comments .on -the 'NOP are addressed in Responses EB-1 through EB-13. V-10 The proposed uses intensify existing uses :of the site and .will result in the significant adverse effect to views -from PCH; how- ever, this effect occurs on a very "small stretch .of :the -over .eight and one half miles of PCH having public v.iews :of a he .beach. V-11 Please refer to General Response GR-.2 ;for a di.scussion ..of alter- native sites. V-12 Please refer to Response T-38 for a discussion of this issue. i> V-13 The impacts of .the roof terrace and second story_ :dining are ; included in the SEIR's assessment that the project-will cr.eate, �5 significant adverse effects -to visual resources. V-14 Alternatives 1 and 2 will be considered by •the Planning Comm iss.i.on and City Council . 09/25/90(CH3001--RESPONSE.DOQ 4-5 2 e..i V-15 Maxwell 's Restaurant has not been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The assessment of the historian who studied the structure is that the building may be eligible for inclusion in the Natural Register; therefore, the proper term to use is "poten- tially eligible for the National Register." V-16 There are no plans to cul-de-sac the numbered streets. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - DOUGLAS M. LANGEVIN, SEPTEMBER 6. 1990 W-1 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of the in- clusion of the project in FEIR 82-2. W-2 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of the in- clusion of the project in FEIR 82-2. W-3 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of the in- clusion of the project in FEIR 82-2. W-4 Note that the Environmental Setting Section of an EIR addresses the current conditions of the project area, not the proposed condi- tions. W-5 The statement in FEIR 82-2 that "generally most aesthetic impacts from the plan will be positive ones," implies that there are some specific negative impacts. These are noted with this project in Draft SEIR 90-2. Parking structures, if not properly constructed, can have significant adverse effects of their own. There is no statement in the Downtown Specific Plan in FEIR 82-2 that states that no structures can be built with a top level exceeding the grade of PCH. It is acknowledged that FEIR 82-2 did not address the visual impacts of commercial development within District 10; therefore, this issue was addressed in DEIR 90-2. Also note that the specific plan upon which FEIR 82-2 was based allowed for the development of 75,000 square feet of commercial property within this site. W-6 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of the in- clusion of the project in FEIR 82-2. 09/25/90(CHSON•RESPONSEMC) 4-53 W-8 Please refer to General Response GR-1 for a discussion of the in- clusion of this project in FEIR 82-2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - TOM NOBLE, SEPTEMBER 7. 1990 - X-1 Comment noted. X-2 The parking study in SEIR 90-2 used parking meter data to determine :> off-peak daily demand. Peak hour demands were assessed during the worst case summer period, when the parking lot is manned and hourly usage is available. `- X-3 SEIR 90-2 did not state that the additional 47 spaces were automat= ically reassigned to Maxwell 's on weekends. As the commentor -;... notes, the spaces were assigned to Maxwell 's when demand is expec- ted to exceed supply. However, SEIR 90-2 used the transferring of the 47 spaces to Maxwell 's as an analysis of the worst case condi- . tion. X-4 Please refer to Responses X-2 and X-3 for response to the assertion that flawed information and data is contained in the EIR. Please refer to Response F-9 regarding public parking on PCH. Please refer to Response H-12 regarding parking for the lifeguard faci- lity. X-5 Please refer to Response M-4 regarding the number of guaranteed` parking spaces. Please refer to Responses W-15 and 61-16 regarding v fees for parking in the structure. Please refer to Response M-4 regarding operational decisions regarding allocation of parking, including short-term parking. _:,• ; 09/25/90(Cri3001%.RESPONSE.DOC) 4-5 4 . - m.�)l•�.tE p ATTACHMENT A REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY 09/25/90(CH5001'••RESPONSE.DOC) Environmental Assessment Transportation Engineering Resource Management Lsa Community Planning Environmental Restoration _. September 13, 1990 ^- Jim Otterson City Traffic Engineer City of Huntington 'Beach - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: PIERSIDE RESTAURANT PARKING STUDY REVIEW RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Dear Jim: The following response to comments letter has been prepared to respond to your comments as presented in the Pierside Development Parking Study - Review Comments, dated August 23, 1990. Where applicable, these response to comments have been included in the attached revised Pierside Restaurant Circulation and Parking Analysis, revision date September 11, 1990. Response to comments are sequential per your com- ments. In general , the comments are presented first, followed by our response. 1. Title page. So noted. Prepared under Supervision of Leslie E. Card, (RCE #34410, RTE '322) . RTE/RCE stamps have been included on the title .page of the re- port. 2. Number all Tables in body of report. So noted. All Tables in the body of the report have been numbered. 3. Refer to Figures and Tables by number and page. So noted. Reference to all Figures and Tables in the text is by number and page. 4. Include Executive Summary at beginning of report. So noted. An Executive Summary at the beginning of the report that summarizes the results of the analysis as well as the findings and con- clusions has been included. 09/13/90(PIR001\TRAFFIC.MEM) ❑ 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 • Irvine, California 92714 • (714) 553-0666 11 157 Park Place • Pt. Richmond, California 94801 9 (415) 236-6810 _ 1 sa ,r _ 5. Provide copy of reference documents or pertinent portion there of (Greer' Study, Crommelin Study, etc.)." So noted. A copy of reference documents used in the circulation and parking study has been included in Appendix B of the revised .: .. :. study. A complete bibliography has also been included. 6. Submit 3 bound copies of the revised study for re-v-iew. So noted. Three bound copies of the revised circula ,ion study-wi.11 . be submitted to Jim Otterson; City Traffic` Engineer: 7. Page 1, Paragraph ,4. — The Pierside Village Development project was previously submitted for approval . However, the- application,was •withdrawn prior .to ap- proval . The reference. in"= the traffic study has been-- '.changed to. reflect this understanding. :- > 8. Page 2, Paragraph 3. _ W A parking analysis of the Lake Street lot was conducted b.ased..on ;nfo^ma-_ tion for daily revenue stream for a one year period. The finding`s; of this analysis were verified by the Crewleader of Beach Operations.: . A typical survey was not conducted as 1) the sea sonal:.-'var,.i4t�ion':co.uld;�n.o;t •: be deduced from a single event or. single per'i od survey, 2) the" Vari'.a'ti lo"iY' _ between days was confirmed by the Crewleader of the park i ng=.l of :u>a'ndt 3'Y the Crewleader confirmed that a historical record search was -mori?":a pIV priate to obtain a temporal parking profile. With regards to the Institute of Transportation -Ehgineers. (ITE) parking generation rates for similar beach environment .restaurant uses.- no,,:,data is available from the ITE Parking Generation Manual ,: 2nd Edition ' `-.HoweV, er, parking generation rates for Qu.ali.ty Restaurants (turnoVer`Tat es one hour or longer) range between 7.17 and 15.89 'spaces per 1�,000 square feet (TSF) . The City of Huntington Beach rate is an .approximate: average4 _ of this range. SANDAG similarly has no direct parking rates '.for beach restaurants in the San Diego Traffic Generators Man:u`al ; ;]anya'ry;° 1990.. ' Of the locations surveyed in the SANDAG 's,tudy;"one re`staurant,'"Att' hAdf�'y"s Fish Grotto i s- a qual ilty restaurant and _exhi bpi is park.i.ng+ raIte spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. ,. 09/13/90(PIn001\TRAFFIC.MEM) f; 2 6 !`M 1 �K 7 r aP�y 0t�y' i> T.' •.kiiw4}'Yf��e; Y:•� t mw Lsa d Surveys of parking activity from other local sites, such as John - Dominus, Ancient Mariner and Cano's, was not proposed in our origi- nal scope, because a survey at these locations would similarly record a given day and not define the seasonal variations. Howev- er, for informational purposes the parking rates for quality restaurants from the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach have been identified. The City of Irvine parking ordinance re- quires quality restaurants to provide 1 space/75 gross square feet of floor area up to 6,000 square feet plus 1 space/55 square feet of floor area over 6,000 gross square feet. The City of Newport Beach parking ordinance requires restaurant to provide parking -at a rate of 1 space per 40 square feet of floor area. It should be noted that the City of Huntington Beach parking ordi- nance requires a parking rate of 10.0 spaces per TSF for restaurant uses. Observed parking rates for the proposed Maxwell 's Restaurant of 10.0 spaces per TSF are consistent with the City of Huntington Beach parking ordinance. 9. Page 2, Paragraph 5. The purpose of the revenue information was used to determine the percentage of utilization of the parking lot. The results of this survey provide a comparison of summer versus non-summer and weekday — versus weekend parking activity at the Lake Street lot. Although daily revenues are not collected, parking by annual permit is fac- tored into the. summer versus non-summer estimates. 10. Page 3, Paragraph 1. So noted. Revenue stream information for the public Lake Street lot and information regarding the normalization process have been in- clude in Appendix C of the revised study. 11. Page 3, Paragraph 2. So noted.. The word "approximately" on page 3, paragraph 2 has been struck. The hours during which the 47 spaces are assigned to Maxwell 's are the.weekend evening dinner hours .between approximate- ly 5:00 p.m. and closing of the restaurant during the summer months. The determination for the required additional 47 parking spaces was made solely at the discretion of Maxwell 's operator. It should be noted, however, that for purposes of determining a con- 09/13/90(PIR001\TRAFFIC.MEM) 3 _ Lsa servative parking demand estimate the 47 additional spaces were as- sumed to be utilized by the restaurant during all summer weekend, periods. 12. Page 5, Paragraph 3. The estimated peak demand for summer weekend parking was 193 spaces. It was noted in the parking study that the parking accumulation for the beach attraction (i .e. , the period roughly between 10.:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.) would be significantly greater if additional parking were provided. 13. Page 9, Paragraph 1. So noted. That is a correct statement and an important conclusion. It implies that Maxwell 's tends to operate with a parking supply less than what is required by City code. Up to the City code is required; however, for peak conditions, hence the request for the 47 spaces. 14. Page 13, Paragraph 2. - So noted. The typo error in the word "previous" has been corrected in the revised study. - 15. Page 14, Paragraph 3. As noted in the Downtown Specific Plan - Traffic Analysis for Proposed Density Reduction in the Downtown Core Area, prepared by Greer & Co. , in April 4, 1989, density reductions in the downtown area resulted in a 13% trip reduction in the original Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan peak hour and daily traffic volumes. This study was prepared assuming development of the Pierside Village project. As identified in our origi- nal Pierside Restaurant Circulation and Parking Analysis study, the currently proposed Pierside Restaurant project will generate 68% fewer - peak hour trips as compared to the previous Pierside Village project. The peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Lake Street and Pacific Coast Highway presented - in the Pierside Restaurant Circulation and Parking Analysis are based on The Waterfront Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. , in January, 1988. The Waterfront study is based on the original Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan prior to the application of the proposed density reductions and prior to the - reduction in trips generated by the proposed Pierside project. 09/13/90(P1R001\TRAFFIC.MEM) 4 i Therefo'r.e,, to. represent. forecast cond-ftfons: w.i:th: the, progosed�, Downtown Core Area density- reductions the- I'M peak: hour trip_ red'uct.i`on- was- ap:- pl'i-ed to the -cumu:Ta.tive Downtown; Specific. Plan: and: committed growth !i tr.a.ffi,c volumes. TKi:s� reduct.i"on wa-s. app-Tt:ed` 'to- the, through. movements along: Pacific Coast Highway,. the: northbound right and so:u:thbound; Teft turn_ vol ume:s.,. and. the: westbound: right. and Teft turn. vo-Tumes at the; inter- section of Lake Street and. Pac.i-fic .Cb-ast-Hi-ghway.. These- turn, movements are not assoc.i,a-ted:•with the project. tr.ip as:sNgnmen.t and•;wo.uTd.., be: affected: by the. reduced Downtown Specific: Plain intens=iti- , A.TT other. to:rn v.o1- umes were reduced by 68% to: repr.-es-ent. the, reductifon in tri;ps. gene:r:a.ted by the. proposed Ptersi:de; Restaurant De:ve3:opment project... 16. Page. 1.4 Paragraph! 4;:. Trip d:is.trtbutfon for the proposed` Ve.rside• Restaurant: D'ev lopment, pro: Ject. is. based. on: the Downtown-- S-oecAfic Plan -- Traffic. An-aTvsi`& fdr Pro-- posed: De-nsity Red.uct.ion i.n the Downtown; Core-. Area, prepared. by Greer &: Co. i n. Apr.i`l 4', 1989.. Th:r.s study .rde.nti f,red: genesa.l di s.tr.i:butian:. pat- - ..terns- for -several, zones wfthin the City of Hun:tington Beach_ D'own.towm C=or,e... Area. P•r.oject. trips. were as,s.tgned: to the.. Oroject. access: Toc.atdon a-s.sum_:% ing routes which f.aci-Titated i-nbound and outbound:- a.ccess to,- P.acif c-'Coas;t' - H'ighway for- travel a:T`ong; the mayor tra:ve.1 corri'd`ars:.. As a, resulit, 35% of.. the inbound` peak' hour trips- were assigned: at: the: Paci'fi_c Coast. N,rgtiway. driveway and 65go were assigned' at. the. Lake Street entrance.. au:tbound•' peak. hour trips, were assigned; assuming 45�i, ut_i'Tizat:i:orr of fi the. Pacr "c Coast. Ki:gtiway-_.eg.re-s-s and',55% uti'l zaai`-on of: the.-. Lake- Street: exit'... Trip° reducti.o-ms were apIxT.ed` unilfo:rmly- at al:l: :.inbo:u.nd: a'nd` o.0 bou:nd proj'ee:t: access locations. 17. Page 15.. So noted.. The: 1CU- summarises for weekday and- weekend! t.ra:ffr:c: turn. volumes. have been-.combined: and are presented' i:n. Td.ble:, G o•f* the revised: ci'rcu;Ta ti:on and park-ing; study. . 18. Page 15, Paragraph 3'. The average: a..m.. peak hour., inbound bea.ch%t.raffic vo:l:umes are. based: one a- four day survey of the Lake Street park.irlg: l:ot conducted by- p,. .parki;ng. attendants i n June, 1990.. Inbound tr:afftt volumes were. recorded hour intervals between 6.:.00 a-..m:. and 9:.00 �p.m!., and,:the average inbound' _ summer. weekday (average of th•ree drays) .and week traff e o-]uihes ;were''` identified for both a.m.. and p.m. p;eak..haurs. 09/13/90(PIR001CTRAFFfC'.MEM) 5 i i i I �. Lsa I 19. Page 15, Paragraph 4. ` The peak summer day cannot be specifically defined, as this day is specu- lative. A number of peak days, such as the Fourth of July, Memorial day — weekend and any hot summer day, may exceed capacity. Therefore, a peak day was not identified, nor were turn movement counts -collected for this period as a part of this analysis. One reason that the peak day was not identified is that it is not appropriate to mitigate traffic for a small portion of the overall annual traffic profile. This is similar to not providing 100% parking at a shopping center for the day before Christmas. 20. Page 16, Paragraph 2. ' So noted. Reference to the direction of Pacific Coast Highway has been — revised to show' Pacific Coast Highway as the north/south street as op- posed to the east/west street. Reference U-turn opportunity along Pacif- ic Coast Highway has been changed from Fifth Street to Sixth Street. In _ addition, it is noted that the right turn only lane at Lake Street (First Street) will take priority over an acceleration lane existing the project site. 21. Page 16, Paragraph 2. So noted. Handicapped access routes from Pacific Coast Highway to the beach area through the project shall be included in the design of the pedestrian circulation. In addition, curb cuts at the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway and Main, and Pacific Coast Highway and Lake Street _ shall be included in this design. The traffic study has been modified to reflect this additional text. 22. Page 16, Paragraph 3. Pedestrian access and pedestrian flow will be maintained through the project site. As indicated in the text, the sidewalk along the southerly side of Coast Highway is proposed to be eliminated, reinforcing pedestri- an use of the Pierside Restaurant's promenade and eliminating pedestri- an/vehicular conflicts along the Coast Highway at the right in,, right out locations. 23.- Page 14:; So .nbted:`` The site..plans reflecting the beach access and lower parking level have been included in the revised study.' 09/13/90(PIR001\TRAFFIC.MEM) 6 r Lsa 24. Page 17. As indicated in the project .site. plan Pacific Coast Highway level in Figure 6 of the study, an acceleration lane has been included 'at the _ right turn out. The inbound right turn only pocket into the site is also. included in the site plan and is approximately 150 feet long. 25. Page 18., Paragraph 1. The applicant has indicated that pedestrian/bicycle facilities will be ro the throughout located project g p promenade. I'n addition, as indicated in the text, pedestrian%bicycle paths will be accommodated along the Strand. �. Elevations and cross sections have been previously submitted as part of the overall Conditional Use .Permit application. . 26. Page 18., Paragraph 2. So noted. Future bus turnouts have been identified on the site plan, and the graphics has been updated. 27. Page .18, Page 3. The actual gate. operation and valet selection have not been made at the time of preparation of the study. However, the rate of 305 vehicle .per hour is a representatively conservative estimate of the capacity'."of a gated access.. . With respect to the valet service, additional text and recommendations are made to ensure that the service selected operates at a .service rate, equivalent to the gate capacity. This service is, to be monitored, and if the service rate is deficient, creating queues beyond the 44 feet identified, additional staff must be accommodated or the valet service point moved further from .'the driveway. It is the applicant's intention to select the appropriate gate design ands 'valet service that would reflect the parameters.described :in the analysis`... _ 28. Page 18, Paragraph 4. So noted. The intended meaning of the second sentence is merely a dis- cussion of why the inbound p.m. peak hour traffic volumes were selected. For purposes of this -analysis, the arrival rate is based on the inbound; p.m. peak hour traffic volume. The. inbound p.m. peak hour represents: ,, worst case scenar.io .based on the fact that the combination.,of restaurant"." and..beach arrivals during this peak hour are' greater than the"thbound a.m. peak hour beach arrivals. 09/13/90(PIR001\TRAFFiC.MEM) 7 i I _ . L53 29. Page 18 (bottom of page) . i Table heading has been relocated to the next page. j — 30. Page 19 Table. As presented previously in response to comment #16, trip distribution for _ the proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project i's based on the Downtown Specific Plan - Traffic Analysis for Proposed Density Reduction in the Downtown Core Area, prepared by Greer & Co. , in April 4, 1989. This study identified general distribution patterns .for several zones within the City of Huntington Beach Downtown Core Area. Project trips were assigned to the project access location assuming routes which facil - itated inbound and outbound. access to Pacific Coast Highway for travel along the major travel corridors. As a result, 35% of the inbound peak hour trips were assigned at the Pacific Coast Highway driveway a.nd 65% were assigned at the Lake Street entrance. 31. Page 19 Table. As presented previously in response to comment #18, the average peak hour inbound beach traffic volumes are based on a four day survey of't;fi a Lake Street parking lot conducted by the parking attendants in .June-, 1990. Inbound traffic volumes were recorded in one hour intervals between 6:00 _ a.m. and, 9:00 p.m. , and the average inbound summer weekday '(average of three days) and weekend traffic volumes were identified for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. These volumes are termed average because they reflect weekday data averaged over three days, and weekend data that was collect-- - ed on an arbitrary day within the summer months. 32. Page 19, Paragraph 1. A discussion of the peak summer weekend demand is provided in the second. paragraph on Page 20. _ 33. Page 19, Paragraph 2. The reader is referred to the Crommelin Report, where it As stated that 305 vehicles per hour is a nine and one-half second per vehicle headway. The Crommelin report does not assume a uniform arrival rate, but assumes peal platoons. The purpose of this queuing analysis is to provide ade- - quate 'insurance that parking queues will not be created which would __ 09/13/90(PIR001\TRAFFIC.MEM) 8 tsa substantially conflict with the arterial street system, causing hazardous _ or unsafe operating conditions, and creating liabilities for the City. i 34.` Page 19, Paragraph 3/Page 20, Page 20, Paragraph 1. Review of the site plan does indicate that approximately 130 feet area available to accommodate vehicular storage. The text of the circulation study has been modified to reflect this change This modification- does not affect the results of the queuing analysis. A full size site' plan . has been submitted with the original Conditional Use Permit submittal; — 35. ICU Sheets As presented previously in response to comment #15, forecast turn volumes at the intersection of Lake Street and Pacific. Coast Highway are taken from the approved and certified The Waterfront Traffic Imoa.ct Analysis, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. , in January, 1988. As the attached _ worksheet indicates, two peak hour trip reductions were applied to the. cumulative and committed growth traffic volume movements. The 13% Peak hour trip reduction was applied to the through movements along Paci_fi'c Coast Highway, the northbound right and southbound left turn volumes,. and the westbound right and left turn volumes at the intersection. of Lake- Street and Pacific Coast Highway. All other turn volumes were reduced' by 58% to represent the reduction in trips generated by the proposed _ Pierside Restaurant Development project: This ICU methodology is similar to the approach used in the approved and certified City documents for the Waterfront project, the Rolly-Seacliff General Plan project, the Civic Center residential project and the Down- town Specific Plan project. It should be noted that the ICU assumptions regarding capacity are more conservative than the current County assump- tions of 1,700 vehicles per hour per lane. In addition, the clearance interval of ten percent is more conservative than the current. County standard of five percent. 7 .1 09/13/90(PIR001\TRAFFIC.MEM) 9 i lsa I trust that'the response to comments presented in this letter adequately answers all your concerns and questions regarding the Pierside Circulation and - Parking Study. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely,. I _ Anthony P ros Associ i • i i i i � I i 09/13/90(PIR001\TRAFFIC.MEM) 10 i II TABLEPOE;CONIENTS AGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FORECAST PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Existing Public Parking Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Forecast Project Parking Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Forecast Parking Demand Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 i TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 LAKE STREET INTERSECTION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 — INTERNAL CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 i PIERSIDE RESTAURANT PARKING QUEUE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 REFERENCES . .. . . . . 22 APPENDICES ! — APPENDIX A - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS . . . 23 APPENDIX B - COPY OF REFERENCED OF DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 �, . APPENDIX C - LAKE STREET LOT NORMALIZATION DATA . . . . . . . . . 25 t - i I ' i 09/12/90(PIR00].\PARKING:RPiT)') 1 I r i i I i Lsa PIERSIDE RESTAURANT CIRCULATION i AND PARKING ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 i i �.SSIOt�q� ERIC F��ci PREPARED BYell Bic �q�4ESSl0�y,�� ram,( LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.�J � 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 IRVINE CA 92714 - CI��� Off`/ (714) 553-0666 Ern LSA PROJECT #P' fir.IR001 �T T �rljE OF CP��` 5 Q September 12, 1990 i lsa LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1 - Lake Street Parking . . . . . . . 4 Figure 2 - Lake Street Public'Lot Existing Parking Accumulati-on 6 Figure 3 - Maxwell 's Restaurant Lot Existing .Parking Accumulation .. 8 Figure 4 - Forecast Parking Demand Analysis . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 9 — Figure 5 - Forecast Parking Demand . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 6 - Project Site Plan. - PCH Level . . . . . 16 Figure 6 cont. Beach Access Level Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 6 cont. - Lower Parking Level . . . . . . . . 18 09/12/90(PIR001\PARKING.RP.T) it lsa • The peak parking accumulation of 100 parking spaces for the 10,000 square foot Maxwell 's Restaurant results in a peak parking genera- tion rate of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. This is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach parking ordinance for restaurant land uses. • The forecast parking demand analysis for the Pierside Restaurant Development is examined for the four seasonal variations. Analysis of the Pierside Restaurant Development parking is made up of two components. The first component is the existing public parking demand, which has been identified to range between 98 and 193 park- ing spaces on non-summer weekdays and summer weekends, respective- ly. The second component includes the expansion of the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet, and the addition of 11 ,000 square feet and 14,000 square feet of quality restaurant land uses, and �a 6,000 square foot cafe. • Based on the findings of this analysis; the maximum parking accumu- lation ranges between 311 and 635 parking. spaces on non-summer weekdays and summer weekends respectively. • The maximum forecast parking accumulation during the non-summer weekday is less than the proposed parking supply of 575 parking spaces, the total number of striped spaces. During the other three seasonal periods, however, the peak forecast parking accumulation exceeds the proposed parking supply of 575 .parking spaces, which will require some degree of valet parking. — With valet parking services, the total proposed parking supply is 635 spaces. The maximum parking supply of 635 parking spaces ade- quately accommodates the maximum parking accumulation during the _— non-summer weekend and summer weekday periods. However, during the summer weekends the maximum parking supply is forecast to equal the maximum parking accumulation of 635 parking spaces. • Daily and peak hour trips are generated for the proposed Pierside . restaurant project and compared to the previously submitted . . Pierside Village project.. The proposed project will generate ap- proximately 3,980 average daily trips and 330 p.m. peak hour trips. • The proposed project generates 4,830 fewer daily trips, and 450 fewer p.m. peak hour trips than the previous Pierside proposal . As a result of the reduction in the number of daily and p.m. peak hour 09/12/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) iv is trips generated, no significant project related impacts to the arterial street system in the vicinity of the project site are forecast. • To determine the potential impacts associated with the development of the Pierside Restaurant at the intersection of Lake Street/Coast Highway, an intersection - capaci-ty utilization (:ICU) analysis was conducted. The results of this 1CU analysis indicate that this intersect-ion will operate below the 0.90 ICU threshold during both summer and non-summer periods. • Provisions for right turn deceleration lanes and bus turnouts are accommodated in the proposed site plan. • Pedestrian access to the proposed project is facilitated at .signal - ized crossings at the 'Main Street and Lake Street intersections with Pacific Coast Highway. • The Pierside Restaurant Development project proposes to create . additional access to the beach :Promenade from 'Pacific Coast Highway- between ;Main Street and Lake Street via two plaza Totati-ons at the ingress and egress driveways. W:al.kways are proposed between res- taurant pads providing adequate pedestrian circulation through t`he project site, thus reducing the'.numbe. . of pedestrian movements along the eastbound Pacific Coast Highway sidewalk between Main Street and Lake Street. hn addition:, the sidewalk along -t-he east- erly side of Coast Highway :has been eliminated between the :project right in and right out locations to further reinforce pedestrian -- use of the Pierside Restaurants promenade and eliminate the ;pedes trian/vehicular conflicts along Coast Highway. A queuing analysis is conducted to identify the probable :storage lengths at the proposed project's parking garage -entrances.. The purpose of this analysis is to ensure 'that queues do not develop ,-:at the parking garage entrances that will create conflicts with the -' arterial street system. Assuming • a 99% confidence level., or the probability that the potential queue will not be exceeded one'.-i n 100 times, a reservoir requirement of .44 feet (or two vehicles) =at Coast Highway and 66 feet (or three vehicles) at Lake Street is re- quired. As the storage length available is approximately 150 feet at both the Lake Street and Coast Highway -accesse:s; all s.t:orag.e requirements can be- accommodated within the -driveway:s. to `the: pa=i^k-: ing garage. 09/12/90(PIR001VARKING.RPT) v lsa Valet service has been identified as necessary to accommodate the forecast parking demand during the summer weekend periods. 7o ensure that queues do not develop onto the local arterial street system as a result of valet operation, the operation should be monitored to document that . the service rate is equivalent to the gated service rate, or 305 vehicles per hour (vph) . If the service rate is observed to be less than 305 vph, the rate necessary to prevent significant queues, additional staff must be accommodated, or the valet stop must be moved further from the driveway on Pacific Coast Highway. 09/12/90(P1R001\PARKING.RPT) v 1 lsa INTRODUCTION This analysis has been prepared to examine the ci.rculati:on and parking implications of the proposed Pierside Restaurant Development ,project, located on Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach. This analysis focus- es on the potential parking demand generated by both the lexisttng ;publi-c uses . and the proposed development, and compares this demand to the pro-p-osed pro- ject's parking supply. Existing parking data has been collected by `LSA Ass"ociates, Inc. from the operators of the Lake Street public parking slot and the. existing Maxwell 's parking lot. This data is used to document the monthly vari:ati:on in Public use ..of the Lake Street parking lot during 1989. An average summer and non-summer month is identified, and typical weekday and weekend :p:arking activity is deter- "mined'. Based on the four parking accumulations (s.ummer -and -non-'summer weekday and weekend) , the existing ,public parking 'base at the Lake Street lot is docu- mented. Existing parking utilization per the :various time ;periods was collected- Based on the public parking .lot and the restaurant .park1ng .data, the forecast parking accumulation of the proposed project, including the restaurant ex.p'an- Sion, was determined. - This analysis also presents a trip generation comparison. of the -pre.vious- ly submitted. Village and the currently proposed 'Pierside Restaurant •project: Daily and p.m. peak hour trip generation estimates for the previous Pierside Village project are based on the results .of the Traffic Impact _Analysis ' - Pierside Development Pro.iect, prepared by Greer & Co. , July 16, 1987. Trip generation estimates for the proposed Pierside Restaurant project are based on trip' generation rates supplied in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual , 4th Edition, 1985. As will be discussed, the currently proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project will generate sig nificantly fewer daily and p.m. peak hour trips than the previously submitted Pierside Village Development project. To illustrate the effects of the reduction in peak hour trips generated by the proposed project, an ICU analysis is presented for the intersection- of Lake Street/Pacific Coast Highway, the primary vehicular access to the proposed Pierside Restaurant project. Finally, this report includes a discussion, of the project's ,access-;with; the arterial street system, a parking. queue analysis and a d :scuss ;on. of nal circulation through the project. 09/12/90 M R001 VARK I NG APT) lsa FORECAST PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS The primary focus of this parking analysis is to determine whether the proposed parking supply can adequately accommodate the existing beach parking _ accumulation and the parking demand resulting from the proposed development. As the proposed project is located at the beach, the parking demand is sensi- tive to the seasonality of beach activity. Therefore, this analysis identifies the parking demand at four representative periods of the year: non-summer weekdays, non-summer weekends, summer weekdays and summer weekends. Two parameters are necessary to determine the forecast parking demand: -- the peak parking demand by land use, and the percentage of parking accumulation by time of day for each land use. To arrive at the parking demand by time of day, the peak parking demand is multiplied by the percentage accumulation by time of day. The results of this exercise indicate the parking characteristics of each land use during their operating hours. The .maximum parking accumula- tion is determined by finding that hour of the day when the most vehicles are anticipated to use the proposed project and to park on-site. This number of parked vehicles is the maximum expected to utilize the parking facilities, and is equivalent to the number of parking .spaces needed to accommodate the pro- posed project. In identifying the proposed parking demand for the Pierside Restaurant Development, two components are necessary. The first component is the existing public parking utilization for the lot located along Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the lifeguard station at Lake Street. The second component is the parking utilization curves for the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant. The proposed parking demand is based on the application of the utilization curves for the current Maxwell 's Restaurant to the proposed 15,000 square foot Maxwell 's Restaurant expansion, the construction of two restaurants totaling 25,000 square feet, and to a 6,000 square foot sit-down cafe. Public parking data for the existing public parking lot at Lake Street were identified based on revenue information collected by the lifeguard station for the year 1989. To determine the parking accumulation curves for each sea- sonal period, interviews with the Crewleader of Beach Operations at the lot were conducted. The lot currently accommodates 240 parking spaces. Review of the parking data gathered from the lifeguard station for the. public parking lot at Lake Street identified distinct parking variations. These four periods of distinct parking variations are identified as follows: 09/12/90(P1R001\PARKING.RPT) 2 P Lsa • Summer weekday • Summer weekend • Non-summer weekday • Non-summer weekend Based on these four distinct seasonal parking variations, hourly :parking utilization curves were identified. These curves were normalized to reflect the monthly percent difference between the summer. and non-summer seasonal variations. The Maxwell 's facility parking data presented in this report is based on — discussions with the owner and the controller of Maxwell 's Restaurant The current Maxwell ' s parking lot contains 80 spaces and is separated from the adjacent public parking lot by chains. Based on discussions with the control- ler at Maxwell 's Restaurant, parking for the restaurant is increased by re po- cating the chains to allow for an additional 47 parking spaces to be reassigned from the public parking lot to Maxwell 's parking during the weekends. Reas- signment of the 47 additional parking spaces to Maxwell 's occur primarily during the evening dinner hours between -approximately 5:00 p.m. and closing.of the restaurant. This decision or determination for the required additional. parking is made solely at the discretion of the Maxwell's operator. For -pur- poses of a conservative estimate of parking demand, these 47 spaces were as- sumed to be utilized by the restaurant during all summer weekend :periods. _ The forecast parking demand and utilization curves for the Pierside Restaurant Development are based on surveys of the existing public parking lot and Maxwell 's Restaurant parking. The new and expanded restaurant and cafe facilities proposed in the project are assumed to operate similar to the exi'st- ing Maxwell 's Restaurant parking. Therefore, the parking demand projection-s are based on the existing Maxwell 's Restaurant survey. — The following discussions present a summary of the analysis techniques and the forecast parking results. Existing Public Parking Utilization As mentioned previously, revenue data for the year 1989 were examined for the public parking lot located adjacent to the lifeguard station at 'Lake Street. Based on the total monthly revenue for 1989, an average monthly reve- nue was identified by summing the totals for each month and dividing: by: 1.2, . The upper graphic in Figure 1 (page 4) shows the _Lake Street- Lot monthly park->, ing variation. As Figure 1 indicates, monthly variations are identi,fied..a-s-.a: 09/12/90(PiROO.i\PARKING.RPT) 3 SOJX 280% 260X 240% F 220% 2 0 200% 1 .80% < u i60% Q 4 143% O 1 20 Ix 83-7 iEo aaR AIR 1.•a� iUN JUL AUJ - cif OCT N:✓ C=C _ IJOn 1 JUOX rI ♦ \\llii O < 230% V \i u l C 1 \\ X rE_KJAY WEEKEND wEEK:z- �'•c_KEND 100:0 Represent Annual Averages FIGURE 1 _ LAKE STREET PARKING LOT 6/25/90:KF tsa percentage of the .ay.erage month. As -expected, the summer :months :of •Juneq July, - and August represent :a -significant .i.ncre•ase .i:n ;parki:n.g acti•-Vi'ty above zv.erage annual conditions. The average :annual monthly .parkiln_g :act •v:ity :ils .most closely represented dur.i-ng ith.e months .of March and - -May. The lower graphic .in lFitgu:re :1 .presents the sea=sona:l and daily ;parking variation >for the Lake Street parking got for :non--:summer and Summer -.weekday !and weekend. Once again, the parking .act.i.v.ity i.s .presented as :a pe :ce•ntage :of 'the average annual .daily .parking. The average annual :daily parkiing is :represen'ted by the average monthly re:v.enue, identified -above., divirded '-by :the :aveirage number of days .per month .(30 days,) . As F:igu.re 1 .i:nd:i.c•:a:tes., !during +the :non-summer _ weekday, parki-n.g act:i-vity i.s less than 50% {of the ,ay.e.ra_ge da l,y �par..ki1Rg act-i•v-- ity. However, dur:in_g the non-summer weekend and -summer .wedkday. the ,parking activity is approximately 150% :greater than' the aver--a.ge :annu:al ;da ..Ty ;par:ki:ng activity. The peak p.a:rki:ng :actJv:ity `i:s during the s°.ummer wee-kend., .when the parking activity .is a:pprox: matel.y .30.0% -greater th:an .th-e an-nu:al zvz a.ge d-a:i�l-y Parking activity.. Hourly :pa;rking .acc.umul.ati.on .cu:r-v.e:s :andparktn_g s.u.pply lines -; re ,pres-ented in Figure :2 -.(,p:age 1.6).. -As Fi:g.ure 2 i•lliust:rat.es, :palrk-in.g . -cc ;curves differ .for each s:eaysonal and d-aily ;parkin,g v:ari:at;ion 1dentifi-ed �prev ilo-slly. It should be noted that the :parking :su;ppl.y l i.ne :for wee:kday:s a:nd :.weekend:s d-iffer.s- The .public palrkiing supply :h•as .been -if e•nti;f led a,s 2�4.0 park'i;ng :s;p:ace:s A.ur;i,n,g t'he summer and non-summer .we.e.kday.s whil:e, with t'he ;re:a,s•si_gnment of 4:7 iparking spaces to 'Maxwell l 's Restaurant during the .w.eelkend., the ;pu'bliisc p:ark .n,g s:up;ply"of 193 parking spaces was used. During the non-summer weekday, the !p.ealk :par:king accumulati2on -,was 1,dentl- - fied at less than -50% :of the .parking :s:up;pl.y. During the :summe,,r .we:e'kday, '.100% accumulation results between 1::00 :p.;m,. and _2.:'00 :p.m. A-:sium:il:ar :s:cen:ar:io -re- sults for the .weekend conditions, .wit'h l e.s:s than 100% accumul.atai:on durtng• the _ non-summer weekend :and a three :hour .maxi:mum :accumulati:on ;pe.r :od 'between 10:00 a.m. and 1 :.00 p.m. As -.th-is se.ct$on rof �Fi_gure 2 -illustrate:s., 'howe:v.er,, parking accumulation could not exceed 19.3 :parki,ng :spaces .(20 :sp.-ac.es m):n.us .4:7 spaces reassigned to .Maxwell's -Restaurant:)-; -demand for ,parking .would :be stgnifi,cantly greater if additional parking was ;provi,ded. Forecast Project :Ra:rking .Demand As previously discussed., the parking act i:vity for Maxwell's p:airk:i,ng .lot, was based on an interview with the controller of the 'MaxwelI 's :Restaurant _ parking lot. Based on this discussion, the panki•ng char.acteristi-cs during the 09/12/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 5 i NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND 60 130 SUPPLY = 00 SPACES 120 SUPPLY = 127 SPACES 70 110 60 100 n N 90 U_ V_ 80 _ I i 70 0 �00 60 a � so j ]O j Z Z .0 20 b 20 ID 10 0 0 6:00 AM 9:00 Au NOON N:00 Pu 6.00 PM 9,00 PM .,WGNT 6.00 AM 9.00 AM NODN 3:00 PM Coo Pu 9:00 PM MIONIGNT T..E OF BAr Tlu£or DAY ' SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND so SUPPLY = UO SPACES Izo SUPPLY = 127 SPACES 120 70.1 y 110 100 60 u 90 1/ SJ u BO i L S' 70 O A0 ro 60 C R n�0 ]O j ] Z Z 40 20 50 20 10 10 0 0 6:00 AU- 9:00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 Pu MIDWGNT 6:00 AM 9.00 AM NOON 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9.00 PM MIONIGNT . T+M£OF DAr nM£or DAY FIGURE 3 MAXWELLS RESTAURANT LOT EXISTING PARKING ACCUMULATION Lsa6/25/90:KF I f ' 7 Lsa four periods were identified. Similar to the hourly -parking accumulation data i gathered for the public parking lot, parking ut:ili.zation curves were generated for Maxwell 's Restaurant :based on the controller's data. :Fi•gure 3 -(pa.ge 8) presents the existing parking accumulation curves for Maxwell 's Restaurant parking lot. As the curves indicate, parking supply during the weekdays is 80 _ spaces. However, with the reassignment of 47 .parking spaces from the public parking lot, the parking supply during the weekend is 127 spaces. Characteristic of restaurant type land uses, the peak. parking accumula- tion curves throughout the day show two distinct peaks. These peaks' , occur during the noon and evening hours to reflect the peak parking attraction to the restaurant during the lunch and dinner periods. As Figure 3 indicates, parking accumulation during the non-summer and summer months is .below the parking supply. During the non-summer and summer weekdays_, parking accumulation is. less than 70% of the .parking supply of 80 parking spaces. However, during the summer and non-summer weekends, parking accumulation increases to •125% of the weekday parking supply, or approximately 100 parking spaces. However, due to the reassignment of additional parking, the parking accumulation for Maxwell 's Restaurant is still below the weekend parking supply of 127 par-king spaces. . It should also be noted that the peak parking .accumulation of 100 parking_,spaces for the 10,000 square foot Maxwell 's Restaurant results in a peak- parking generation rate of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet,. This i.s 'consistent with the City of Huntington Beach :,parking ordinance for _restaurant Iand- .uses. Forecast Parkino 'Demand Analysis .Results . The forecast parking demand analysis. for the -PiersidelRestaurant Develop- ment has been examined for the four .seasonal variations id.entif:ied previously. Analysis of the Pierside Restaurant _Development .pa.rk,i.ng is made up of two components. The first component is the existing .publi,c .parking demand, ,which has' been identified to range betwee.n 98 and 193 .parking spaces on.'non--summer weekdays and summer weekends, respectively. The second component includes the expansion of the existing Maxwell 's ;Restaurant from 10,.000 squar- : feet to 15,000 square feet, and the addition- of 11 ,000 square -feet -and 14;000 .square feet of quality restaurant land uses, and a 6,000 square foot cafe. ' -For-=fore- •— casting purposes, the utilization curves for the existing Maxwel-l '-s -Re"sta'uran.t were applied to all future parking restaurant .dev.elopments. The forecast parking demand analys-is tables .for the :public park,i n'g lot and the restaurant land uses are presented in Figure 4 (page 9) . The .6 recast parking demand for the proposed restaurant land uses is generated based =on .the 09/12/90(PiR001\PARKING.RPT) 7 NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND 2+0 2.0 WITLY = 240 SPACES 220 220 200 200 '60 '6o t:UPPLY = 193 SPACLS 160 '60 +0 u i ..0 u v Yr :20 10 20 o 100 .�.+ loo e n m 60 i 60 i Z 60 60 +0 .0 20 20 0 0 6:00 Au 9 C0 Am 'loom loo Pu 6.00 Pm 9.00 P. -10H.GHT 6 00 A. 900.. m00m 5.00 P. 6.OD P. 9.00 Pr WOWG+T T.mc or 0.v T.mE or D., . SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND 2.0 2.0 — C,UPPLY = 240 JPACLS i 220 220 y 200 200 y �ro 0 :,UVPLY = 19J ::PAGES '60 '60 V '+o i '.o i > j 120 00 120 o .00 c 'Oo 22 6o i so60 60 40 .0 20 20 0 0 6:00 Am 9,0o Am m00N 3.00 F. 6.00 Pm 9.00,P'. .0"4"T 6 GO Am goo.. .00. 200 Pm 6:00 Pm 9.100 Pm Mo'..HT 1.uT Or p.vf _ T.m[or D., FIGURE 2 LAKE STREET PUBLIC LOT r . EXISTING PARKING ACCUMULATION �� 6/25/90:KF NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND q. t. q t, — Room 15.,000 ;31,000 Room 15;000 '11 j.00O HB Code -• 10/1000 10/1000 HB.Code 1 O%1000 70J1000 fotal Total — Parking per Parking Parking per Parking HB Code 24D ISO 310 Demand HB:,Code 193 150 -310 Demand Weekdays Weekdays 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 . _ 7:00_AM 1 0 0 1 7:00-AM 2 '0 0 2 8:00 AM 6 0 0 6 8:00 AM 3 0 0 3 9:00 AM 13 0 0 13 9:00:AM 9 0 0 9 10:00 AM 17 8 16 40 . 10:00!AH 34 39 18 ; 169 11:00 AM d8 `' 15 31 104 °, 11:00 AM 95 83 171 ' 349 NOON 81 15 31 127 :NOON 122 1'l3 233 467 _ 1:00 PM 98 60 129 282 1:00 PM 142 150 310 602 2:00 PM 81 75 155 3.11 2:00 PM 133 15J '310 593 3:00 PM' 69 .56 115 239 3:00 FM 119 123 264 510 4:00 PH 43 39 78 163 4:00 PM 105 75 155 335 5:00 PH 35 15 31 El 5:00 PH E5 6 93 203 — 6:00 PM 35 15 31 61 6:00.FM 45 73 155 276 1:00 PH 12 38 78 127 7:00 PM 15 111 211 360 8:00 PM 12 60 124 -195 8:00 PH 15 153 310 475 9:00 PM 9 75 155 239 9:00 PM 8 IS: 310 468 10:00 PH 3 b0 IN 187 10:00 FM 5 1;) 110 455 — 11:00 PH 0 45 93 138 11:00 PM 1 )35 279 416 j MIDNIGHT .6 0 0 0 MIDNIGHT 2 45 93 .140 ...................................................... ......-....._....;_•...._...._._...........__..__.._.. Maximum Parking Accumulation 311 Maxinum Parking Accumulation E02 SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND q t __.: _ — —--- ' t Room 15,000 31,000 600m _-• 15,000 31,000 HB Code. 10/1000 10/1000 1:8•Code -__ 10/1000 10/1000 Total Total' — Parking per Parking Parking per: Parkrfig' HB Code 240 150 3,10 Demand H6 Code 193 )SO 310 Demand` Weekdays y � ':eekdays E:00 AM 0 0 0. Q 6:0 AM 0 0 0 0 — 7:00 AM 12 6 0 1.2 -1:CO.AM 33 0' 0 3� ' 8.00 AM. 36 0- 0 36 3:CJ A14`. !;} G` 0 97 9:00 AM 72 0. 0 72 9:0J.0.M I'6'4: 0 0 164 10:00 AM 103 8- 16 1.31. '10:00 AM LU 33 78 SAI 11:00 Ai 156 8. 1:6- 17.9 11:00 AM: i;.T' E'Y ))1 4.46 NOON 215 33 78- 331' N00'i 1:9:31 1.11: 2'33 S18 1:00 PH 243 60, 124: 4,24. 1:con PH, - Ir-3' 1'tt 2Q9 2:00 PH 24.6 11). 233. 555. '2':C)-F.4 174 1'4`•4' 299 615 3:00 PH 204 98 202 1,33 • 3,:.00 PM. 15d: 93 202 44 3 4:00 PH 192 33 76, 307 e:oo.FM: 16-4 7'Ss 155 194 t' 5:00 PH Is.). 15: 3} 226; 5':CJ..PM' 1:1'5. 45: 93` 754 6:00 PH 19.2 23 4:7! 20-I ! .6':E.3',,PH '_9 ev_ 7:00 PH 15 45 93 2S1' 40.30 8:00 PH 120 73 1.55 350 B:CJ;PM 3`3 ISJ 3.10= 499' 9:00 FM 96 93; 2,02_ 335; 9m:0-FM 1.9= 130 3?T0 fZ9 10:00 PH 49. Ed• 1.40 2'5; " 1J:.CJ.PH 10' 1%i0' 310' i70 i 11:00 FM 12; 33: 78:- 1'2;1 11m:C0 PH; 10 1,15 2-7 9: 4`2:4k ; MIDNIGHT, 12 0 0. 12. `1IC'NIGHT; 0: ................................ ........ ..--...._....._ .. Maximum Parking Accumulation_ 585i Maximum% arkdng;Accumul'a.t'iors 6-35'• , 15,000• ..Maxwells.Restaurant FI'GU.RF= 31,000- Ot her:Res taurants:: F FOR�E;CAS.T� PARKING D.EMA=ND- AN/aL�YS19 Lsa6/26/90:AS. lsa 10 parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet rate identified previously in this _ report and consistent with the City of Huntington Beach parking ordinance. As Figure 4 indicates, the maximum parking accumulation ranges between 311 and 635 parking spaces on non-summer weekdays and summer weekends respectively. Figure 5 (page 11) has also been prepared to illustrate the parking demand analysis with the proposed parking supply. Figure 5 identifies two parking supply lines: the proposed parking supply of 575 parking spaces, and — the maximum parking supply of 635 parking spaces. The 575 parking supply is based on the total number of striped spaces. With valet parking, additional parking can accommodate up to 635 parking spaces. Figure 5 indicates that the forecast peak parking accumulation occurs at 2:00 p.m. on weekdays and 1 :00 p.m. on weekends, when the peak utilization of the public parking lot and the restaurant lot coincide. The maximum forecast -' parking accumulation during the non-summer weekday is less than the proposed parking supply of 575 parking spaces. During the other three seasonal periods, however, the peak forecast parking accumulation exceeds the proposed parking — supply of 575 parking spaces, which will require some degree of valet parking. Figure 5 also indicates that the maximum parking supply of 635 parking spaces adequately accommodates the maximum parking accumulation during the non- summer weekend and summer weekday periods. However, during the summer weekends the maximum parking supply is forecast to equal the maximum parking accumula- tion of 635 parking spaces. It should be noted that the peak public parking — demand analysis during the summer weekend assumed a peak parking accumulation of 193 parking spaces, due to the reassignment of 47 parking spaces to Max- well 's Restaurant parking lot. However, experience indicates that the public parking demand for beach parking is a function of parking supply. In other ! — words, if the 47 parking spaces were not reassigned for restaurant use, the peak public parking accumulation during the summer weekend would have been 100% of 240 parking spaces, or 240 parking spaces. TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON i In July 1987, Greer & Co. prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis for the Pierside Development Project. The project proposed development of 40,000 Isquare feet of specialty retail , 30,000 square feet of quality restaurants, and _ 30,000 square feet of fast-food services. The study identified daily and p.m. peak hour trip generation as presented in Table A. i 09/12/90(PIR001\PARKING APT) 10 j I I. NON-SUMMER WEEKDAY NON-SUMMER WEEKEND 700 /6, - T - 630 MAXIMUM-SUPPLY OF 635 SPACES 1-1 MAXIMUM UPPLY OF 635 SPACES PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 575 SPACES PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 570 SPACES SOO Soo .00 - Y .00 > 0 0 rc 3O0 : 300 m s z i, z 700 200 i 100 100 0 0 6.00 Au 9:00 Au NOON 3.00 PM 6.00 Pu 9.00 Pu MIONIGIIT 6.00 AM 9,00 Au NOON 3:00 Pu 6:00 PM 9:00 PM MIDNIGHT TIM[Of 0AY 'TINE OF DAY M..WrLts ®RcsTs. PGeoc ©—WELLS m RESTS.. SUMMER WEEKDAY SUMMER WEEKEND 700 -T >00 -r--- 600 MAXIMUM SUPPLY 01: 635 SPACES 600 MAXIMUM SUPPLY OF 635 SPACES PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 575 SPACES PROPOSED SUPPLY OF 575 SPACES 500 S I 400 x .00 i O V 300 300 j } L _ 700 200 100 TQt ' O `_I- UY4 0 i 6,00 Au 9:00 AM 'NOON 3.00 PM 6.00 PM 9.00 PM -MIDN4NT 6.00 AM 9.00 AN NOON 3.00 PM 6:00 PII 9:00 PM WOHGNT Tw(Of OAY TIMc OT DAY PO TAIC .�a MA. 111 J N(:i PUOLIC [ —WELLS, ©PESTS. - FIGURE 5 FORECAST PARKING DEMAND Lsa6/25/90:KF lsa TABLE A P-IERSIDE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION PM PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT TOTAL Pierside Village Development 8,810 500 280 780 However, subsequent to the previous project approval by the City of Hun- tington Beach City Council , a reduced development is currently proposed to include 40,000 square feet of quality restaurants and 6,000 square feet of sit- down cafe land use. An additional 10,000 square feet of beach related retail and food service is proposed, however their facilities focus on serving the pedestrian visitor and are not expected to generate parking or trip making demand. The proposed trip generation is identified in Table B below. The trip generation rates are taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual , 4th edition. TABLE B - PIERSIDE RESTAURANTS PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PM PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT TOTAL 40,000 SF (3 Quality Restaurants) 2,995 150 95 245 6,000 SF Sit-Down Restaurant 985 60 25 85 Pierside Restaurant Development 3,980 Z10 120 330 As Table B indicates, the proposed project generates 4,830 fewer daily — trips, and 450 fewer p.m. peak hour trips than the previous Pierside proposal . As a result of the reduction in the number of daily and p.m. peak hour trips generated, no significant project related impacts to the arterial street system in the vicinity of the project .site are forecast. This conclusion is substan- tiated with the results of a Greer & Co. study entitled, Downtown Specific Plan - Traffic Analysis for Proposed Density Reduction in the Downtown Core Area, April 4, 1989, in which the effects of down zoning the Downtown Specific Plan — reduced the volume of traffic in the Downtown Core Area. As stated in the Greer study, "These volume changes are nominal and won't significantly effect traffic operations on any of the streets as presently planned." (p. 5) . LAKE STREET INTERSECTION ANALYSIS To determine the potential impacts associated with the development of the Pierside Restaurant at the intersection of Lake Street/Coast Highway, an ICU 09/12%90 M R001VARKING.RPT) 12 i sa analysis was conducted. Briefly, the ICU methodology -compares 'the volume . to _ capacity (v/c) ratios for conflicting turn movements at an tnters'ectaon sums these critical v/c ratios for each intersection approach ,and -determi:nes the overall intersection capacity utilization.. The City of Huntington 'Beach .-de- fines acceptable intersection operations at- an 'I'CU value of 0.90. The peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of LakeStreet/Coast Highway are -based on information included im the. ;Final Environmental impact — Report for The Waterfront Master Plan Hotel 'Development, July .18 I98`8.. These volumes were used as they reflect an approved analysis of this intersection, including the effects of the Downtown Specific :Pl-an, the previously .subm .teed Pierside Village developments and the approved Waterfront Master Planproject.. The .peak hour traffic volumes included. in The Waterfront final EIR have been modified to reflect the down zoning of the Downtown Sipecif c :Phan -and -the reduced .development intensity of the Pierside Restaurant project. The result- ing peak hour intersection volumes reflect an -average weekday condition assum- ing the build out -of the Downtown Specific Plan and Pierside Restaurant pro- ject. In addition, a summer condition is included -to determine the effects :of summer beach traffic at this intersection. This summer condition includes--an increase in eastbound and westbound through traffic•, as well as an iacrease in the appropriate turning volumes into and out -of the Lake Street parki-ng -area. To determine the effects of the downzoning of the :Downtown S:pecifi'c -.'Plan- To assignment .for the Plan was reduced according to the reduction ib, Trip generation as presented in the Greer & Co. study .entitl-ed, :Downtown Specific Plan - Traffic Analysis for Proposed Density :Reduction in -the Downtown Core Area, April 4, 1989. The results of this study 'indicate that the 'reduced density will result in a peak hour trip generation reduction of -approximately 13%. Therefore., the trip assignment associ-ated with the :Downtown S:p6tific Plan, included in The Waterfront Final EIR analysis, was :modifi-ed to reflect _ this 13% trip generation reduction. As previously discussed, the pro-posed Pierside Restaurant project- w-ill generate fewer trips than the original Pierside Village project. While the original Pierside Village was forecast to generate approximately 780 :p:m`: peak w hour trips, the proposed Pierside Restaurant ll .generate a total of 330=p':m. peak hour trips. Overall , the proposed Pierside Restaurant project will gener- ate 68% fewer trips during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. To reflect this .dif- ference in peak hour trip generation the inbound and .outbound movements'`:to' the project and the intersection of Lake Street/Coast Highway have been-_ reduced accordingly. 09/12/90(Pi R001 WARKI FG.RPT) .13 i Lsa .d The -resulting. modified a.m. -and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at Lake Street/Coast Highway are input into an ICU analysis worksheet: The intersec- tion lane geometrics used in this analysis assume the addition of a third eastbound and westbound through lane, per the current Caltrans project. The results of this average weekday ICU analysis are presented in Table C. The ICU analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. As seen in Table C, the intersection will operate .acceptably, below the 0.90 threshold, during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The effects of summer traffic volumes are assessed by increasing _the eastbound and westbound through volumes according to historical seasonal variations observed on Coast Highway. According to the LSA analysis, Seasonal Variations in Pacific Coast Highway Traffic Volumes, April 6, 1988, the a.m... peak hour is unaffected by the variation in seasons from non-summer to summer. The p.m. peak hour, however, can exhibit a four to nine percent increase during the summer months. To present a conservative estimate of the seasonal varia- tion in traffic volumes, an increase equivalent to nine percent in p.m. peak hour through traffic has been assumed in this ICU analysis. In addition, the increase in beach parking activity is represented in this ICU analysis. According to the parking counts collected from the City of Huntington Beach, the average summer weekend a.m. peak hour arrivals are ap- proximately 123 vehicles. The average summer weekend p.m. peak hour arrivals total 30 vehicles. Therefore, the inbound movements to the Lake Street parking area are added to the summer period ICU analysis. The results of this analysis — are presented in Table C below. As seen Table C, the intersection will operate acceptably, below the 0.90 threshold, during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours during the average summer period. TABLE C - LAKE STREET/COAST HIGHWAY ICU ANALYSIS Average Weekday Average Weekend — AM Pk. Hr. PM Pk. Hr. AM Pk. Hr. PM Pk. Hr. ICU LOS ICU L-OS ICU LOS ICU LOS — Without Project 0.56 A 0.77 C 0.58 A 0.80 C With Project 0.59 A 0.78 C 0.61 B 0.81 D 09/12/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 14 • P � I b d • h ct a d Lf n a✓ o, I O O °u • IACIFK COASI ,aGN-- „_;„_, Future Bus Turnout 7 -- � a .I t TI1-mTm —Q�—-- - — ji euMaHc w a euna.�o e . ewirK'c , J ' I L _ - _ I. _L..L I SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 6 0 50 100 '. PROJECT SITE PLAN sizs�so:ns PCH LEVEL ri i i i I i i i i I I i I i i i I I i FrF . nAcE T 1 'D IL S,K SWl 11'SfYNlAlii 11E iwq .-.�..�'•�..�..___� _._.___..u �' '-� 1 1 1 J � 1 I' I —•—J I � 1 ' ' 1 � � 1 1 I 1 1 SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 6 (CONT.) 0 50 • 100 Lsa 117/19/90:AS BEACH ACCESS LEVEL i y 1 V /YMO.O LA . ki 11 • v 1 SCALE FIGURE 6 ( ONT ) IN`FEET ,. - GU C 0 50 100 Lsa0 'LEVEL/ 1s so:As LOWER PARKING i Lsa The Pierside Restaurant Development project proposes to create additional access to the beach . promenade from Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street via two plaza locations at the ingress and egress driveways. In addition, walkways are proposed between restaurant pads providing adequate pedestrian circulation through the project site, thus reducing the i number of pedestrian movements along the eastbound Pacific Coast Highway side- walk between Main Street and Lake Street. In addition, the sidewalk along the — easterly side of Coast Highway has been eliminated between the project right in and right out locations to further reinforce pedestrian use of the Pierside Restaurants. promenade and eliminate the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts along Coast Highway. Pedestrian/bicycle conflicts .are also managed along the Strand with the provision of a pedestrian boardwalk separated by planters, walls or railings from the bicycle trail . Transit service along eastbound Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the project site is currently provided by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) . Existing bus stops are located approximately 80 feet west of Main Street and approximately 100 feet west of Second Street. The proposed Pierside Restaurant Development project design can accommodate the existing bus stops and future plans for bus turnouts. i PIERSIDE RESTAURANT PARKING QUEUE ANALYSIS A queuing analysis is conducted to identify the probable storage lengths at the Pierside Restaurant's parking garage entrances. The purpose of this — analysis is to ensure that queues do not develop at the parking garage entranc- es that will create conflicts with arterial street traffic flow. The potential for a queue, or vehicle back up, arises at the garage entrances due to the relationship between the arrival of vehicles and the ability of parking control equipment to handle these vehicles. Gated access controls are proposed at the ingress locations at Lake Street and the- midblock location on Coast Highway. The methodology for determining desirable parking gate storage requirements includes the peak hour arrivals and the appropriate factors for parking control equipment characteristics, as presented in a report entitled Entrance-Exit Design and Control for MaJor Parking Facilities by Robert Crommelin and Associ- ates, Inc. To evaluate the potential queue formation at the garage entrance loca- -tions, the ratio of the arrival rate to the discharge rate, termed the traffic intensity (or "V) , `is determined. For purposes of this analysis, the arrival 09/12/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 19 i tsa i rate is .based on t�h:e 1nbo.und ;p.!m.. 1pe:ak •hour ,traffic =-voIume.. The :mound .p:m.. — peak hour .re,presents a worst case scerrari o based o•n t`he fact t'h,at the combi- nation of restaurant :and 'beach arrivals dur ,n.g this ;peak hour :are :gre-ate:r than the inbound a..m. :peak :hour beach arr:iva'ls.. The project peak hour tr:i-p ;gene:r:ati!on :s .s,ummari-.zed ''i.n .Table -D. The peak hour inbound beach tr:affi.c and tr'i;p _di:stribution by :acece:s.s location is also presented .i.n Ta'bl:e D. The trip distribut.i+on :percentages ware 'b:ase -on the ':Down- town Soecific Plan Traffic Analyses fo.r 'P.roao.s:ed Densitw 'R.eductions in t -e Downtown Core Area :pr-epared by Greer :and Company in April, 1989.. For purposes of this analysis, these general distri:but:i.o:n:s were :refined to Jd+ent.ify specific distri•b.utions at :the -a.cce;s.s Locations.. i • TABLE D - `PIERSI.DE -RESTAURANTS `PROJECT TRIP ;G:ENERAT:ID.N .SUMMARY :AM Yzak :;Hour FM Perak Hour Land Use -n Out In Out Quality Restau.r.ant :('.1.) 34 1.8 .152 °94 Sit-down .Re.stau.r;a:nt (1) 6-2 21 5:9 :24 SUBTOTAL .9.6 39 21.1 118 Inbound Beach Traffic* 13 :19 Coast Hwy Access % Distribution 35% -35% — Volume 34 74 Lake Street Access — % Distribution 65% 65% Volume 75 156 _ * Average Weekday Traffic Volumes (2) Note: (1). Per ITE definition, quality -restaurants -have a turnover -rate of 'one. hour or longer, whereas sit down restaurants have a higher turnover less than one hour. (2) Inbound Beach Traffic volumes are based on four day traffic _ volume counts .conducted by the parking attendants at theAake Street lot in June, 1990. Inbound traffic volumes were re- 09/12/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 20 i lsa corded in one hour intervals between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. , and the average inbound summer weekday and weekend traffic volumes were identified. _ As seen Table D, the Coast Highway access is forecast to include 34 a.m. and 74 p.m. inbound trips. The Lake Street access will have 75 a.m. and 156 p.m. peak hour inbound trips. Therefore, the p.m. peak hour inbound volumes are used as the arrival rate in the calculation of storage requirements for the gated access to the parking garage. The discharge rate for the project gated facilities are based on recom- mended values in the Crommelin study. For a gated ticket dispenser with a sharp turn at the approach, the Crommelin study recommends a design hourly capacity of 305 vehicles. This value assumes an average headway of 9.5 seconds per vehicle. Assuming an inbound volume of 74 at the Coast Highway access and 156 at ! the Lake Street access and a -design capacity of 305 vehicles per hour, the intensity factor for the Coast Highway and Lake Street access locations is 0.24 and 0.50, respectively. Assuming a 99% confidence level , or the probability that. the potential queue will not be exceeded one in 100 times, a reservoir _ requirement of 44 feet (or two vehicles) at Coast Highway and 66 feet (or three vehicles) at Lake Street is required. As the storage length available is approximately 130 feet at both the Lake Street and Coast Highway accesses, all storage requirements can be accommodated within the driveways to the parking garage. Valet service has been identified as necessary to accommodate the fore- cast parking demand during the summer weekend periods. To ensure that queues do not develop onto the local arterial street system as a result of valet operation, the operation should be monitored to document that the service rate is equivalent to the gated service rate, or 305 vehicles per hour (vph) . If the service rate is observed to be less than 305 vph, the rate necessary to prevent significant queues, additional staff must be accommodated, or the valet stop must be moved further from the driveway on Pacific Coast Highway. It should be pointed out that this analysis assumes average weekday inbound traffic volumes. Due to the location of the proposed project and the — proximity to the beach, summer parking activity is a consideration in this queuing analysis. Due to the available storage length of 130 feet, approxi- mately six vehicles could queue without impacting the arterial street system. _ Using the •Crommelin approach, a six vehicle queue would result from an inbound volume, of 213 vehicles per. hour. The total inbound traffic volume identified 09/12/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) 21 I lsa at Lake Street during the average weekday is 156 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the increase to 213 vehicles represents an increase' of approximately 37% over the average weekday inbound volumes that could be accommodated by the proposed gated access plan. i 09/12/90M R001\PAM UG.RPT) 22 I i I i ! lsa REFERENCES Traffic Impact Analysis - Pierside Development Project, Greer & Co. , July 16, 1987. Trip Generation Manual , 4th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) , 1985. Downtown Specific Plan - Traffic Analysis for Proposed Density Reduction in the Downtown Core Area, Greer & Co. , April 4, 1989. Seasonal Variations in Pacific Coast Highway Traffic Volumes, LSA Associates, Inc. , April 6, 1988. Entrance-Exit Design and Control for Ma.ior Parking Facilities, Robert Crommelin and Associates, Inc. , October 5, 1972. The Waterfront Traffic Impact Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc. , January 1988. I I _ 09/12/90(P1R001\PARKING.RPT) 23 lsa APPENDIX A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS r _ 09/12/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) I PIERSIDE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (N/S) / LAKE STREET (E/W) Ica INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS EXISTING AVERAGE WEEKDAY I !I FORECAST AVERAGE WEEKDAY I FORECAST AVERAGE WEEKDAY WITHOUT PROJECT I I V/C V/C I MOVE- ( VOLUME RATIO* I MOVE- I VOLUME RATIO* 1 VOLUME RATIO* MENT 1 LANE CAP. AM PM AM PM I MENT I LANE CAP. AM PM AM PM I LANE CAP. AM PM AM PM - 1-----------------------------------------------(-------I-----------------------------------------------I----------------------------------------------- NBL 1 1 1600 33 151 0.02 0.09 *1 NBL I 1 1600 52 359 0.03 0.22 *1 1 1600 52 359 0.03 0.22 NOT I 2 3200 1,126 1,129 0.36 * 0.36 I NOT 1 3 4800 1,235 1,279 0.27 * 0.27 1 3 4800 1,235 1,279 0.27 * 0.27 I NOR I 0 0 33 12 0.00 0.00 I NOR i 0 0 68 25 0.00 0.00 i 0 0 66 21 0.00 0.00 SOL 1 1 1600 31 15 0.02 * 0.01 I SOL I 1 1600 78 36 0.05 * 0.02 1 1 1600 35 15 0.02 * 0.01 SST I 2 3200 1,081 1,178 0.35 0.39 *1 SOT I 3 4800 1,142 1,362 0.26 0.33 *1 3 4800 1,142 1,362 0.26 0.33 *I SBR I 0 0 48 67 0.00 0.00 I SBR 1 0 0 103 208 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 103 208 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1 1600 63 52 0.04 0.03 *1 EBL 1 1 1600 213 185 0.13 0.12 'I 1 1600 213 185 0.13 • 0.12 * 1 EBT ( 2 3200 16 3 0.05 * 0.02 I EBT I 2 3200 57 11 0.12 * 0.04 1 2 3200 40 3 0.11 0.04 1 EBR 1 0 0 149 46 0.00 0.00 1 EBR 1 0 0 326 124 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 326 124 0.00 0.00 I I VOL i 1 1600 46 11 0.03 * 0.01 WBL 1 1600 92 21 0.06 * 0.01 1 1 1600 80 11 0.05 0.01 i WBT ( 2 3200 28 16 0.02 0.01 *I WBT I 2 3200 84 51 0.04 0.02 •I 2 3200 78 33 0.04 • 0.01 •' WBR I 0 0 23 9 0.00 0.00 I WBR i 0 0 56 19 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 52 7 0.00 0.00 -------------------------------------------------------I ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------I N/S Critical Movements 0.38 0.48 N/S Critical Movements 0.32 0.55 N/S Critical Movements 0.29 0.55 E/W Critical Movements 0.08 0.04 I E/W Critical Movements 0.18 0.14 �E/W Critical Movements 0.17 0.13 I I Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 (Right Turn C. M. 0.00 0.00 1 Clearance Interval 0.10 0.10 Clearance interval 0.10 0.10 ICtearance interval 0.10 0.10 EXISTING I FORECAST PROJECT FORECAST NO PROJECT CONDITION ICU 0.56 0.62 CONDITION 0.59 0.78 CONDITION 0.56 0.77 LEVEL OF SERVICE A B I LEVEL OF SERVICE A C =LEVEL OF SERVICE A C i I I I i I I i I f I f I i I i I I I I f 1 i f PIERSIDE RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (N/S) / LAKE STREET (E/W) lsa INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I I EXISTING AVERAGE WEEKEND FORECAST AVERAGE WEEKEND I FORECAST AVERAGE WEEKEND WITHOUT PROJECT i V/c. . I . . . I V/C I v/c I i M PM AM MOVEVOLUME RATIO* I' MOVE- I' VOLUME RATIO* I VOLUME RATIO* I I MENT LANE CAP. A I' PM I MENT i LANE CAP: AM PM AM PM' I LANE CAP AM PM AM PM ---- - - = I -=I - -- -- == -= i'--- - - - --- --- ----- I NOL 1 1 1600 33 151 0.02 0:09 *) N8L I 1; 1600 52 359 0:03 0.22 * 1 1600- 52 359 0.03 0:22 *' NOT 1 2 3200 T;'126 1,23i 0.37 * 039 I NOT. I' 3 4866 1,235 1;394 0.28•* 0.30 I 3 4800 1,235 1;394 0'.27 * 0.29 NOR I 0 0 S0 12 0.00, 6.00 1 NOR 1 0' 0. 85' 25 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 83 21 0:00 0.00' I I SHL I 1 1600 ! I * ' 1600 51 15 0.03 * 0.01 •�7 15 0 03 0:01 SDl 1 1600 94 36 0,:06 0.02 1 Eel, 1 1600. 63 52. 0.00 0 03, EOL 1 1600 213' 185 0.13 0.12 1 4800 1,iO3 1;208 0.26 6.35 I SBT I 2 3260 T 081 1 264 0 35. 0.42 " SOT 3 4800 1j142 T,485- 0.26 0 35 *I 3 I SBR I 0 0 48 67 0.00 0.00 I SOR I` 0 0 103 208 0.00 0.00 I 0 0 103 208 0:00 0.00 I' I 2 3260, 25 3 0 OS " 0 02 *I EBT 2 3200' 66. 11 0.12 " 0 04 "I` 2 3200° 24.9 183 0 12,* 0 O4 "I f8T FOR 0, „0 149 46, 0 00 6.66 = EBR 1' 0 0 326 124' 6.00 0 610 -I 0 0 326 124 0 oo, 0 00, I I 6 02 * 0 01' ' WBT I° 2 3200 8k * 0.05 0 01 uBT 2 3200 28, 16 I' S1' 0.04 0 02 I 2' 3200 78' 33 21 6.66 6 O1 1 1600 80 11 • 0:04 ' 0 OU I W13R I 0 6 23 19 6 06 0 00, WOR 1 6 0 56 19 0:00 0 00 I 0 6 52 7 6.00 0 00 I _ _ I 1, . /S Crr,ticei movements 0 40 0' S2 N%S Critical Movements 0:33 0 58 u vfits 0.11. 0 S$ :. I ..:,.,, I... r i t i ek Movements ` 6. 0.13 =� N/S C E/u Critical Movetiients 0 08 0 04. E/u Cr�ttcal Movements 0:18, 0 14 E/ G Right Turn C. M. 0.10 0.10 Clearancenl6. Aval 606 0 10 1Clear:ight Turn C M. 0.00 0:00 ' Clearance Interval a6ce IMC-evil 0.10 0,ip , CONDITION ICU ORD A 0.57 0.65 61, 1.1 IT B1 FORECAST NO PROJECT CONDITION 0.S$ - 80 ' LEVELIOF' SERVICE A' B I LEVEL• OFN5ERVICE 0 81 O D' (LEVEL OF SERVICE A c I 4095 East La Palma Avenue, Suite L Anaheim, California 92807 O� (714) 630.9230 ENGINEERS & PLANNERS i1UitTItdGTON BEACH DEVEL0"r EN1T SE':'i::ES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ' iluntingto:' Bach, CA J_j-id RE: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS — PIERSIDE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATE: July 16, 1987 — The proposed Pierside Development Project will consist. of apDrox_ma_tely 100.000 square eet of Village development at the Huntington Beach Pier along with an underground parking structure. The development will take place on the west side of Pacific Coast Highwayion the pier and extending north and south of the pier. The development will be constructed on the surface over an underground parking structure containing approximately _ 1,975 parking spaces for the Village and beach parking activities. Access to the parking structure will primarily occur from Pacific Coast Highway opposite Lake Street and 6th Street. Access to short—term surface parking will occur from southbound PCH south' of Main Street. The proposed Village development w<11 consist of approximately 60 percent restaurants and food service and about 40 percent specialty retail shops. The restaurants will consist of about 50 percent quality, sit—down 1 restaurants and 50 percent high—turnover, fast—food services. Based on Wi- �{�� 100,000 square feet of development, this represents 30,000 square feet of quality restaurants, 30,000 square feet of fast—food services, and 40,000 square feet of specialty retail stores. The restaurant uses are in addition to the existing Maxwell's restaurant. a Trip generation rates for these uses as freestanding restaurants and stores a=e shown below, along with .the corresponding number of trips generated. Technical Memorandum Traffic Impact Analysis Pierside Development Project July 16, 1987 - Page 2 i P.M. Peak Hour Use Units Daily In Out Total Specialty retail 40,000 s.f. Rate (/1,000 s. f. ) 40.7 2. 25 2. 25 4..50 — Trips 1,628 90 90 180 Quality restaurants 30,000 .s.f. Rate (/1,000 s. f. ) 74.9 3.80 2.34 6. 14 Trips. 2,'247 114 70 184 Fast-food services 30,000 s. f. Rate (/1,000 s.f. ) 164.4 9.9 4.0 13.9 Trips 4 932 297 120 417 ' ��8, 1 780 781 - However, because the uses are :not freestanding .uses, but are integrated as a shopping village and related to beach activities, they will .generate a synergism of interdependent activity. Persons .patronizing the restaurants gill also be shoppers at .the specialty stores. Beach attendees will also purchase food at the fast-food services.. : Therefore, these uses will not generate trips in the same manner as freestanding .stores and restaurants. The trip generation for the project was reduced in order, to reflect this situation. The special; rP;a;1 rrip Qeneration was ra,c �r� 50g�cent to reflect the overlap in restaurant customers and re•tzil_custQn�er:s__duilzg the D.M. pea our, n addition, the fast-food services trip . generation — was 'also reduce —by 50 percent . to reflect the overlap of beach activity and shoppers as food customers. The net trip generation for the Village was about 63 percent of .the total. The Village trips assigned to the area street system were: P..M. Peak Hour _ Daily In Out Total 5,527 308 175 483 Intersection capacity analyses were conducted to determine the current level of intersection operations with existing traffic vol:umes` _and existing intersection lane .geometries. The following inter:s.ections. 'were analyzed with additional". intersections to be examined in an expanded analysis: i Technical Memorandum Traffic Impact Analysis Pierside Development Project July 16, 1987 - Page 3 i Beach Blvd./Atlanta Ave. PCH/Beach Blvd. I ` PCH/Main St. ( ` PCH/Sth St. PCH/6th St. PCH/9th St. PCH/17th St. The expanded study area will also include PCH/Golden West Street, and several intersections along Main Street north to Yorktown Avenue. In addition to the existing conditions analysis, Village traffic was assigned to the area street system and intersections analyzed under project conditions. Village traffic consisted specifically of those trips generated by the proposed uses incorporated into the development. Addi- tional traffic will be generated by beach activity using the proposed parking structure. For purposes of this initial analysis, it was assumed that as many as 800 vehicles may leave the parking structures on a summer weekday during the p.m. peak hour. In the expanded analysis this assump- tion will be tested and validated using traffic data from the existing beach parking facilities. intersection analyses were also conducted with beach traffic added to the existing traffic with Village traffic included. The results of these three levels of analyses are presented in Table 1. All intersections analyzed are operating at acceptable levels of service both under conditions of existing traffic and with Village traffic added. All intersections will operate at LOS "A" with the exception of PCH and Beach Boulevard, which will operate at LOS "D". LOS "D" is still an acceptable level of service but indicates that the intersection is nearing its operational capacity. With the additional traffic added due to increased beach parking, all intersections will continue to operate at high levels of service, except the PCH/Beach intersection. This intersection will be operating at LOS "E", which is an unacceptable level of service with congestion and vehicu- lar delays. The analysis indicates that intersection improvements will be reouired as traffic volumes continue to increase. With the restriping and modifications on .PCH to provide six traffic lanes, the :LOS will improve to licit. This initial analysis examines existing and project conditions including both Village and beach traffic. The area street system will continue to operate at a 'nigh level of service without significant traffic impacts. Y Technical Memorandum Traffic Impact Analysis Pierside Development Project July 16, 1987.= Page 4 Table 1 Intersection Capacity Analyses - P.M. Peak Hour Existing w/Project w/Beach Traffic Intersection V/C(1) LOS(2) V/C LOS V/C LOS Beach/Atlanta 0.55 A 0.56 A 0.59 A PCH/Beach 0.88 D 0.89 D 0.95 E PCH/Main 0.56 A 0.55 A 0.60 A PCH/5th 0.55 A 0.58 A 0.62 B PCH/6th 0.46 A 0.57 A 0.69 B PCH/9th 0.48 A 0.52 A 0.58 A PCH/17th 0.53 A 0.56 A 0.59 A (1) V/C - volume-to-capacity ratio (2)7OS - Level of Service An expanded traffic analysis_ is underway to include additional intersec- tions in the downtown area. In addition, the anticipated traffic increases as a result of the build-out of the Downtown Specific Plan will also be analyzed and cumulative conditions assessed. Traffic mitigation improvements uz ll be identified as necessary to achieve acceptable traffic service. LEG:vp i r 2323 W. Lincoln Ave., Suite. 122 Anaheim, CA 92801 �1 (7141 526-5255 F FAX (714) 520.5246 ENGINEERS & PLANNERS r: April 4, 1989 i r. Les Evans city Erig1Jleer j City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street y Huntington Beach, CA 92548 ` _ Fcs'.: D�:7J..:� Specific Plan Traffic Analyses for Proposed Density -- Reductions in the Doromtaan Core Area (39-m). Dear Mz. Evans: As aut orized, we have c -, leted a revis^an to our dc&,nta,;z traffic _ an-Alysis Mav 12, 1988, for the Huntington Bear-h Downtown Specific Plan, spe✓-ificzlly the core area of daantaan. This analysis p_--cposes further density reductions in the dame-cr n area. These proposals i - a._*-e re_l ec`ad in Table 1 as presented to us by the Pl ann x)g DepazrtTe7t s�p ff. Thereactions c�.,r in sixof the eleven zones in the downtown • crew. i _ • The r)--t of f e of these reductions wo•;1 d be a =rrespond-ing reduce ion i n trip generation. The ci iiy trips waald be reduced by 8,095, or a:proxiuna tely 12.5 percent. Peak h our trip aene.*ation would be. `Aced by as to tal of 859 rips (448 inbou'�d and 411 outbound) , appro>dzrately 13.3 Sirala=ly to the previous aralysis, the trip re3uctions were assigned to the core a:--e•a, street systen based on the same general disyribu'icn for each effe=ted zone as follows: noh 40 east 25 _ west (Pai) 2.5 op-= _*:t east (PC�-i) 20 percent ul 13 � .Fo 1Ci : '03 0000 C6REtR I ! Mr. Las Evans City Er-qirib--r j Downturn Traffic Update April 4, 1989 - Page 2 ! TABLE 1 PROPOSM DEI1S1'I'Y Cl- NG IN THE DOP7NIC7WN CORE r- Ihmt_iStan Bch D n�tam amifis Plan Daily ?�M. P--.k Hour Zone Primed change Voltmy-!,s In Out ZONE 3 + 15,000 sf office +72 +5 +28 - 160 du residential -976 -64 -32 -904 -59 - 4 - ZONE 4 - 126 du residential -769 -50 -25 ZONE 5 - 130,000 sf carte ial •-4,209 -185 -192 - 20,000 s- office -96 -7 -37 - 110 du residential -67 -44 -22 -4,976 -236 -251 ZONE 6 - - 40,000 sf office -192 -14 -74 + 63,000 sf coumrarcia.l +2,040 +89 -93 - 228 &u residential -ir391 -91 -46 _ .457 -16 -27 f _ - 65,000 sf Oomm'vial -2,105 -92 ' -96 - 200 hotel roams +1,74 +72 =-62 -365 -20 -34 ZCN7E 10 - 47,500 sf c-emme-rcial -1,538 -67 -70 i -8,095 -448 -411 Sa.: -,e: Hwntirg-on Bch Pla.*'.'i:ir D�.a��z GLL�" & Co; ► E:rin :-s and Planners. c r 1 IS ' 9'0 1Ci : 04 0000 GREER Cu 714-r;20- :r2 i3 P , 4 Mr. Las Evans city Drgir,aer Dcuntown Traffic Update April 4, 1989 - Page 3 TABLE 2 PRCFC= USES - YEAR 2010 hIL rrtirxrton Peach S09--ifis Plan _ Daly P.M, Volumes Zone -Uses Vol in �O it 1 60,000 sf camnarcial 1,943 85 89 2 600 du residential 3,660 24 12 I - 3* Y i n Pier 35,000 sf oct4-_rcial 1,133 50 52 - use 2 (35,000 sf existing 1,133 50 52 i 30,000 sf rcial 144 11 56 200 &a residential 1,220 80 40 Main Pie_: 1,750 seat theateYs 233. 233 P ase 1 15,925 sf office 76 6 30 . 23,575 sf cxsc *cial 770 34 44 13,500 sf ress-au ant 1,011 51 32 - 3,000 s` nicrltclub (24,000 sf eris`irx� .�� al) 770 34 44 130 du residential 793 52 26 4 100 du residential 610 40 20 5 150,000 sf vial 4,857 213 222 20,000 sf office 95 7 37 60 cu residential 366 24 12 6 80,000 s- m vial 2,590 114 110 10,000 s, i rstit t-ional --- -- -- 275 du 7�idential 1, 676 110 . 55 Continued. . . . CA0fa0 l3REcR 714-5Z 0-'tJz z S I Kc. Les- Evans _ City EMineer Do1,HTtLYwRl Traffic Update April 4, 1989 - Page 4. MBLE 2. p.ccm= USES YEAR 2'010 — HuntirYxton. Beach S fSc Plan. i _ idly P-,m:, yolures Zone Pry Uses: Vol..' s In. 011t _ 7. 50,000 sf: ercial 1,619' 7.1. 74 150,.000 sf office 720. 52: 279: 400 rani ho`,_e1 3„480: 144 124 8 1,800`.dui residential 10,.980i 72.0. 360: 9 _ 75,.000 s.L c nereizl. 2:,:429 1.Q7 ill - 1,400 Tea. hc`.,e]: 12:,180- 5D4 434 10 40,.000;_sf: ccurercia-T 1,295' 57, 59 i I � 11 , ... - • 7,.000 sf erci 227 TO i0 106 du residential 64.7 42: 2?. I TOTATI: 56,427 22,•9.25 2,646 i i J 1 1 :3 15;'O lot0!5 eeee GREER Y.c CO . 1 - Ittll.... r�, L��M,,, t"aa.. Los Evans City Engineer. Cownto;-m Traffic Update April 4, 1989 - Page 5 Toe resulting development uses proposed in the plan with these reductions are sham in Table 2 along with the projected trip generation for the plan area by use and zone. i The t.Yip reductions' for each zone we��-a zssigned to the core area street system. Using the 2010 p.m. peak hour projections in the May 12, 1988, analysis, these trip redactions were dedumed from those volumes to a--rive at 2010 projections with these latest density reduction p::rcposals. The 2010 p.m. peak hoar voles for the core area under the existing plan are shcwn in Figure 1. Figure 2 illustrates the 2010 projected traffic volumes with the pxcposed density reductions. In genera-., the traffic volt.^ reductions are nan ml, ranging from no chaslge on sarn streets to as n.0 h as 125 vehicles per hour (two- di-re-ions) on Atlanta Avenue and 150 vehicles per hour (two-directicnzs) on Yzin Street. Volume reductions of 30 to 50 vehicles per hour in each da—ection oora���i on C7range Avenue, and 20 to 30 vehicles_ per hour in each direction on Walmrt Avenue, 30 to 40 vehicles on Lice Street, aid. 20 — to 35 ve?ucles on Sixth Street. '1'iese vo1Lm-e chimes are nazjxod and won't significantly effect traffic opera dons on any of the streets is as presently planned. As detailed in the May 12, 1988, letter report, the do ntx-1 st.^-eet :r..ept provides an ar-erial loop system to serve the village concept within the core. The 'c._*te_ria-s ccnsisting of 0_rw-x,ge/Atlannta, Sixth Stret, IRke Stet and Wal %it Avenue provide access to village -pa k:1_-1g, and provide prise—ay router t►=ugh the dawn`ora , vet axvund the village core. The loop sysr....� would s-ez-ve as feeder s`,x e`s to the village and _ Ce -xy th_roLx;;.*l t..�~a:fic to the beach zxd pierside develo=rents. The local streets inte-n-zl . to the core area w-culd provide d re t ac cuss to village cc *vial and residential uses, and would allow for local on-stat There h-s e?sal.ss i on ahou t re..jcin the width on Walnut Avenue to re.:aire only tic lanes instead c. the four lane c r`5S-s2_._ion. rnie n� r�� rea"'L:Ct'^:r Ln traffic volL--res that -would res- -, frcn the proxse3 ce.^si'.y redu-ic:s does not r�terially dh nge the of ragnimzde of the traffic p 4 -ions. '-ale lane rec-wireapents Kill u 1 GRF—E:R t. .LLB . ,- 14-.:+c b- ;5.;i:5 5 P . 7 I elf I i i~WIa i ` IT a16 o + 2010 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAF1`1C VOLUMES �.:.-«.,.•�.�-�.f J EXISTING PLAN i latGeS a GF2FEFC I . 1 I . ! tV Q �.�/.!�'./C ,.�► � 1 ���.7.c+-ter•, � � Ka yn r'1c-UF; . 2010 P:,, M . PEAK HOUR 2 - ; TRAFFIC VOLUMES �`` WITH PROPOSED DENSITY REDUCTIONS i 13 ' SRO 1 O s O7 0000 GREE`R fs CO . 714—�,20-32.+3 P . � Las Lvans i City Dx,ineer Downtown Traffic update April 4, 1989 - Page 8 i Terrain unchanged on the basis of the traffic volume under either the _ existing plan or the proposed density reduction. It is also important to the entire concept of the loop system around the village core area to raintain the integrity of the four-lane arterial loop. I , The configuration for walnut Avenue is to provide four travel lanes with a median for left turn lanes arxl no on-street panrkir)g. The left turn lanes - are needed :.o acr..e_ss the local side streets into the village center, and to access rajor develp,=Pant sites walnut Avenue will provide one of the _ lrajor access facilities to the City's parking structure as well as to the i enter`..ab neat area. Left tarn access to these facilities should be provided as well as to the local circulation streets within the village. The cuss-section . rquiswents for the four gavel lames and median would be a 60-foot wide road dray within a 76 to 80-foot right of way. A 76-foot ri5.ht of way w�a1d only allow for 8-foot pa.*-}c+�ys/sidewalks on each side, while the 80-foot riot of way would perm the typical stztxiaxd of _ 10-foot pzrk-ways/side-y.zlks. The starZzr street wildth would require the 80-foot right of way for Walnut. Based on the concept of the village center accept systmn and the streeet geome xi cs as m-_r ied in our- May 12, 1988, letter report, both the loco concept and the access syste-n a-re still valid and critical to the rraintena-re of village concept. 'Ihe currently pra~posed density re.~uc ions do not alter the order of magnitude of traffic VOIL es projected for the plan area, and therefore, do not result in any rec=--nended changes in the street system or the lane configuzations. In add=tion to the :.zrpor-tan ce of , intaird ng the four-lane roadways,-`she left tu-M r,_—zi ans are ir�o�..ant Lo pride le-"- turn access inte_'-nally to the village and to the particalar sites, incl :i.ng the City's parking st-ruct—ure ad the ente.--tai Tent ce_�,ter. r s s bested in the Ye,v 12 report, it is irportant to prep-re a. n overall lr py'.7VcT.T�^.: concept lcer plan ahcFwj-ng detailed strIping, .lntersse-:Jon cont-rol, on-s_re°t _ rarkitrg details, and overall traffic opke—nations wi zr:n the content of '�nich each develcr en-I prc-oo or other actisri tv co._i d be ;..'inn _ be considered as they nay care fcrw-mod. plans would p-r-cvide for the • � 7 � F f � ! t I':j ... f al�.i � . !J� t� i I 't F� i {; _ � r i � � .I 1 s � -� � i• 1! � E,11ia,;�� '1{!C �r S� E` ; + ; f � 3 t `, � :. _••i E I ! � � ?i•x? 1 1 Fq,, '� ;F4.:�;y ;.. :t h }, ^ _ , i <r + ; •� I ( � .I � •I � � I ! { .£fr)Y..u.®S! e.f •M`> j I �`I : �t�' ��,r :L j •,' `-,zM �� �9� .; ,.,. ,� tw zt'� j '' •Y. y IF f)! �' a S"'{'t3t ' - ',�'� r 1 � '�} r ��•� i � { I I;�t`p4 'i �dj+{)f, +rf f � Ff+. V "..1k! ".ry�• E 1 ':.,i � !t. �! � ��� �•�'"fd�r'�� f S:Srli• �}°'!': a' i i i � ,� ' � { ct' yr i}i• S': f � r i � `� �T: {�yCt�..;.. ¢.f � �1 13 ' S+O 1 C� a 07 0000 GR-EE_R f.c CO . 714-�20-326� P . 9 i -- 11t:'. Las khans city Dvimer Downta.,n Traffic update April 4, 1989. - Page 8 refrain unchanged on the basis of the traffic volumes under either the existing plan or the proposed density reduction. It is also important to the entire concept of the loop system around the village core area to maintain the integrity of the four-lane arterial loop. s � The configuration for walnut Avenue is to provide four travel lanes with a median for left turn lanes and no on-s-reet parking. The left turn lanes are needed :.o acce-ss the local side streets into the village center, and to access major develo ri t sites. Walnut- Avenue will provide one of the rajor access facilities to the Cizy's pa Yzin st-racture as well as to the entertairm)ent area. Left turn access to these facilities should be Pr--Dvided as well as to the local circulation streets within the village. - The cu -s ssertia:z_ regtisements for the four travel lanes and median would be a 60-foot wide road-ray .within a 76 t0 80-foot right of way. A 76-foot right of way would only -allow for 8-foot parkways/sidewalks on each side, while the 80-foot riot of way would perm" the typical standard of 10-foot parkways/sides.zlks. The standar-d street width. woUd require the 80-foot right of way for Walnut. _ Based on the concept of the village center accept sys'.= and the stet geometrics as -ex=rP_ bed in oL= May 12, 1988, report, both the i loop concept a rd the access system are still valid and c-iticzl to the ra.ir.`�..r�rrce of village concept. 'Ihe cu iently pro density reduc io^s do .not alter the order of magnitude of traffic voles projected for the plan area, and therefore, do not result in any reccarnended changes in the street system or the lane conf igu_rations. 7n add-ition to the i.nportance Of .,a intaini ng the four-lane rr..a&.4ays,-the left turn medians are impor`ant zo provide left turn access inte_Ynally to the village and to the particular sites, irxcl ding the City's parking st--UC7.ure and the en'ie taiJIITent.. center. AS _-,,�ested in the Nay 12 repo:--, i t.is ir=rtp-nt to prepare an cvex a'1 L—_,Z;vcTtcn.t con ep plan shcFwi-,� detailed striping, 1nte_'-s,e=icn control, on--s== t parking details, and overall traffic one_-ations w_h n the content of »nich. each develo��,t o:,I prcpesal or other activity c d be the. _ be considered as they rrev cocrie, fe-r-wa-rd. These plans would provide for the i y t I ! � t •', � � � yY ,I i ! s�r� ��1 t � :1 ,y r� �: '� .. r 1� i{s ,r�.'� 's I I / ,s t r t �S:?E �� t�(-t f�d'�t{a'. .__T,.s..,;..��s. � _ � � r{.�•� ji t, � ( � � ! ' III I rip"r: c.ti f,4 , 2.r, .—�• 1t ' / ` ',{?,-s✓ r r 9 .:w• ��/ � iil � �� .. 11 i,^t ' 1{I i �� Ff�rfr3? +!!!"q .Z��.' r�. , ,F't� > r Yx ;. � 'Y ��j ���-� � I � c�. 3�.,.... 5 .#� �l•�S �f. ..�!'"th',�,.,`,.w�r r s r � � "y.JPa, ' � '3 � „ i } � �3�!(ir5 fy .3..,µ._ ,rl.•�r� a,i�! y�. �Yi_.L r' , � s� ,r.. � I `i{.t j �it:; i `ii rg,�-+';df4': /r�i. -i �'?�" r� ,j,.• ;, 1 2 Ito I iA G0,3. } � � f � � !',Q�,.w. fy�{yrj�' F`.3.•.m.a:.Y.�`�i...�;�V 3��,' �j�lr ��� 1 C ii d @a 0000 GREETi .8o CO . 714-520—Z235 P . 18 I ! Mr. Las zVans — City IIrIgineer Dawmtcwn Traffic Update April 4, 1989 - Page 9 _ assu an e. that development can proceed in a carts istert';. .a»3 orderly manner i without violating the village concept plan nor its associated circulation system. i Once again, we appreciate this opportunity to have been of assistance to the City of Huntington Beach in irplementi ng the Do;,mtown specific Plan. if ',here are any questions or ccrupnts, please contact me at your No. 765 I.P--y £. Greer, P.E. ~' Principal �lE OF C",`�c�� . IL�.,st 7-7 { I i — i 11323 W .Lincoln 'Ave., Suite 127 Anaheim,`CA .92901 Q. (.714)-520.523 5 TAX (714)-520=5'246 'ENGINEERS & PLANNERS i 4 December 4, 1989 i i I -- Mr. Paul Cook i Ciiy Adm aisrraLor I City of Huntington Beach 7000 Main .Street Huntington Bcach, .CA 92648 Re: Walnut .Scree:, :Downtown:S,pecifL,Plan Dear Mr. Cook: In regard to our .discussion of:earlier today, 'she recommendation for Wallnut Street to be immproved as four L-nes berween'Main.:Street-and :6th;Street was`.based on the.integ:ity of the — Village loop with the understanding that Walnut would be.partofithe loop-system. 'The need for four.lanes .on Walnut is.not necessitated.�y:the projected traffic volumes, .but more so on the basis or the loop concept. However, in our .discussions, it is clear that .the concept ..of-the Village .loop .will use PC.:: instead of Walnut as-the southerly iink,.and-that'Walnut will function-as an internal access and circulation street within the Vill;a¢e core. It will serve as iccess.to one of the'Cit;y's pa6zing struc ores, the enterta-*anent center, and other Village development. As such, th'e:projected _ voiumes on the order .of 4,000 to 6.000 vehicles per day will.not warrant pan 80-.foot street. Based on the concept of PCH searing as ..the southerly loop.street, it is recommended that _ Walnut b` improved as a ;4-loot sweet.in a.ti0 or 64-foot right of way. because of the access nature to be served by Walnut,.it is recommended -that the street be_developed with parking l7WWh--' hR E L R .x Mr. Paul Cook City of Huntington Beach Walnut.Street, Downtown Specific Plan December 4, 1989 - Page 2 on one side only with a continuous left-turn median lane, and one travel lane in each direction (8'-12'-]0'-14'). The median turn lane could be designed as a raised, landscaped median with left turn pockets at intersections and at major projects, such as the parking, structure and the entertainment center. ll• You have further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely. GREER & CO. La try E. Gree_, P.B. Pr inc'pa! i :..iG:i7Lr0 i 1. Ir - -. IF ADDENDUM THE WATERFRONT TRAFF:hC IMPACT -ANALY:SI:S SEASONAL VARIATION TN TRAFFIC VOLUMES I I F.or purposes of. disclosure., 'LSA 'has cond.u:cted researdh to empiric-ally determine .the extent of daily and peak hour s'ea:son'a:l- va.ri:a:tions along Pacific Coast Highway. Summer. traffic counts are :not ava:il:able from 't City of I Huntington Beach. However, the City of !Newport Bea-ch's 1:986 T:raf`fiz Flow Map - presents daily traffic volumes along :Coast :.Highway fur .the summer ;and non- summer periods. LSA collected the .da'il.y 'traffic count data used i:n the preparation of the Traffic Flow Map from the City. :of 'N.ewport :Beach. NJ1y traffic counts for summer and non-:summer periods„ p-res:erated in 'hourl.y 1- increments, were collected for two locations along Pacific 'Co:ast `Highway: 1) Coast Highway between . Superior Avenue and Prospect 'Street,, and 2) -Coast , - Highway between Orange. Street a;nd the Sa:nta Ana River. These location were selected as they are :the count stations :closest to the zbo.rder of th•eCity of I Huntington Beach. F:ig.ure 1 presents 24 hour traffic 'volumes for the °summer . and non-summer periods for the two count station locat:i,ons.. A review -of .Figure 1 indicates that variations in total daily traffic do exist between summer and. no.n-summer peri-od_s. Total dai'l,y tra'ff:ic 'can be 20% to 28% greater in the summer pe:ri_od.. However, 'PM ;peak 'hour variations are on the order of four percent to !nine percent greater an the summer ;period. Intersection analysis, typically conducted for develo;pme,nt related studies .,and presented in the original 'LSA Waterfront traffic study, considers the impacts of project traffic during the -AM and the PM peak :hours. These are the peak conditions commonly used for design purposes. Seasonal i— variations during the peak hours are addressed in %his evaluation. The AM peal; hour shows little variation with :respect to seasonality. At Coast Highway between .Superior and Prospect, non-summer traffic volumes peak (— in the morning during the hour between 7:00 a.m: 'a'nd 8:00 a.m. ., with a tota-1 two-way volume of approximately 3,200 vehicles per hour (vph) . At this tine the summer hourly traffic volume is approximately 2,600 vph. The 'summer morning peak occurs one hour later, however the summer AM peak hour volume� is also approximately 3,200 vph. At Coast Highway between Orange and the Santa Ana River, the summer AM peak hour also occurs one hour later than the-non- summer period. However, the non-summer AM peak hour traffic volume:..-_Js slightly greater t_han . the summer AM peak hour traffic volume_: There>ore,- A1� peal; hour traf fic volumes do not exhibit great variations .with respect to season. Seasonal differences do dev.eaop during the PM peak hour, rat Coast Highway between Superior and Prospect, the PM peak hour occurs dur;ine 5:00 Seasonal Traffic Volume Variations Selected Locations on Pacific Coast Highway lsa Coast Highway Coast Highway - - Between Superior and Prospect Between Orange and Santa Ana River •.500 - --- ----- - - - •.500 _. ..000 •,000 3.500 - 3.500 . 3.000 I 3.000 i W13 7,500 2.500 0 1 p V 2.000 - U 7.000 � 1 r 1.500 r I,SOo 1,000 -+ 1.000 500 -I � 500 - o - 0 12_1.w1. 3-. 6-7 9-,10 12-1 (•M -. 6-7 n. 10. 12-1 ww1 3-• 6-7 9-10 17-1 PM )_. 6-7 9-10 TIME TIMErr.�aa ��Now^$1rmm.1 110/20/861 $umm.1 W211661 .�, Now-$umm.1 It0/7/66t �p $umm.1 16/19/661 1lotes: 1. Total daily traffic on Coast Highway between Orange and the Santa Ana River is 39,800 trips during the non. summer period and 51,100 trips during the summer period. 2. Total daily traffic on Coast Highway between Superior and Prospect is 45,000 trips during the non summer period and 53,800 trips during the summer period. 3.. Daily traffic (24 hour total) is 20% to 28% greater in summer. 4. Afternoon peak hour is 4% to 9% greater in summer. n y Y I 1 Lsa: p.m. and 6:00- p.m. for both non--summer- and`. summer periods:.. The= summer PM' ' peak hour is. app.roxima:tel;y, nine p.Ercent greater. thzn, th•e- no:n:-summer PM; peak N�hour at this 1 oca.ti on:.. At. Coaat. .ghway: between: Orange and' the: Santa Aroa River, the summer PM Ve=a.k: hour ac:curs• between: 4:::W p...mi.. and: 5 00 p m=.. a•nd i;s approximately four• percent greater- than th-e-- .no:m-summer: PM: p:e_ak hour„ occu:r•- - ring one hour. later. It, is evident th-at more sign;i.fi:cam-t. _s,e:a.s`o-ma.li wair:i t o.n;s. duo: ex:i:st i!n daily traffic: volumes=.. The. vo•lumess ilaIusurzte4 i'n Figure: 1� iindicat.e that. t.h.e total da.il:y traffic. c-a:n be. 2.0% to 28% gr:e:a;t.er in: the summer• mo:n;th;s.-.. H'oweae:r„ the vast majority of this: i:ncr.ease: i.n traffiic: vo�llu.me- occurs ou:tsJ;d'e ofthe. _ peak hours, not. a.gg•r.avati;ng; the most, co.ng;es.te`d' pe.rfods:.. The c o n ge:s.t.i.o.m effects: a.f am. increase- in, tra:fifi c v-oT.u.mes d!u:e: to s e-a s:o n a l' vari.a.ti:ons ha.ve:. be:em t.e.ste:d a:t: the. in:tersectiiQns stvAiiieed ass; pa-.rt- o.f the: k'a.terfront t.ra.ffi.c anaays.i:&.. Int.etect.iion; Capaziity lr..U; 'iiiz&tiiam (JC.U) an&Iy sis was condue.ted' far. the: Pha e T'. and: Mas.te:r P!T!an b.url.d imt co;ndiition:s,. aSSum- ing both a four percent and a.. none: p:ercen,t: increase i'•n PK pe:a:k hour tra•rf.i.t volumes:. No t.nc.reas:e i:nl AM: peak: h•our.- vo.T,umes: wa-,s: made:,, as. th-e: data. d-o.es''not, i support an. iincreas:e.. All exist.i:ng:;: I99'T. B'ac:kgr.o.un:d a.nd M'zste:r R'Tarr, PM. peak: hour- t.ra.ffi.c. volumes; were �i:ncrease.6 by four pe.reen, and," nAme p:e.r•ce--nt.: The:s;e increrse-s were conducted. for both: the. d:es t.i n *i o,n re:s:o,r.t hot.e:T, trip p ge;n-erat.i:on: con- d i t-tom a•nd'. the 1TE hote:T tr. i:p. gen,.&r:•at.iorr, condiaiont. The, re-.s.ul t.s of ti i s, analysis a.re presented i n, Tables. A. and B: for.th:e d`es;ti riztJ gin: res-crt hcte:l end ITE hotea: tr. i p: gen:er.at.iron: cond'iiti:o,m,&,.. respectiive:Ty,.. 1 — Based: on; the data. supp ..ied; in. Fig:u,re. T, the res.ulit.s: o:f th;e I,C:U; an:a:hys:is. and ou:r professional e�xper. i�e:nc.e:,. ce:r.to-aiin+ conclus;ions. an:d o.b.se:r:uat ons ca;n. be I made with respect, to s:ea.sonal va.rta.tisons in, d<a.fl;yy, an.(T peak ho:u�r. 'trarfic volumes . A.l.th:oug;h, dail:y traffic- voliume°s. ,cart; iincrea.se: by 2.0% for 28% in thie. summer months, the AM`: an:d PM peak. hours are o:nTy- s1iig;ht.l:y, affected.. — The AM: peak hour. shows n:eg;T:i:g,iibTe v-ariati o:n.,. wh:i lie t: ,e PM peak. hour exhi-b-its a: fou:r percent. to-. nAne pb r.cemt iin:c:rease- dueri.n.g; the: summer, months. The a:.c:tua.l majiori!ty of the: setts:o-n%&T wa.r: is i.i,ant oc:c.ur.s bUt.- - side of the peak hours. du:ring: the per: i,od: be.tw.e:e,n, IG.:.00+ a:..m.--and 4::00 p..m. ThAs. i;ncr,ease i:s reflie:ctive. oT re-crea:t.i:ori,al` beach. t.ra'.;-• fi c,. comer. i::sed pri:rairi',Ty- of non-re,siid,eR;t. vi siitors.. r,l th t.h:e: increase. in. PK peak hour amtri e:n,L' t.r:afrr:i:c Oar rau:r: pe:rcenit and- ni.ne percent th:e. na.x:i,mum i`Cu.volume 4a: ',capactty r:ati!o i ndr:ea stet to any intersection is 0'..0, ,. less tr.an -the egui.valert o:;: a. Tem.e b i Table A Intersection Capa:,ity Utilization Sensitivity Test Surnmary Sheet .......................... -_. .....-.............. .......................... I I NOW-SUMMER I SUMMER 4% P.K. I SUMMER 9% P.M. I I P.M. PEAK HOUR (PEAK HOUR INCREASE IPEAK HOUR INCREASEI _ I INTERSECTION I ICU I LOS I ICU I LOS I ICU I LOS ................ ......--------------------------------- ••.......... .-------- ---------•--- ...... 1 IHUNTINGTON AVENUE(N/S)/COAST HIGHVAY(E/%.') I I I. BACKGROUND 1991 I 0.47 I A I 0.48 I A I 0.50 I A I a I BACKGROUND 1991 • PHASE 1 PROJECT I 0.5) I A I 0.52 I A I 0.54 I A MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT I 0.62 I B I 0.64 I B I 0.67 I B I MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT«PROJECT i 0.67 I B. I 0.69 I. B I 0.71 I C I .............................................. ..........................---.....................I -- IBEACH BOULEVARD(N/S)/COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) BACKGROUND 1991 I 0.58 I A I 0.59 I A I 0.62. I 6 I BACKGROUND 1991 - PHASE 1 PROJECT I 0.59 I A I 0.61 I B I 0.63 I 6 I MASTER PLAN BUILDCJT I 0.64 I 6 I 0.66 I B I 0.69 I B I MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT«PROJECT I 0.66 I B I 0.63 I 6 I 0.71. I C I ---------------...................................................... ........... ILAKE STREET(N/S)/COAST H1GH'WAY(E/'J) I I I I I I I MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT I 0.81 I D I 0.84 I D I 0.87 I D I MASTER PLAN BUILDOJT+PROJECi I 0.86 I D I 0.89 I D I 0.92 I E I .................................................... .......... ISIXTr..MAIN STREET(N/S)/COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) ( I I I I I MASTER PLAN BUILDOUT I 0.61 I B I 0.63 I 8 I 0.66 I 6 I q_ I MASTER PLAN EUILDOLIT«?KOJECT I 0.64 I B I 0.66 I B I 0.68 I 6 I { --------•................. ..._.............._..__........._..----..._....--••••------..._......--- + NOTE: ASSUMES AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, DESTINATION RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION RATES FOR THE PROPOSED WATERFRONT PROJECT. i_ J . . � f . i � c I� � "* -�� ��| ��� Table �� - ' ' |[]t��r����[�f'��[] ����[�����'t\/ | |f'|'�:�t(���� Capacity. '� _ '� ._-' � - Sensitivity Test Summary Sheet ........... ............... | mm �vwa x ( SUMMER �� r x | �v°^ x p� P.M. | ' "�. � ".= . . ,"`= ( | P.M. �^x xoux |r�^x xoux /ncx *SE|px^x "oox /xcxEea| ! ' - � | wrEnmo/cm | /co� | Lm | /co | Lmx | ICU | Lcn | \ �-'-------''''''-----''---'''-'''''------'-----------'''--1 | �- \ � |HIL19nxo/ow AVENUE(mn/COmS/ mxmm'(E/v) ! | BkCKGROUND 1991 | 0.47 | A | 0.48 | A 1 0.50 | ^ | � | o^cKcwOUx `vv� ^ rp�e � rau��c� | o o | � | u �� [ � | o 5^ | » | � , � . . "����n a/�ou��oou� | o.»� | u | »'�� | n | 0.e7 \ » | � - . � | MASTER rm, oouoouT-PROJECT | 0.69 | n. | 0.71 | c i n./z ( c | / |'—.'''-----'-'-----'''''''''''''--''---------------------''--| �- |aE^zH nuuEwmo(mS)/coxo x/ov�'AnE/:) | } | l | 1 1 | m . \ BACKGROUND 1991 | o.so | A ) o.g \ x` > 0.62 ) u \ ' | a^ocmux �vv� ~ pmo� � px6��o \ u op \ A � w.m ( o \ c.a ( o ( � . ruoEn PLAN ouuoOo | 0.64 | o- | 0'66 | o | c'a« { o | � . ^ | mu/Ev rL^x nuunouz-rxOJEcr | 0.67 | o | 0.69 ( n | n'n | c 7 ` |----'-------------'---------'---------'''---------.--.} / |L^� SrZEo(x/W/cmtST mcxWAY(c/W) � u / uurEx pL^v ou|LooUT | 0.81 | » | »'m { » / :'»/ | » } � | moso pLmx ou/LnouT+nnJEC/ | 0.87 | u | 0.90 | » | 0.93 | c | � |---------------------'------------~--------------'''} ! \oxTwxAm STREET(x/s)/coAST xIcxum(E/v) | \ \ \ \ \ \ 8 | | muTm pu: ou/Locu/ / n.m | o | 0.63 | -o | 0.6.6 | o / � . | MASTER pLmv ou/L000T~rxui.Ecr | 0'64 / o | 0.66 ! u | »'av | » - | � -----------------------------'------------------.'...` � . ! » | NOTE: aSu4ES //E rn/P cE^ExAr/mx MANUAL, 3xo co/T/ox HOTEL rw^ ceNsxxr/nx xysS FOR FOP, THE rxopoSco WoTExmow, pxoJcc/� , ' ) ' , � [_ ^ ' ' � � � ^ ' � . . � . . / ' ` J lsd I service change (level of service change 0. 10) . ` With the increase of four percent and nine percent to the PM peak hour traffic volumes , one intersection, Coast Highway/Lake Street, could require mitigation measures . However, as indicated previous- ! — ly, the City policies and transportation engineering industry standards indicate that traffic impact assessments consider the annual average peak hour traffic conditions . To provide mitiga- tions for conditions that occur during only summer months may be econc-mically prohibitive and could only serve to encourage more use by non-resident recreational visitors. -� It is not practical , nor is it accepted practice within the in- dustry, to focus analysis and design standards on recreational peak summer traffic conditions . The focus of the traffic analysis is on that time period that affects the most number of City residents at the most important -time period of their vehicular .use, which is the weekday AM and PM peak hours. AP/sn(RMC701) ,I I i ENTRANCE EXIT DESIGN AND CCONTR.OL 'FOR MAJOR'. PARKING FAC-1LITIES — Robert 1,1. Cr.ommel.in P E...., President Robert Crommelin and. Ass-ociates,. Inc. Encino., California Prepared f.or Presentation at : I - i _ "SEMINAR ' 72" Los Angeles Pa:rking. Association,; B.iltmore Hotel , i Los Angeles , California, October 5,. 1.9.72 It. hasn' t been too many years since a 500-Space ger.age wa•s. i -- thought or as a large parking, fa.c.ility. In rec•e.nt years, garages with over 4 , 000 spaces have been ,placed in operation and large, ones are on the drawing boards . Success in the operation of these i major parking facilities is dependent upon .prope.r design of access - to the facility, in -addition to efficient management. Provision of adeauate access design and control..is a si-nif?cant item which. — , must be considered As part of the first design concept. - The traf- fic engineer, teamed with the owner' s rep--esentatives , the architect, and the . future Darkinz ooerator, must work together to develop a proper access and control plan. I have recently read a '.statement by a nationwide ga.rage design consultant that reservoir space for entranCeS t0 garagEsis no longer an imDOrt2nt consideration be- A. cause - of the capacity Of ticket d'_spensers with gates. This is ~- C07.DletEIV untrue as will be brought out later. Thinking of this type car, lead t0 ineffective design which causes backup onto DL'D1'_c _ streets with the accompanying potential hazards and congestion: This Daper covers three principal areas of concern: (1) de- _ terminat"ion of the number of entrance and Exit lanes required based upon the parking . control strategy and type. of parker served.; (2) data t0 allow comparison of the capacities of the various types of cOT.trol. strategies' t0 allow Selection' of the one apDroor_ate for i each facilizv, and ; (3) determination of needed reservoir space — based upon the. control. strategy selected. S Typical capacity values for the various methods of parking control are included in this paper. A word' of caution is neces- sary since there is much. variation in capacity value-s due _to physical conditions present as well as the familiarity of the parker with the parking facility itself . Each major facility requires detailed analysis of its needs and generalized factors - are not always adequate . i Desicn Methodolocv In order to provide adequate access design- and control for major parking facilities , it is necessary to identify the probable - characteristics of the future users of the facility. In this paper it is assumed that the size of the garage has been determined _ based upon a comprehensive parking stud), (general public facilities) , or the amount necessary to serve a given Land use (single purpose facility) . The f-rst step is to determine directional oeak h ur vol—es as related to the total size of the parking garage. Based upon the principal land use served, tables are included in th'Ls page_ which allow the designer to prepare an estimate of peak hour volumes . In general , our .research_ has found that it is adequate to assume for design purposes that the morning inbound peak flows are approximately -- equal to the evening ouzbound peal: flows After determining the peak volumes , a control strategy must be selected which would be. appro- priate for the intended operation of the garage. Selection of whether it would be best to allow parkers to enter without charge and pay as They leave or to pay a flat fee on the way in and have no control upon exiting will have a significant impact upon traiiic capacity. blether to use no fee , a Flat fee , a variable fee, or a combination of fees must be determined as well as whether it is possible t0 receive the payment in advance , or to collect individual ' - pa)%menC of he fee . All Of these alternatives should oe considered for each individual parking facility in order to determine its, proper control strategy . Olen the peak hour volumes and control st-rategy have been dctc_„,_nc , __ is then possible to deter-m-ine the n;.- ber of lanes -~ -2- which w-i11 be: r.equ:i.re-& to- a-dequa.te-ly :s.e-rve. inbound: and' au:t.bound, traf f.ic. to the, parking; Eac:i I i t.y.. Th'-is: r:equlii.r'-&s� kn°ow-l.e:d=.ge: a,.f ! _ typical se:rvil e:.r'a es'. o:f various- meahods. o:f' gar-.k.±Isg; c.=, tr.ol_. j The next step is. t.o. d'e.te:rm'i:.n e t:h e amo.unt o)f` r e:s:erv.a r spa:c e. required t.o: �s:e:r.ve. the parking-. c.on.t.ro'T, Vocaa.i.o.n:..• Fo:11ow .ng- al.l. i of these- steps. wil.1 lead- to, an, e:ff:ic.fen:t:,, wel.1--w.orki:ng: garage. — which wi 1.1 have m-i.n,imum" impacts. a-o.ni the- sutr.re.und i ng s..r.e:E.t. system. Determinat.io:n° o:f P"e.a-k-R-o.ur V•o:l.umesa ' Comprehensive pa.rk-ing; st.ud es: have, pro.vi-d'e:d mu:c.h. information conc.e:rn.in'g the charac.teris:t:ic.s: o:f the. u;s:e:rs o:f: m'a.j;o:r: par.ki.ng �. �. 1 i , �.�.� j — ac._1 _i.e:s..- In. genera. , t rya}, b-e s;t2:t2d; that th:e t.r:a._:�_.c. chase-• t e r is.tic s o'f. a gz.rag;e: w'i 1.1 be. pr'i.nc.ip'a:11y' re l a'.t:e:d to th.e: trip pura•os-e- o.f the uae.r. and' the type af: har& us;e- s v�e.e:rd b}r' t he; i'ac.i.l.i tv'.. troth. o:f th.es:e iCems: re-la-te to! the-- leng;Ch, of tame: the' pa_rke.r i.sin the facility a.ndi the: time of: day- d.u.rii:ng, w.}s;i;.c:h: major tra°f f i.¢:: r.l.ows occur. _ Tab.l-e 1. was. p•Y:e.D'a:re.d` wh--.T_•.ehI com-pa e:s: t.e: V rip: p.=mos:e% o.f the pzrkEr �:it.h: t:�l:E 1A-n:Eah: o: t.i^:e w:;r.i.c.h:'h'.e. pa=:ks a.s: old:se:_ve:d- n. the. Los AnRel.es: C'e-n't.ra.T auvs:irzess- a-r"e' COn:S:Idered long-to-r.m:. p a'r-k er s. s:i.nc:e 8:0% "p:e:rc.e:na aarke d. three. h•o-ur's: o::r 1 oh g E r '- at. the. D.eak: time: o•- ,the- d'a.v„ 8:4. Dez—c-e'nt 6'i th:e= daiT.l.y` em'D11.o.ye:e. - parkErS we_. Dr 'S:e::1'a.:. 27)G:,, t:ri.e':_._. a.V%E`-r.a'ze: o2: ki".i:1:g: d,L'._.c.ti.ail: was 5. 01 I i10:.'.r S.. A gaz—a•g:e`,, wh i c'.h: sEr vec s- emm l ov:'e:e'.s: z3�..'S:�.c.=i- v„ w.0:L".l Cl t e i7G, to have h.i5h.ez- peak. ho.Lr vo•lumEs than: wou-1cf, a1•re which s'emve-s. the: oit'h,er T"sb I'.e_ I'. 1 TR'.r-P, PI.-R•P.OSiE`VS; LENCTH! OF. 4I Z' P,ARKEM i P.ERCE,•T, OF DAFtY.' P.ARKERS "U-170Y OF- Hi D'JRA'•iIiON<' SHO'N: ,�, ,. PE2:K'. AC C ':�T:ION' — T?1P PURPOS-, SNORT: RX: r� AVERAGE: Tr,. IiC\E'-T::R....u, ?:0.�7,G.::A_a. D:�_,.Y--' CAC:ss Sam hz .)`• CY h-'s.. a Ven-mr'1} QARK-US: DURA--::CN Choure:) Work 205:: SO . 04.641 com-crcl.01 5usanels E:6 1' 0:..?:5: =••S Soc:`a1 x'eercat!on• 91 Pcrsone!. �csa'nesa' 9� 6�: CAI0 Eat `:ce1' 9i T C,.22 :0-.9' . Source: Los Angeles. CPO Pa..rklny Study,. 1967• I i i uses shown in the _table. As an example, 85 percent of the shoppers had a parking duration . of less than three hours with an average duration of . 1. 6 hours.. More importantly, only 25 percent of the total daily parkers with a shopping trip purpose were present at _ the time of peak .accumulation. This indicates that the peak hour inbound or outbound volume will be less for a garage serving grin- cipa.11y shopper parkers than for a similar sized facility serving j ' only employees . I In order to relate the type of land use served with peak hour _ volumes , the term entering- leavinz ratio has been used. -. This term ents -t-hem^ 1 t -ale o=_ ars entering or leaving during—a peak I- -r d i�'.i deC Dv t Ze_f l2 1 ? ll1-_ZCCU�^.��L�fJ.^,_0_Lca n the parking facility (taken as the size_of—the—f.aC-i-l-i.ty) . If the inbound horning or outbound evening peak hour is eoua.l to half the num-er of spaces in the garage , the entering- leaving ratio is 0. 50. Using data obtained by special counts taken by personnel.. of my firm, as well as information reported- 'in various parking studies , i Table 2 was prepared which shows the range of values of the entering- leaving ratio for various land uses served. It may be seen in the table that the range of values for an individual park- ing facility may vary considerably. This variation may be ex- plained- by the typical length of time parked as -well as the variation -- in the times when employees must start work of are let out of work. i Table 2 L.ANt) L'SE SERVED VS E\iERIN.-LEAVING RATIO i PRINCIPAL L..ND USE SERVED ENaERINC-LEAt'I�C(a) RATIO (Range of Values) Hotel-riotcl 0.25-0.75 Colle-e-University 0.40-0.60 Recai� eomnerciai 0.45-0.65 ?t:bI'c Office Euildir.; 0.45-0.65 Frlvate O::iccs- ^ i:iple Tenant 0.45-0.60 • Private Of.iccs-Single Terar.; 0.55-0.75 Hospital 0.60-0.70 Y.eGicel Offices 0.70-0.65 Airpcct (public packing) 0.70-0.65 !arufacturin; ?lant 0.70-0.90 ResEaurant (sit-down) 0.60-0.95 :ranch Sank 0.90-1.20. (6)t'c!_�e of cats enter:^; and leaven; :n peak hour divided by tax:r.:_:. acc—=r:!a::on o.` cars (capac::y of .`ac`_!:ty) Source: Special eouncs by and , various parking stue;es oy others which will be required .to ade.quately. serve inbound and outbound traffic to the. parking f.acili.ty.. This r:equ.ir-e:s know.l.edge of typical service rates of various methods of :parking --contro.l . - The next step is to determine ;the amount ;o.,f r.eservo r space required to serve the parking control locati.on.. F,ol.lowing all j of these steps wi1:1 lead to .an efficie:n-t , well-working garage j — which will 'have minimum impact -upon the surrounding :str.e•e:t. s_y-stem. Determination of Peak-Hour Volumes Comprehensive .parking studies have :provided-.much :i,nfo.rmat.ion concerning the characteristics of .th.e" users of .ma. o,r parking facilities . In general , it may be s.cat-ed that :the .traf.*f c -ch-ar.ac- teristics of a garage -will -be principally rela.t:ed .t.o he trip puroose of the user .and the type of land use a:erv_ed by the facility . P,oth of these items relate to the Zen.g,tn .of .time 'the' Parker is in the f ac i 1 i tv and the time of day during i,�n ich :major traf:f is ';f lows occu-- . Table 1 . was prepared which :compare-s the trip pUrpo:s:e of the i -parker with the length of .timne which he parks as ob.se:ved :in the Los Angeles Central Business Dist_ict. Emplove:es are consiaered Iong-.term parke,rs since 80 :percent parked .t;h.ree .hours o. Longer ; at the peak time o l the dav, 84 percent of the ,daily employee ` parkers were oresent.: and, their average pa. king idurat?toii was 5. 6 ilou,rs . A garage, which 'serves eumplovees D.�'l:c=':,ly:, would tend to have higher peak hour volumes than .wouuad one wh-ich serves the other Table I TRIP PURPOSE VS LENGTH OF TI`Z PARKED PEnCENT OF DAILY PARKER$ 'RATIO OF G'ITH DU^nATION' SHMIN PEAK .ACCU'10 ATION TRIP PURPOs- SHOPT-T.ERM LONC-TEi.X TO -TCT::L DAILY AVERAGE (less than h-s.) (3 h-s. or :longer) 'PARKEP.S DLLnA':CN (percent) (percent) (.house) Work 20: . 0..`SL 5.6 . Sho^,p1ng 85 15 0.26 1.b Co.^merc!aI Business 56 1= 0..23 !•5 Persona! Business 91. 6 C.12 C _ Eat `:eel 97. - :3 0,22 _0:9. Source: Los Angeles C 0 Park'ln.g Studv, !967 uses shown in the table. As an example, 85 percent of the shoppers had a parking duration of less than three hours with an average — duration of 1. 6 hours. More importantly, only 26 percent of the total daily parkers with a shopping trip purpose were present at the time of peak accumulation. This indicates that the peak hour inbound or..outbound volume will be less for a garage serving prin- cipal-ly shopper parkers than for a similar sized facility serving only employees . i in order to relate the type of land use served with peak hour volumes , the term entering- leaving ratio has been used. - This tern P�Ypse_rlts—t.he—�ro_Lt;�me o _ .ars entering or leaving during—a peak — hour_ divided by the max o.n_o_ carp in the DarkinE facility ( taken as the size_of—the—faa-i-l-i.ty) . ,�If the inbound — ;Horning or outbound Evening peak hour is equal to halt the number of spaces in the garage , the entering-leaving ratio _is 0. 50. _ Using data obtained by special counts taken by personnel of my �1r^, as well as information reported in various parkiilg studies , Table 2 was prepared which shows the range of values of -the Entering- leaving ratio .or various land uses served. It may be seen in the table that the range of values for .an individual park- ing Lacility may vary considerably. This variation may be ex- plained by the typical length of time parked as well as the variation — in file times when employees must start work or are let out of work. Table 2 LA:;D SSE SERVED VS ENiERINC-LEAVING RAT70 PRIi;CI?AL UL-ND USE SERVED EN'TEnINC-LEAVING(a) RATIO (Range of Vaiues) Hotel-Noce! 025-0.35 — Cellee-L'r.niversi:y 0:40-0,60 Retail Co -iercial 0.4-5-0.65 Public Office Building 0.45-0.65 Private Offices-�ui:i;le Tenant 0.45-0.60 Private 0`,`ice's-Single Terar.: 0.55-0,75 �- Nosplcei 0.60-0.70 Medical 0.`.`icez 0.70-0.65 Airpe-: (pub!ic parking) 0.70-0,E5 !'anufe:curing ?Ian: 0.70-0.50 Restaurant (sit down) 0.60-0.95 !ranch Sank 0.go-i.20 cf ca-s en:er:ng and leaving in peak hour divided by ca,-s (capac::y o- facil: y) Source: Special counts by and , varleus pa-king studies .-y others which will be required to adequately serve inbound and outbound traffic to the parking facility. This req: lires knowledge -of i — typical service rates of ..variou-s methods of pa.rk.ing control. The next step is to determine the amount. 'of re-servoir space required to serve the parking control^ locat.ion. :Following all of these steps will lead to an efficient, well-working garage 1 ! — which will have minimum impact. upon .the. surrounding. street system. Determination of Peak-Hour Volumes Comprehensive parking studies have provided much .informa.tion concerning the characteristics of the users o.f major parking � -' facilities .. In general , it may b t.e seae r d that .the ta_,,:f z.c charac- teristics of a garage will be principally related to the: trip purpose of the user .and the type. of - land. use served by the facility. j - - Roth of these items relate to the length of time the'' parker is in the -Facility and the time of day du.ri.n•g which major traffic-.- .flows i occur. Table . l was prepared which compares the trip pur-oose of the parker with the lenE_-h of ti^e which he parks as observed in the Los =ales Central Business District. Emolovees are considered _ - long-term parkers since 80 percent parked three hours or longer ; zt the peak time of the day, fi/- percent of the daily employee parkers were present ; and, their average parking. duration was 5. 6 flours . A garage, which serves employees Dzi-ra i V, would tend to have higher peak hour volumes than would one which serves the other i Table 1 TRIP PURPOSE VS, LENGTH OF .Tl!M PARKED orRCENT OF DAILY PARKrRs 'RA1TO OF ! VITH DURATION SHUa PEAK ACCL"^:LATION TRIP PURPOSE S)tORT-TERv LONG-TEF4 TO TOTAL DAILY AVERAGE (less than 3 hrs.) (3 hrs. or. longer) PAR1:ERs (percent) (percent) (hour's) Work 20:. soz 0.61 5.6 - Shcpp!ng 65 15 0.26 1.6 Cor•ecrc!al Business 56 )- 0.25 1.5 SOt!GlctiCtrCL:1Dn 91 C 0.2- 1 Personal ;uslncs's , 94. 6 C.21 I 0 j Eat Reel c 3 0.22 0.9 Source: Los Angeles CB0 Perking Study, 1967 F uses shown .in the table . As an example, 85 percent of the shoppers had a parking duration of less than three hours with an average duration of 1 . 6 hours. More importantly, only 26 "percent of the total daily parkers with a shopping trip purpose were present at the time of peak accumulation. This indicates that the peak hour inbound or outbound volume will be less for a garage serving prin- _ cipal;ly shopper parkers than for a similar sized facility serving only employees . In order to relate the type of land use served with peak hour volumes , the term entering- leavinz ratio has been used. , This term �Pnrpc�.;�t�t.h.e— ajy�e o_` ars enterinz or leaving during_a peak hour_ c+yi deg by the mzx_i:,.um__accufn 1at:_o.n_o_� cars in the oarkinz facility^( taken as the- size_o4 the—fac-i-l-i•ty) . f the inbound — morning or outbound evening peak hour is equal to half the number of spaces in the garage , the entering- leaving ratio is 0. 50. Using data obtained by special counts taken by personnel otc my fire;, as well as information reported in various parking studies , Table 2 was prepared which shows the range of values of the entering-leaving ratio for various land uses served. it may be seen in the table that the range of values for an individual park- ing facility may vary considerably. This variation may be ex- plained by the typical length or time parked as well as the variation -- in the times when Employees rust start work or are lei. .out of work. Table 2 LAND USE SERVED VS ENIERINC-LEAVING P.ATiO i PRIi.*CiPAL LAND L'SE SERVED ENTERING-LEAVINC(a) RATIO (Range of values) Hotel-KoLel 0.25-0.35 eolle^e-vniversity 0.tO-0.60 Rccei� Cornercial 0.45-0.65 Public Office Eutidir.s 0.45-0.65 Frivate Officcs- iple Tenant 0.45-0.60 Private Off.ccs-single Tenant 0.55-0.75 Hospital 0.60-0.70 ?led icaI Offices 0.70-0.E5t Alrpert (pub!ic perking) 0.70-O.E5 Xir.uieccurin5 ?la,.)- 0.70-0.90 Restaurant (sir-do�'n) 0.60-0.95 Branch Bank 0.90-i.20 entering and leaving to peak hour divided by :�x!-�:. ecc_._ia:ion of cars (tepec!ty of facility) Source: Speclal counts by n'_ and , va:ious parking studies by others which will be required to adequately serve nbound and outbound traffic to th'e .parking facility. This requires knowledge of typical service rates of .various methods of parking, control.: The-next step is to determine the amount of resexvoir space required to serve the parking controlJoca.tion.. Following all of these steps will lead to an efficient, well-working garage — which will have minimum impact upon the: surrounding street system. i i Determination of Peak-Hour Volumes Comprehensive .parking studies have provided.- much information concerning the characteristics of:. the users of major parking facilities . In general , it may be s.ca--ed that the txaf•fic Charac- teristics of a garage will be principally related to the trip purpose of the user .and the _type of land use. served by the facility. Both of these i_ems relate to the length of. time the... parker is 'in the facility and the time of ' da.y during which major tra1fic- .11-ows occur. Table 1- was prepared which compares the trip purpose of the parker with the leng=h o- time which he parks as observed in the Las Central Business District. Bmplovees are Considered long-term packers since 8.0 percent Darken ahreE hours o= longer , at the peak time of the day, 84 percent of the ,daily employee barkers were present ; and, their average packing duration was 5 . 6 I ilOL'r5 . fi garage , 4-CilCi2 SerVcS Ei:p1.O.yeeS DrZu.G=1lV, would tent t0 have higher. oeak hour volumes than would one which serves the other Table I TRIP PURPOSE VS LENGTH OF TI M PARKED i PE-CENT OF DAILY PARKERS RAT70 OF VITH DURATION SttO'.ti PEAK ACCLML'IATIO\ TRIP PURPOSE SHO..RT-TERM I.01G-TEF.H TO TOTAL DAILY AVERALE (less than tics.) (J hrs. oc tonRer)` PA=KEP.S DUnA'ICY (percent) (percent) (hour.0 Work i0". M:. 0.6L 5.6. Shcppiny 85 15 0.26 . Co--crctoI Business S6 1- 0.25 1.5 Socle!-tctreetlon 91 9 0.:- PCrsone! Business 94. 6 C.21 EoL .`:eel 93 J C.22' 0:9. Source: Los Angeles CB0 Parking Study, 1967 i iy uses shown in the _table. As an example, 85 percent of the shoppers had a parking. du ration of less than three hours with an average — duration of 1 . 6 hours . More importantly, .o my 26 percent of the total daily parkers with a shopping trip purpose were present at the time of peak. accumulation. This indicates that . the peak hour a;z.- inbound :or. outbound volume will be less for a garage serving prin- cipally shopper p.arkers than 'for a similar sized facility serving only employees . in order to relate the type of land use served with peak hour volumes , the term entering- leavinz ratio has been used. , This term es alts_-t.hE �me o` .ars entering or leaving during—a peak — hour divided by the max _o--car4 in the oa--kinz facility^ (taken as the size—of—the—faai-l-i.ty) , If the inbound Morning or outbound evening peak hour is equal to half the number of spaces in the garage , the entering-leaving ratio is 0. 50. _ Using data obtained by special counts taken by personnel of my firm, as well as information reported in various parking stucies , Table 2 was prepared which shows the range of values of the entering- leaving ratio =or various land uses served. It may be seen in the table that the range of values or an individual park- I ing facility may vary considerably. This variation may be ex- r plained by the typical length of time parked as well as the variation j — in the times when employees must start work or are let out of work. . i Table 2 L ;D L'SE SER\'ED 1'S E1iER1\G-LEAV:N� RAT!O i — PRINCIPAL LkN D USE SERVED ENTERINC-LEAViNC:(a) RATIO (Range of Vaiues) Hotel-Motel 0.25-0.75 ! Colle-?e-University 0.40-0.60 Receil Co::-nercial 0.45-0.65 Puhllc Office EulldLr.g 0.-5-0.65 Private Officcs-`^-.;ple Teran: 0.45-0.60 Pr!vace Off.iccs-Single Tenant 0.55-0.?5 Hospital 0,60-0.70 Medical Off!ces 0.70-0.65 Airpert (public parking) 0.70-0.65 - "sruiaccuring Plan: 0.70-O.SC Restaurant (sit-dove) 0.60-0.95 Branch Bank 0.90-i.20 of cars en:erins and leaving -in peak.hour divided by of cars (capae :v of 50u:ce: Special Counts by RC and A; various parking studies by others ♦ V In. locations where th-ere is some-..5tag-ge.r ng of emplo)nlle:nt ho.u.rs , the entering-.leaving ratio .tends ::to be lower.. The 6haract2r'isaics of the potential. use:r.s o_f ..the parking 'facility must :be studied in detail to arrive at .the proper :en:te:ring ratio. Once the entering- leaving ratio has been sele-c'.ted , it is _ possible to determine the .actual peak hour d:es:ign volumes t-o be used in determining the .par-king _control .strate-gy -a:nd the design of access lanes . Parkinz Control Strate£y Selection' Selection of the pr.O-pe.r t-r.pe :of `:pa—rkin•g: .c,o:nt:r:ol' s.trat-egy is exceedingly import-Ant in .the successful o.perat_i-on lof a .maj-or %.pank- ing faciii:v . The strategy i.nvo.lv:es the method of parking control, the charge 'which will be placed upon the user, and 'the type of payment to be co.11.ec-ted from the user. Table .3 shows the app:iica- _ lion o= various control .str2teg_es as related to the •tvpe o parking f2Ci 1_ty used 2s Well 25 to the type :o:f parking can t-o1 equipm'e.nt For shopper and business parke_s, iz is -noarma.l to allow 'free entry with payment of .2 variable fee -on :an individual 'ba:sis as they exi` the garage . . in :the case of emDlOyee'S, 1t 15 iROre nO--al tO allow them to enter freely and have a prepaid .monthly charge which could be checked through _the use Of .parking ,p`ermit.s, Coded cards., tokens., Or O:he_ means as they exit. ?:az_ke_.S at :spOr s even t:s ;EXhib'it peak volumes bLlt have a length of time parked W:h7cll c n be estimzted. i Table 3 j APP.LICATION OF VARIOUS CON7ROL.STAATEOlES CONTROL STRATEGY APPLICX9.L-TY CONTROL K:T1100 -TYPE CHARGE TYPE PAYMENT -- Free-la Pav-:a Flat Variable Pre- 1ndtvidual '^ Pav-O,:: :Free-Out Fee Fee paid Pa.nent D-eferroG HetnoG To Serve; — rr..ployee X X X X 0!iicc Ridg. Visitor X X X Sports Ever.: X X X Snc:xr X X X S tuOcn: X .. ...X X .. Ai: Travcler X X X Co^.•rc i T.•oe -!cke: Spl:te: R' X X Cashier/Atte ride.n". X. X X X X X ti ;inc :ta^p T iC'aet HAnual ly X X X Coecc: Care X X X X CC1r-(,•aerated Cate X X: X Token-operated Cate X X X :X X Pa rkine �tcter - - X .X X i For this type of condition, it is much more appropr`i'ate to collect a flat fee inbound and to have no contr-ol outbound . This latter type of control was the one which we recommended for use at the _ Los Angeles Convention Center. Parking Control O 'eratine "Characteristics Table 4 indicates our findings concerning the service rates for various types of parking controls . We have taken the design _ service rate as being equal to 80 percent of the maximum service rate . There is considerable variation in service rates' and care- ful study must be given to the probable characteristics of the users of the parking facility as well as the experience of the personnel operating the facility. For the control measures normally used in entering a facility, the average headways vary from 3. 6 seconds per vehicle for a clear aisle -,,:ith no control to 20. 4 seconds per vehicle for a coin-operated gate. In terms of design hourly capacities , the rates would be 800 aisles and .only 140 per hour per lane per hour per lane for clea_ for coin-Operated gates . The most cozz--non type or control used at major parking facilities is the ticket dispenser with a gate . Re- search in England identified the fact that there is a signi_`ica-It" i di-=erence in the capacity of this equipment depending upon whetne-r- the parker has an Easy direct approach or it a Sharp ti!ri': is required to approach the equipment. This is Obvious since a Straig'lt appr02ch I allows a parker to position. himself in a reasonable location to pull the ticket to open .the gate. Thus , the design of the avnroac':a to — a ticket dispense= can cause the hourly capacities to vary between 305 and 520 vehicles per hou-. — internally, the circulation pattern can affect the capacity o= the inbound approach. it is very important to have a -minimum O- l+'ithin the aarc:inn facility so that Once a diver leaves the entra;ce parking control, he can do so without delay"Lng the next inbound parker i:,::,ediately behind him. This can be accor.: p l i s CV avoiding S i-Ua:2.OnS wnE=e outDOu'n- par.:E=S G eu.ed up crom the exit control b1o.ck oarkers ;enzerinz the a • Table 4 PARKING CONTROL 'SERVICE RATE TYPICAL SERVICE RATES PER LANE(a:) HOURLY -CAPACITY AVERAGE TYPE OF CONTROL HEADWAY Design(b) Maximum . (Sec/Veh) (Veh/Hr) (Veh/Hr) Entering : Clear aisle , no control 3. 6 800 1., 000 Ticket dispenser , no gate 5. 0 575 720 Time Stamp and hand to driver 8 . 5 340 425 Coded-card operated gate 8 . 9 .340 425 Cashier , flat fee, no gate No i^.*.oii 3ti on given 9 . 2 390 Direction- info needed 14 . 8 195 250 i Ticket dispenser w/gate Sha_D turn ? approach 9. 5 '3J51 380 Easy direct approach 5. 5 520 650 Coin operated gate 20. 4 '140 175 internal . Clear aisle or ramp, no parking 2. 0 1, 20.0 l'; 800 Straight ramp w/bend @ end 2.2 1, 000 1;610 Circular :amp, 30 ' R @ C/L 2. 2 81:0 1; 650 . Aisle with adjacent 9 x 18 stalls inbound 3. 5 830 L, 0 .0 Outbound 8 . 6 335 420 Exitig: Li<h� sr__eet co::gestion 7 . 2 1-00 500 Moderate street congestion 9.0 320 400 Coded card/token-operated gate 9.0 320 400 _ Ca sr,ier, flat fee w/gate -13.4 215 270 CaShIE , variable fee w/gate 1.9 . 5 150 1.85 Coin operated gate 20.4 14.0 175 (a)A SSi'Tes no signi:.ica.^.t interference by pedestrians, other LraZ7 . C , etC . �b'Taken as C0io of —maximum _at'e `'equine 6 car lenz-.Cs.' ese�wo.i_ in advance of con--of points . VS TRAFFBC IN =UMS91 Y I — z 25 . .. 0 (!) O 20 n W m u_ \ CD L rr > 15 I W �. ° Not exceeded a � © 1 time ini 100 z_ 10 Not exceeded .� m Z 5 times in 100 0� Q ry 5 0 � � Averoge i Queue LLJ 0 i I Lenafh O 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 W TRAFFIC INTENSITY (Average Arrival Rate = Average Service Rate) Assumptions : 1 ., Arrivals follow a. Poisson DisLrioution ' . Sei-.•ice rate can be represented by an exponential pro')abi I i L j' :u—cti on. S. Flow is evually div' dcd between each lane if more than one is available . :o e :O O--tain reservoi- length, use 22 iee_ per vehicle . 1 ' The ca-pac:ity� of: e-xfts from: a; major: parking.: faci;l:i.ty ar:e:. dependent_ upon a-de.q.uaae. s:p:are.: ap:p: -oa-chang. the:: e°.x� et. c-.an�t.r.a.,U. locat.i.on as we.11i as '-ad'e-q.ua-,t:e_ r.e.servoi.r; :Ue.tween ;t6a-t rb_c`a:t. on: - and the d:riv.ewav to: the:: pu:bh.ic:: sare:e:.t:,. Anal:ysiz. must: t5e: e:o:n- ducted on both o:f t:hese: r:es:er,.v.o- .rr needs: and:" su:ff:ic _ent: lanes. as:. we 11 ' as. s.u.f f:i.c.i.e:nt:. re- ae_rvo-i'r .l:e.ngah.. p-r•:ovi:d'e.d::- to:; a:Ll'.aw p:ro.pe-r• opera.t.ion. Th-e: empha.s i.s: af: this- p-a:p:ex- w:i:1.1.. b-e.: upon- th-e; capzcr :.ty of the- e:xi.t.i.ng- p-a-r.k.ing, co.na.r_o.I: i.ta:el'f:.. The_: mo-s::t: c-ommon; ty-pe o.f operat.i.on involves-. us-e o.f a=. ca-s�h.i.ex_ ro:ll;e:c.ring_ a: var.- 'a-t-Le f_e:e from a_- par.:ke:r_ based--. upon- Lengah- o:f- tim-e pa:r_ke:d;.. T? s.� type. o.f.� control hats: a:. ca.p ac:.i.ty o.f: a pp r o ximat:e_I:y 15:0' veh: :che_s.: p.ex_- h our:., Another- a p p r-o a:ch. might b-e= to- hav e� t-h-e7;: park•e:m pay- h; s> f;=e:e: t:o the-.' cashier: be_f:o.re: e:nt:e:r_m.ng h..Ls- ca:r. _ and~ then. u:t :1':i. e: a: token- ap-exa:ted-: gate- as a= me:a-ns:. of: e:x..ir co.n.troa... Tfi- :s: ,co:n-t.ruL. atr:a:te-gy,Y wbulcd have_ over twice the: c-apac:i.ty o:f a. cashi.er.: lane. kra-e.1"E arrd< co.ir-TA" Fra-ve:. Y app l ica.t:io:n. whe-.r.-e there: is in'su:f_f ci_':.en:t. spa:c:e_ to; provide: an: a d e a-u a t e= nu m bee r: o:f_ c:a sh te:r•.- ha-ne:s .. Reservoir.= Ne:e:d-s I:f you have- ew-e-r- wa--=he_d c:a.r-s app :a -if. yp-et of kIngrcL -a , c o n t r o:l,,. you kno-w tha_-t: t h-ey- do rw-Z come .&;t. an: even-, raa_e... Even, though t-h ex e. may b-e ne-ax b.y t r-a7.JE .c. signals whi.c:h may- caaars:e t-he. . a p p.r o a:ch i-.ng. P-a_rk:e-r s- to: a.rr: v-e- .n- gro:u ps.= o:r• pnD&t:o an s,; ramdom: ar.r va..l is the_ norma:1 a-pproac:h. e:riar.ac:ter:isti-c:. a:s:s:umE(±.. ReE&e&=h'..ha:s srrown that rand:om axriva.Ls or e_ve:na:s- Ln a t:raff&,. sar:eam- t:e:•rrd.:: to: EallIow_ i the Poiss--on mat-hemaa:ir:a.l. dist:r:i:b.u:t.i`-o.n:.. Th:Ls; p::rovide-s a means ,that..,. if. t.he: a:vErag;e . ra:CE is k-n.own:,. the: p>ro:b:a:b -Ei.ty o:f, exceed-ins, a. glvexi. volume in-- a. un-it: o�f_ t. men may b.e: c:a.lic.Lla,t.e-d?... Thu.s., if you, know: t.he> a.v-er..a•g:e_. voT.ume:,, y-ou.-. may; cahcu.haa:e� t:he: surge:s.: volume. to &.11ow de:s-.ign. o:r r:ea:ervo:i.r spac:e.. �4s an-: e,-x mp,Ie:,; i*f the average numbe:r- o:f car`-. i.n;,.a f:iiv-e:-mI-nu<t:e: is: ho),; use: of Poisson s t.a-t i.s:t_ica:l_ y;i.EId; `u he: :£aca: •t:haz: nog mere: than 18_ cars :w .IP...a:rr ve in: a .ve==mi:nu.t i.n:t:e:rva.1. w3it:h: n:) a. pro'- - b i 1 i t y that. t-n- s:: am, au.n.t w=i.L T_ tine exc.e-.e de:d o n.hy. o:n. time. .n a 10.0, five.-minu-te: intervals:. U:se: 6' t_hes:e- c.a.lc_ ha-t i t:ez.h,n: .que:s; a.Uo.w:- the d_ete.r-mina--r:ion af: the. amou:na. of r:es:er::o: r, reo:Li.re:d. t-o: s.e:rve a liven t pe o.f p-arki.mg, co:nt.ro.I T PA;:; KING FACILI Y SIZE V' S ACCESS NEE - 2500 AANT • � F 2000 O p• O—'� 4 O• 0) W ° m `a 0 0 �qT 1500 �o �- �0 anti cam` J — U lOoo I Example : w Q Size: 1250 Space, Garage Serving Retail Commercial Directional Peak Hour Volume = 560 Vehicles per z 500 (Hour (In or Out) YAccess Needs: In - 2 Ticket Dispenser w JLcnes Q� Out -4 Cashier I 0 r• I Mr- O 500 1000 . 1500 2000 2500 PEAK HOUR VOLUME ( IN OR OUT) Clear Aisle - No Control I �..ls:.A �e..w•gt IN j 4 (R. �•, 6 7.: 8 I Ticket Dispenser With Gate- od Cord -Token Gate I ► 3 ;; a hy. R 7 8: OUT I `• T 8 10 l (0 ZZ 4 kU 6 Cashier - Variable Fee -The relations`.h: .p "be•tw.e.e.n :the arrival of vehscSle's :and -t'he ability of the p,ar:k=in.g;.fc'.ontrol eq.u.lpment for zltraltegy- 'to ha:ndle- . . .thmstmr at -et re s e rwo ixthese vehic les are n -1d ig space . If the average .nurtb-er of ;ar.ri-•vals pex suni:t :Of time :is called "v'" :and "a", is .the 'ay.erage :rat,e ,af :se:rvice '(d-istcha:r:g:e.. .per i unit of time,, the ratio ;of v.%s .i:s :used °to determine the 'amount of reservoir space.. -This xzt`io is :caaled t:raff'i:c tntenstty The ave.ra:ge ile-ngah :of the queue '(q.) .behind the vehaza:e be: 'ng _ serviced is equal -to q This :formula assumes that ;the arrival of vehicles .at :the service pout, folatows a random dis•t:r: - 'bution, 'the servicing time for veh:icl(es- Cain b•e re-pre.s-ent:ed by an j exponential probabilit-y :function., and -,that the f1ow is �equ'a.l.ly divided among .service .facilities if .theta is -more th-an o.rye lane serving a :give-n ..area !of the g_ar .g:e,. K.nowi:ng .the average qu-eue length and selecting a :p:robabil.ity j value .which r&p.r:es•.e:na.s the .f.realuency that the -design length, will be exceeded., will .allow the -designer to -determine :the amount of :reservoir required :behind the .servi-ce position.. . These formulas and probabilities were -utilized to prepare :'Figure .1 which compares traffic intensity _ with required reservoir for common p.rob:abilit.ies used in design. The mathematics are such that:, as the "avera-ge volume ap.proalches the average service rate:, the -amount :of. ba::�kup will be infinite. In' addition, the probability that the amount of reservoir space for a given .volume will never be exceeded also is in.-finite. Ire actuality, _ these conditions do not occur but the general relationships hold true based upon our field observations. As may be noted in the figure, an insignificant amount of reservoir is reauired when the average arrival rate is 50 percent or less of the average service rate of the parking control device. At this level , only a two-car reservoir would be required. As the - ratio o.f traffic intensity increases above 0. 7 , she amount of reservoir space increases rapidly. We have selected a traffic.:: , intensity of 0. 8 as appropriate for design and a probability that the determined reservoir would be exceeded only five .times .in...1.00- :, j _ Thus , if the average service rate fora given type of parking' control is -known and sufficient lanes are- provide'd so that the average arrival rate during the peak hour .ils 0. 8 times the average service rate, a reservoir of six car length's- behind each service position would be adequate to meet the needs of the facility. If this is physically impossible, a traffic intensity of 0. 6 should be used to determine the number of lanes requiring only a two-car reservoir. j Summary Having determined the peak hour volumes, the. parking control strategy, the number of lanes , and the reservoir length to adequately ' serve the` peak-hour volumes, the physical design of the facilities then may be made . As noted previously, having an inadequate capacity to serve the traffic volumes approaching the control means can have a very drastic effect upon the backup which will occur. This backup creates adverse operating characteristics in and around the facility and also causes the length of time that a parker is involved in entering or leaving a garage to grow significantly. Thus, the design features of the facility can have an impact on the attitudes of the users and indirectly affect the success or failure of the parking facility in attracting customers or users. _ To provide a means of easily determining the number of lanes necessary for various- types of parking garages, Figure 2 was pre- pared which allows the designer to directly translate the size of _ the garage. and the type of land use served into the number of i necessary access lanes for the parking control strategy assumed. - The example shows that a 1 , 250-space garage serving a retail commer- cial facility will normally have a directional peak hour volume of _ 560 vehicles per hour. If inbound ticket dispensers with gates are used , two lanes will be adequate to serve this garage. If cashiers collect variable fees, a total of four exit cashier lanes will be required: \ormaTly these four lanes will not be provided all in the same location-and, of course , it would be necessary to operate all [our only during peak hours. I i In the caste of an off ice bu'iadng :raa`he.r ahan .a retail .fac:ility., it would be possible .t•o .use coded ,card exit gat-e!s f°or m6nth-ly ,parker.s . This .would significantly reduce `th,e r.equ r:ed --rnumber of .exit lanes since transient v:isiaors .are a much lower per-centag:e of the peak hour _ volumes for an office bui;ld`Lng -than.- 'they are `i�a a :garage serving a retail facility. The .reduction in.c+onstruc-tion and operating cost would be signif-ican°t. - A warning is necessary concerning the use of Figure 2 since it was based upon very generalizerd in.forma-tio.n.. :Each :individual major parking facility must be .co•n=s.id.ered ion.. a:s own :and its access needs determined in light of the .cha.rac-ter-is.tics -of .th-e probable users of the facility itself. In order to :have sa.ti:sf.ie,d customers and -users of a :major parking :facility, tho.r,ough investigation and det-ermination _ . ,of access .needs must be accomplished. E _ f -11- I References i 1 . Arthur Carter Jr. and Bessie Hayes, Vehicle Acceptance Rates of Parking Areas , Public Roads ; Vol. 20, Number 10; .October 1959 . 2 . J. M. Crawford, Factors Affecting Capacities of Parking Garages Advanced Study.-Report ; Institute of Transportation and Traffic j Engineering, University of California; Berkeley, California; November 1958. i 3. P. B. Ellson, Parking : Dvnamic Capacities of Car Parks , Road Research Laboratory Report LR221 ; Ministry of Transport ; Crow- thorne , Berkshire , England; 1969 . 4 . Daniel L. Gerlough and Frank C. Barneis , Poisson and ether Dis- tributions in Traffic, Eno Foundation For Transportation, Saugatuck, Connecticut, 1971. 5 . Parking In The City Center; Automobile Manufactures Association, j Prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates; New Haven, Connecticut ; j May 1965. 6 . Parking Principals, Highway Research Board, Special Report 125; National Academy of Sciences ; Washington, D. C. ; 1971. 7 . Edmund R. Ricker, Traffic Design of Parking Garages, Eno Foundation For Traffic Control, Saugatuck, Connecticut, 1957 . 8 . David K. Witheford and George E. Kanaan, Zoning, Parking, and Traffic, Eno Foundation For Transportation, Saugatuck, Connecticut, 1972. 9 . Martin Vohl and Brian V. Martin, Traffic System Analysis, McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1967. 10. Donald L. W!oods and Carroll J. Messer, Design Criteria For Drive-In Banking Facilities , Traffic Engineering, P30-37 , December 1970. i __ i lsa i APPENDIX C LAKE STREET LOT NORMALIZATION DATA i i 09/12/90(PIR001\PARKING.RPT) i j - i PIERSIDE RESTAURANT LAKE STREET PARKING LOT PARKING ACCUMULATION ANALYSIS 1 sa MONTHLY REVENUE ACCUMULATION PERCENT OF MONTH WEEKDAY WEEKEND TOTAL AVERAGE --------- -- ......... ......... ---------- JAN S1,670 S3,307 S4,978 32% FEB S1,744 $3,454 S5,199 33% MAR $5,188 S10,274 S15,463 98% APR S7,948 S14,269 S22,216 141% MAY S5,129 $11,238 916,367 104% JUN S15,674 S9,325 S24,999 159% JUL S22,478 $18,455 S40,933 260% AUG S18,203 S15,040 S33,243 211% SEP S4,022 S7,965 S11,987 76% OCT S1,767 S3,499 S5,266 33% NOV S1,884 S3,731 S5,615 36% DEC S916 S1,813 S2,729 17% aasaessss - aesasasssa MONTHLY AVERAGE: S15,749 100X i - NON-SUMMER DAILY ACCUMULATION SUMMER DAILY ACCUMULATION MONTH WEEKDAY WEEKEND MONTH WEEKDAY WEEKEND JAN -- - $76 S367 FEB S87 $432 MAR $226 S1,284. APR S397 S1,427 JUN S712 S1,166 MAY $223 S1,405 JUL S1,070 S1,845 SEP S192 S885 AUG S791 S1,880 OCT S80 $389 NOV S86 S466 DEC S44 5181 DAILY AVERAGES: S157 $760 DAILY AVERAGES: $858 $1,630 --------- ----- -- -------__ SEASONAL VARIATION SUMMARY DAILY NON-SUMMER SUMMER AVERAGE WEEKDAY WEEKEND WEEKDAY WEEKEND --------- ------- ------- ------- ------- $525 S157 S760 5858 . S1,630 PERCENT OF DAILY AVERAGE: 30% 145% 163% 311%