Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing-CUP 86-43-CDP 86-27 Pierside-Appeal by HB 7 �6 ' �f 3 Af pea-,( up Coas /el Dev. I�e�. T�, ,oRgaw je4,A-cAL H p p+•� w ,�k eowd. i F, f.40?L,�c�NOTICE OF='r 4�` erid rconitntiea torten (10) _ :ea 10 p: c,;sn 4d:ernsemer.ts r a R ::.a d;ny puo,rc PUeLIC.HEARiNI " ' working dayx Appltcantal t 1n SuOenor Court ar Orange County, Z�" APPEALTOTNE.1.4- wllL,rbe:-rlotlfled-•tiy.•the�. es Dy Decree o e PLANNING ., �� Coestal-,Comminb as to Gar-rtra. rvumoer A•o214. oared 29 SeplernDer_ 196.1. and ' �� COWA8=WS 4-;2 the date"ottti�i'6ondiision of 2s831. Gated 11 .tune. 1963. �_: APPROVAL Of -.'.,.. the,,Commiseion's_ re'view --`CONDITIONAL USE`= period,Grid ae t0 whether or; .:,PERMR NO.W 43! `not e.appeal,haa.been filed:; j T A T E O F CALIFORNIA _COASTAL Applicants.;are advised not: t -F DEVELOPMENT" `r c to begln;eonsiruetlon priori tr00ERtiftT NO 86.27 z to that date."f p' V { t (Plerslde Village) ALL INTER $TED;'PER.; county of Orange o�tw� %our. AdyMLtW�Q co.r•O N0110E;v•!$''HEREBY SONS ete'Invlted to-attend° nr '^'• .ma•nt n "' '^ r o°"" "-- AN,thai"t a Huntington said hearhig'°and-express win r0 ace cow^+n worn Be Councll'will.hold.opinions'cf:submit evidence. 1 pubita h in the Coun- for or agelrist.the applicallonj ell!Chamber the Hunt. at outlined abcve:,AB appli- I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of Ingram Bebeh Cat center; lions-ofthisproposalase on! 2000. -Main, Street, Huntr Ilona of this propoaal:are onI ington-Beach,.Califomla,.on Zile with the Office of the City! the County aforesaid-, I am over the age of eighteen the.date and at the timed Cterk, 2000 Main Street;; dicated below to recelve and Huntington�Saach,.,.Cal1-1 years. and not a party to or interested in the below . consider the. ec statements of fornia,for Insptfoniby the.' all persons who wish to be public. entitled matter I am a principal clerk of the Orange neardrelative to the apple= HUNTINGTON.;;BEACW canon deuribd below.,, Cm COUNCIL, By: Allclw Coast DAILY PiLOT, with which is combined the DATE: Monday; October M. Wentworth;City Clerk„ 13._t e6 •, -,,.: ,.;. Phone(714)SWSws- N -E'/'/S-PRESS. a newspaper of general circulation, _time 7:30 P.M: . Dated W30/88 >SUBJECT: Conditional Published_Orange,Coast) panted and published in the City of Costa Mesa, U's:a' P e-r m I t N 0. Daily Pilot October 2_1986 i 86-43/Coastal Development Count of O State of California, and that a _ Permit No 86-27-Appeal Y ran ge. . APPLICANT: The Hunt- Notice of PUBLIC HEARING ington Pacifica Develop- ment Corp.and.Bryant .L.. Morris Development In con-. junction with the Huntington O Beach. Redevelopment Agency:. of which copy attached hereto Is a true and complete APPELLANT:: Huntington <; Beach Tomorrow ::- ;, /►Copy, was printed and published 1n the Costa Mesa ZONING:­ Downtown. , �' �1' Specifk Plan,District 10 PROPOSAL:. To permit Newport each, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley. pd T f S development of a 87.500f square toot.specialty com- !rvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna I mercial center,related sup- ONE TIME porn facilities 'and 696+ Seacn issues of said newspaper for y" l: space parking structure on r the ocean side or. Pacific to Wit the issue(s) of Coast. Highway between '� Main Street and Lake, Street.. Said development will generally.be located within the existing parking lot just south of the pier. October 2 t 98 tr COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project.Is.within an appealable area of the Coastal Zone(see below). ' ENVIRONMENTAL 198 STATUS:.The proposed pro- ject is covered by previously approved Environmental Im- pactrt No. 82-2 and 198—_ Redevelopment Project:Area Focused En- vironmental Impact Report (July,.1982). ' ON FILE: A:"copy of..the proposed project filed on September-3;1986 is on file In the Department•of.De- c --— ve(opment Services. - COASTAL- DEVELOP- MENT'PERMIT;APPEAL PROCEDURE. `.`Approval;;oL•the Coeslet I declare, under penalty of perjury, u-at j 0 0 eealableDevelopment Permit Is tar foregoing IS true and correct. comets n the :Coaster I c • ! ^ � Commission pursuant. to RC S.30603.A denial_may C/ be spooled (S.13319; Title 14 California Administrative Cod v^C t O b?r 2 e) only W.the City has Executed on Q$ approved the C.U.P.onthe basis of local land use regu= �ta Mesa, CallfOr la. latlons but has denied.the Issuance of a.coastal_:de-' velopment-permh because It. cannot make the findingga re-� qulred by Sectlon 13311.1 Signature ! 1 Tltfe 14 of the California Ad-' rtilnistrative Code. -.Pursuant *to :PRC .S 930603 an"appeaaby awidg.� . pe d be:filed <`tn writipheyed and'ng,ed"ddressed toll Calitornia icoaatat"-Co n' inisslori,'245 W. Broadway-. Suite 380, POB-1450, Long T `BaaCh Cal.fto nl:a i 90801_1450(2131590-5071; V tit The appeal=period begins f '1 ' A i £y 1 when the Commission re- yy eeives thi§ notice of action ^ l 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 6 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 86-27 APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT Applicant: The Huntington Pacifica Development Corporation and Bryant L. Morris Development in conjunction with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment _ Agency _ Request: To permit development of a 87,000t square foot specialty commercial _ center, related support facilities and 696+ space parking structure _ on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street. Location: Said development will generally be located within the existing parking lot just south of the pier. _ Date of Approval: October 13 1986 _ Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach City Council on October 13, 1986 and your request was: Approved X Conditionally approved (see attached) Denied Withdrawn Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final. Approval of this development is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to PRC 5.30603. A denial may be appealed (5. 13319, Title 14, California Administrative Code) only if the City has approved a development on the basis of local land use regulations but has denied the issuance of a coastal development permit because it cannot. make the findings required by Section 13311, Title 14 of the California Administrative Code. (Telephone:714-536.5227) 1 Notice of Action Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 Page Two Pursuant to PRC S. 30603 , an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten ( 10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of . the Commission ' s review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk ALSr OF ACPION OF THE CITY CMP Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Monday, October 13, .1986 The City Clerk opened the regular meeting of the City Council of the- City of Huntington Beach at 6:30 P.M. ROLd, CALL Present: None Absent: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas Due to the lack of a quorum of the Council, the City Clerk recessed the meet- ing to 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center. Mayor Mandic called the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green Thomas (arrived at 7:45, P.M. ) Absent: None PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FILED BY HLWrINGTCN BEACH TOMORROW TO PIING COM- MISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-43 & COASrAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 86-2 - APPEAL DENIED - PIERSIDE VILLAGE APPROVED WITH MODIFIED CONDITIONS The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Huntington Beach Tomorrow to the approval by the Planning Commission of Conditional Use Permit 86-43/Coastal Development Permit 86-27, a request by the Huntington Pacifica Development Corporation and Bryant L. Morris Development in conjunction with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to permit the following: Development of an 87,500 + square foot spe- cialty commercial center, related support facilities and 696+ space parking structure on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street, Downtown Specific Plan, District 10. Said development will gen- erally be located within the existing parking lot just south of the pier. The proposed project is within an appealable area of the Coastal Zone. The proposed project is covered by previously approved Environmental Impact Report 82-2 and Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area Focused Environmental Impact Report (July, 1982) The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publi- cation and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to- the matter.. John Cahill, Project Architect, reviewed the project, particularly pedestrian circulation, elevations and building heights. Discussion was held regarding parking and building heights as it relates to Pacific Coast Highway. Page 2 - Statement of Action of the City Council Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner, reviewed the 24 issues referred to in the letter from the appellant, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, dated -September 26, 1986. Mr. Adams reffered to the staff report dated October 13, 1986 and recommended the Alternative Action on the last page as follows: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission at their September 16, 1986 meeting and amended to include a provision which will require that fol- lowing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approve on the additional submittals outlined in: Condition No. 1 (a)-(m) - Significant Modifications to the site plan. Condition No. 7 - Roof top mechanical equipment plan. Condition No., 9 - (View Scape Concerns) List of proposed uses within village and review of minor modification to plan. Condition No. 11 - Onsite circulation modification plans. Condition No. 12 - Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Condition No. 13 - Parking Management Plan. Condition No. 24 - Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the village. Condition No. 25 - Onsite areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 26 - Public areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 41 - Beach Division Headquarters relocation plan. The Mayor declared the hearing open. Geri Ortega, Chairman of Huntington Beach Tomorrow, Dr. Victor Leipzig, Lance Jacot, Charles Ellik, Norma Vander Molen, representing the Community Services Commission, Jerry Warren, Mary Rosczyk, Irene Briggs, Cory Bersctii, Chanuncey Alexander, Henry Bohrman, James Lane, Dean Albright, member of Environmental Board, Abdul Memon, President of the Downtown Merchants Guild, Sam Lanni, Ted Johnson, Doug Langevin, !a_y­_H_1_IRen, Dr. Donald Shipley, Gail Lyons, Dorothy Campbell, Marcia Natelborg, Lorraine Faber spoke in opposition to the Pie a Village. Susan Newman, Vice-President of Huntington Beach Together, Natalie Kotsch, Larry Was ha, President of Chamber of Commerce, James J on, Elaine Cra t, Carole Ann Wall, Kirk Kirkland of Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Board of Realtors presented informal petition to the Mayor with approximately 400 sig- natures and approximately 140 letters in support of Pierside Village, Bill Holman, Barry Bussiere, Ron 5henkman, Vice-Chairman of Huntin on Beacn Toge�er, Stan in, Mary Aileen Matheis, Matt Messier, David C. Smith, Ralph Bauer, Dance Ba urst, Stanford Tharp, Ann Chlebicki, Lila Nowell, Jan 8homaker, Bob Mayor, Kaye MacLeod, member of Citizens Advisory Board on Pier- si e 1 lage�t Wissmann spoke in support o e PiersiTe—vi'llage. Thomas Pratte, representing The Surfrider Foundation, requested that Condition No. 1 i in the report be amended to require a 50 foot setback from the mean tideline. David Perry stated that he has often walked down to the pier with his wife and children and has always felt safe. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Page 3 - Statement of Action of the City Council Recess - Reconvene -The Mayor -called a recess of Council at 11:15 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 11:20 P.M. Following discussion, a motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission at their September 16, 1986 meeting and amended to include a provision which will require that following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approve on the additional sub- mittals outlined in: Condition No. 1 (a)-(m) - Significant Modifications to the site plan. Condition No. 7 - Roof top mechanical equipment plan. Condition No. 9 - (View Scape Concerns) List of proposed uses within village and review of minor modification to plan. Condition No. 11 - Onsite circulation modification plans. Condition No. 12 - Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Condition No. 13 - Parking Management Plan. Condition No. 24 - Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the village. Condition No. 25 - Onsite areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 26 - Public areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 41 - Beach Division Headquarters relocation plan. Following discussion, a motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Bailey, to amend Condition 10 to add the words ."Following various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval." The motion carried by the following straw vote: AYES: Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES: Kelly, MacAllister ABSENT: None It was the consensus of Council to modify Conditions 4, 5 and 6 by adding the words "Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval." The motion made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as follows: Findings for Approval: (CDASI'AL DEVELOP[= PERMIT NO. 86-27) 1. The proposed "Pierside Village" is consistent with the city's Coastal Zone suffix and the visitor-serving commercial standards, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; it conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and stan- dards of the city's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 3. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Underground sewer and 0 Page 4 - Statement of Action of the City Council water utilities are existing in the area and are sufficient to handle the proposed development. Findings for Approval: (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43) 1. The proposed development of a specialty retail village will have a bene- ficial effect upon the general health welfare, safety, and convenience of persons residing or working in the area due to the type, variety, and quality of the activities proposed, and will contribute to an increase in the value of the property and .improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed "Pierside Village" .is designed to be in conformance with the city's adopted General Plan (including the state certified Coastal Ele- ment), the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. 3. The proposed "Pierside Village" is compatible with existing or other pro- posed or anticipated uses in the area. The project will directly connect with other developments on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and will be responsible for the rehabilitation and/or relocation of existing structures in the project area. 4. The proposed location, site layout, and design will properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a har- monious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another on the site are properly integrated. The proposed project will provide a greater number and variety of people an opportunity to enjoy the city beach and pier area and related ocean activities. 6. The proposed access to and parking for the "Pierside Village" will increase traffic and circulation concerns; however, controlling vehicular access to the project, separating vehicular and pedestrian access, , and relocating traffic signals along Pacific Coast Highway will improve the current circulation system. Conditions of Approval: 1. The site and section plans dated September 11, 1986, and augmented site plan sheet 2, dated September 12, 1986, shall be modified to include the changes outlined below. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval on the submittals. (a) All habitable building areas shall be limited to two stories. Exceptions to this will only be permitted as part of an interior loft or mezzanine which is mostly open to the shop below. In no case may habit- able building area exceed 25' in height or two stories above the eleva- tion of the pier. (b) Building heights shall be limited south of the centerline of Lake Street. No structure may be higher than the elevation of Pacific Coast Highway. Page 5 - Statement of Acion Ci Council gof the City (c) The freestanding concession stand as proposed on the beach in front of the major access point to the village shall be relocated to back within the village. The shop shall have direct access on to the beach access road and serve the convenience of the beach user. (d) Improvements on the north side of the pier shall provide a number of public amenities such as a major beach access way adjacent to the parking structure. The detail design of this proposal shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board in conjunction with the depart- ments of Development Services, Community Services, and Public Works. (e) The light wells adjacent to Maxwell's balcony shall be increased in size to provide additional natural light penetration under the pier. Other light penetrations or alternative methods of illumination including the alternate decking designs shall be required to achieve an adequate level of comfort and security for the area under the pier. (f) The project shall include a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway linking the Pierside Village with the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. The design shall be compatible with the Village and the Downtown Design Guidelines. This structure shall be constructed concur- rent with the "Pierside Village." (g) The parking control mechanisms depicted on the plans shall be relocated to a location within the parking structure. The accessway to the control stations should provide for a minimum stacking area to accom- modate 24 cars. (h) The plans shall identify public restroom locations in sufficient quantities and areas to adequately accommodate the village patrons. (i) No structures shall be developed oceanward of the mean high tide line established on the north side of the pier (405' south of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way) . (j) The project shall be approved in two phases. The first phase is proposed .for the south side of the pier on the area controlled by the city of Huntington Beach. The second phase is proposed for the north side of the pier. The city is presently negotiating with the state for control of that portion of Bolsa Chica State Beach. A plan shall be sub- mitted which indicates the phasing and associated development with each phase. This entitlement application shall be limited to the proposal for Phase I. (k) The ferris wheel shown on the plot plan shall be removed. (1) Retail square footage on the new pier -decking shall be 90% devoted to major sit down restaurants of unique and high quality, subject to definition in the operator's lease agreement. (m) Parking layout shall include bicycle parking facilities in suffi- cient quantities to accommodate village patrons. 2. Floor plans and elevations for each commercial suite and restaurant shall be prepared and submitted to the director of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. All Page 6 - Statement of Action of the City Council structures onsite shall reflect a compatible architectural theme which is consistent with the city's Downtown Design Guidelines. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 3. A detailed materials pallet shall be prepared depicting all proposed exterior materials and colors and. submitted to the Design Review Board for recommendation and approval. Following the various departmental and other- reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and appro- val. 4. A planned sign program for the entire village shall be prepared pursuant to the Downtown Design Guidelines and submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to the issuance of any sign permits. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. .5. The developer shall submit a plan which shall include the parking struc- ture and area under the pier, lighting, public plaza, and street furni- ture plan which is in compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines sub- ject to review and approval of the Design Review Board. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 6. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the city and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits. Such a plan shall include all the landscaped areas and lighting within the public parking lot, medians, and the walkway system around the project perimeter and connection to the pier. The association shall maintain all land- scaped areas within the project. All existing palm 'trees onsite shall remain within the project, however, they may be relocated from their pre- sent location. Perimeter landscaping, with a minimum of ten feet in width, shall be provided along the parkway area, adjacent to P.C.H. Fol- lowing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 7. A roof top mechanical equipment plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services, which indicates screening of all equipment and delineates the type of material proposed prior to the issuance of Build- ing permits. Such projected equipment shall -not exceed the maximum heights depicted in the Building Code or Downtown Specific Plan. Follow- ing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 8. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engi- neer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chem- ical and fuel properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and util- ities, etc. 9. The developer-shall submit a list of all proposed uses within the village and their respective square footages to the Development Services Depart- ment for approval to determine compliance with all zoning codes and rede- velopment policies prior to the issuance of building permits. Any expan- sion or major change of uses, or increase in intensity of uses, -will be Page 7 - Statement of Action of the City Council subject to an additional Conditional Use Permit. Minor modifications not proposing .expansion shall also be submitted to Development Services and Redevelopment Office for review and approval (e.g. exterior tenant modi- fications, public plaza configuration, structure layout, etc.) . Follow- ing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 10. All parking space design and size shall be in conformance with the Hunt- ington Beach Ordinance Code. 11. Onsite circulation shall be revised in accordance with Public Works Department requirements. Specifically, the control system at the Lake Street entrance to the parking garage needs to be moved into the garage to allow stacking distance for 12 vehicles without overflow onto Pacific Coast Highway. No addition or deletion of vehicular access points shall be made without approval of the Public Works Department. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 12. The developer shall verify the staff's traffic impact analysis for the proposed development to confirm that the traffic projections fall within the parameters of those analyzed in E.I.R. 82-2. This report shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits and should include an analysis of the traffic impacts at various times of the day and year. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 13. The developer shall prepare a parking management and control plan for review by the Development Services Department, Public Works Department, Community Services Department and all other effected departments prior to the issuance of any building permits. 'this plan should address valet services, shuttle programs, and methods of controlling vehicular ingress and egress. In addition the plan shall identify mitigation methods for the Phase I parking shortfall (e.g. reciprocal and joint use parking, remote parking and shuttle, limiting the issuance of certificate of occu- pancy to the extent that parking is made available) . Following the vari- ous departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 14. The project will be responsible for construction of the new decking areas adjacent to the city pier and the reconstruction of the existing pier within the project areas. This effort should be coordinated with the Department of Public Works and other city departments. 15. A review of the use shall be conducted within one year of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy to verify compliance with all condi- tions of approval and applicable Articles bf the Huntington Beach Ordi- nance Code. If, at that time, there is a violation of these conditions no additional Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until the viola- tion is corrected. 16. Offsite improvements (e.g. streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.) shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards and/or Caltrans standards. All sidewalks on Pacific Coast Highway shall be a minimum of 8 feet. c Page 8 - Statement of Action of the City Council 17. No parking shall be allowed adjacent to the project on Pacific Coast Highway. The removal of these 14 parking spaces shall be offset by an equal number of spaces in the project. During construction of the pro- ject, the developer, in conjunction with the city, shall provide a number of parking spaces within a reasonable distance to accommodate beach and pier access. 18. Sewer, water and fire flow, and drainage improvements shall be con- structed in accordance with Public Works Department standards. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works a water network and distribution analysis prior to issuance of grading permits. All necessary improvements as determined by the analysis shall be constructed. 19. The project shall be responsible for the construction of full median improvements on Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the site in accordance with Public Works Department and Caltrans' standards. 20. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 21. All approved drives designated as fire lanes shall be signed as such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. All fire apparatus access roadways shall be designated no parking. 22. A fire sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in those struc- tures deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. An auto- matic system shall be required cn all parking levels and pedestrian ways. 23. Entry gates or other control devices for the parking structure 'proposed at the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Ser- vices Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department, and all other appropriate departments. 24. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney's office and contain a provision that will prohibit storage of vehicles, trailers, and other materials on site, unless .an area that is specifically designated for such storage is pro- vided for in the project. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 25. The developer, Agency, and the city shall enter into a maintenance agree- ment for the public parking area, municipal pier, and all landscaping. The perimeter walkway, lighting, etc., shall be maintained by the pro- jest's. association. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 26. The developer, Agency, and the city shall execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the developer to maintain all landscaping on site, including setbacks, public right of ways, and along the street front- ages. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevel- opment Agency will have final review and approval. 27. All fire access roads are to be a minimum 24 feet. Page 9 - Statement of Action of the City Council 28. All canopies or roof structures over roadways are to provide a minimum overhead clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height from the road area to the lowest point of the canopy within the 24 foot road clearance. 29. All corner turns of fire lanes are to be a minimum of 17 feet inside and 45 feet outside radius. 30. The beach access roadway on the south must be a minimum 24 feet and must loop with the beach access road on the north side of the pier. This roadway must also be a minimum 24 feet. The overhead clearance under the pier must be a minimum 13 foot 6 inches in height. The roadway must be designed to facilitate beach service vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian access, subject to city review .and approval. 31. The roadway and access ways designated as fire lanes on the pier and over . the subterranean parking area are to be reinforced to sustain the weight of fire apparatus. 32. Another stairway shall be located on the north side of the pier, subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and Development Services Department. 33. Fire hydrants shall be installed on fire access roadways and the pier to provide fire apparatus with an access travel distance of 150 feet or less from all structures. 34. An automatic supervised fire alarm system shall be installed to provide the following: (a) Audible alarm. (b) Water flow signal. (c) Valve tamper signal. (d) Trouble signal. (e) Manual pull station. (f) Graphically displayed in strategic location(s) . 35. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject pro- perty. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the G-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for fittings and structural members to withstand anticipated G-factors, shall be submitted to the city for review prior to the issu- ance of building permits. 36. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the facilities shall be sub- mitted to the Department of Public Works for review. 37. The developer shall provide the city with a detailed description of the project's proposed security systems for review and approval by all affected departments. 38. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alterna- tive subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Department. Page 10 - Statement of Aon of the City Council 39. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equip- ped to handle them. 40. During construction, the developer shall make _ adequate provisions for continued pier access. The construction of the super structure of the proposed expanded deck areas on the pier shall be limited to the non-sum- mer months. 41. The project shall be responsible for the removal and relocation of the Beach Division Headquarters and Junior Lifeguard facilities. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Recess - Reconvene The Mayor called a recess of Council at 11:55 P.M. The meeting was reconvened .at 12:05 P.M. Mayor Mandic requested a reconsideration of the motion to approve the Pierside Village as he wanted to modify Condition No. l(i) to require a 50' setback from the mean tide line as requested by Thomas Pratte, representing the Surf- riders Foundation, during the public testimony portion of the public hearing. A motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Green, to reconsider the motion made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27. The motion to reconsider carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green NOES: Kelly, MacAllister, Thomas ABSENT: None Following discussion, a motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Kelly to modify Condition l(i) by changing the words . .on the north side of the pier (405' south of- the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way. ..) to read ".. .on the north side of the pier (355' south of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way. . . )" . The motion failed by the following roll call straw vote: AYES: Finley, Mandic, Green NOES: Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Thomas ABSENT: None The motion originally made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Con- ditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission at their September 16, 1986 meeting and further modified by Council carried by the fol- lowing roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Page 11 - Statement of Action of the City Council Mayor Mandic, adjourned the adjourned regular meeting of. the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at 12:35 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., . Monday, October 20, 1986 in Room B-8, in the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California. A TTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) City of Huntington Beach) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected and qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their adjourned regular meeting held on the 13th day of October, 1986. WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 14th day of October, 1986. Alicia M. Wentworth i y Clerk and ex-oFFIcio C.LerK of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Deputy • ` STA L OF ACPICN OF THE CITY COUNCIL Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Monday, October 13, 1986 The City Clerk opened the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at 6:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: None Absent: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas Due to the lack of a quorum of the Council, the City Clerk recessed the meet- ing to 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center. Mayor Mandic called the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green Thomas (arrived at 7:45 P.M.) Absent: None ******************************************************************************* PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FILED BY HU TrINGrCW BEACH TOMDRROW TO PLANNING COM- MISSICU APPROVAL OF CCNDITICNAL USE PERMIT 86-43 & COASTAL DEVELOPNWr PERMIT 86-2 - APPEAL DEBTIED - PIERSIDE VILLAGE APPROVED WITH MODIFIED CONDITIONS The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Huntington Beach Tomorrow to the approval by the Planning Commission of Conditional Use Permit 86-43/Coastal Development Permit 86-27, a request by the Huntington Pacifica Development Corporation and Bryant L. Morris Development in conjunction with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to permit the following: Development of an 87,500 + square foot spe- cialty commercial center, related support facilities and 696+ space parking structure on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street, Downtown Specific Plan, District 10. Said development will gen- erally be located within the existing parking lot just south of the pier. The proposed project is within an appealable area of the Coastal Zone. The proposed project is covered by previously approved Environmental Impact Report 82-2 and Maim-Pier Redevelopment Project Area Focused Environmental Impact Report (July, 1982) The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publi- cation and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. John Cahill, Project Architect, reviewed the project, particularly pedestrian circulation, elevations and building heights. Discussion was held regarding parking and building heights as it relates to Pacific Coast Highway. Page 2 - Statement of Action of the City Council Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner, reviewed the 24 issues referred to in the letter from the appellant, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, dated September 261, 1986. Mr. Adams reffered to the staff report dated October 13, 1986 and recommended the Alternative Action on the last page as follows: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission at their September 16, 1986 meeting and amended to include a provision which will require that fol- lowing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approve on the additional submittals outlined in: Condition No. 1 (a)-(m) - Significant Modifications to the site plan. Condition No. 7 - Roof top mechanical equipment plan. Condition No. 9 - (View Scape Concerns) List of proposed uses within village and review of minor modification to plan. Condition No. 11 - Onsite circulation modification plans. Condition No. 12 - Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Condition No. 13 - Parking Management Plan. Condition No. 24 - Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the village. Condition No. 25 - Onsite areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 26 - Public areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 41 - Beach Division Headquarters relocation plan. The Mayor declared the hearing open. Geri Ortega, Chairman of Huntington Beach Tomorrow, Dr. Victor Leipzig, Lance Jacot, Charles Ellik, Norma Vander Molen, representing the Community Services Commission, Jerry Warren, Mary Rosczyk, Irene Briggs, Cory Bersch, Chanuncey Alexander, Henry Bohrman, James Lane, Dean Albright, member of Environmental Board, Abdul Memon, President of the Downtown Merchants Guild, Sam Lanni, Ted Jo-hn- on, Doug Langevin, Ray Hi en, Dr. Donald Shipley, Gai Lyons, Dorothy Campbell, Marcia Natelborg, Lorraine Faber spoke in opposition to the Pie a Village. Susan Newman, Vice-President of Huntington Beach Together, Natalie Kotsch, Larry Washa, Presiae—nt o er of Commerce, James son, Elaine Cra t, Carole Ann Wall, Kirk Kirkland of Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Board of Realtors presented informal petition to the Mayor with approximately 400 sig- natures and approximately 140 letters in support of Pierside Village, Bill Holman, Barry Bussiere, Ron Shenkman, Vice-Chairman of Huntington Bead Tamer, Stan in, Mary Aileen Matheis, Matt Messier, David.C. Smith, Ralph Bauer, Daniel Bathurst, Stanford Tharp, Ann Chlebicki, Lila Nowell, Jan Shomaker, Bob Mayor, Kaye MacLeod, member of Citizens Advisory Board on Pier- sia-e Village�t Wissmann spoke in support of the Pierside Village. Thomas Pratte, representing The Surfrider Foundation, requested that Condition No. 1 i in the report be amended to require a 50 foot setback from the mean tideline. David Perry stated that he has often walked down to the pier with his wife and children and has always felt safe. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Page 3 - Statement of Action of the City Council Recess - Reconvene The Mayor called a recess of Council at 11:15 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 11:20 P.M. Following discussion, a motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission at their September 16, 1986 meeting and amended to include a provision which will require that following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approve on the additional sub- mittals outlined in: Condition No. 1 (a)-(m) - Significant Modifications to the site plan. Condition No. 7 - Roof top mechanical equipment plan. Condition No. 9 - (View Scape Concerns) List of proposed uses within village and review of minor modification to plan. Condition No. 11 - Onsite circulation modification plans. Condition No. 12 - Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Condition No. 13 - Parking Management Plan. Condition No. 24 - Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the village. Condition No. 25 - Onsite areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 26 - Public areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 41 - Beach Division Headquarters relocation plan. Following discussion, a motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Bailey, to amend Condition #3 to add the words "Following various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval." The motion carried by the following straw vote: AYES: Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES: Kelly, MacAllister ABSENT: None It was the consensus of Council to modify Conditions 4, 5 and 6 by adding the words "Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval." The motion made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as follows: Findings for Approval: (COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-27) 1. The proposed "Pierside Village" is consistent with the city's Coastal Zone suffix and the visitor-serving commercial standards, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; it conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and stan- dards of the city's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 3. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with .the Coastal Land Use Plan. Underground sewer and Page 4 - Statement of Action of the City Council water utilities are existing in the area and are sufficient to handle the proposed development. Findings for Approval: (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43) 1. The proposed development of a specialty retail village will have a bene- ficial effect upon the general health welfare, safety, and convenience of persons residing or working in the area due to the type, variety, and quality of the activities proposed, and will contribute to an increase in the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed "Pierside Village" is designed to be in conformance with the city's adopted General Plan (including the state certified Coastal Ele- ment), the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. 3. The proposed "Pierside Village" is compatible with existing or other pro- posed or anticipated uses in the area. The project will directly connect with other developments on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and will be responsible for the rehabilitation and/or relocation of existing structures in the project area. 4. The proposed location, site layout, and design will properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a har- monious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another on the site are properly integrated. The proposed project will provide a greater number and variety of people an opportunity to enjoy the city beach and pier area and related ocean activities. 6. The proposed access to and parking for the "Pierside Village" will increase traffic and circulation concerns; however, controlling vehicular access to the project, separating vehicular and pedestrian access, and relocating traffic signals along Pacific Coast Highway will improve the current circulation system. Conditions of Approval: 1. The site and section plans dated September 11, 1986, and augmented site plan sheet 2, dated September 12, 1986, shall be modified to include the changes outlined below. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval on the submittals. (a) All habitable building areas shall be limited to two stories. Exceptions to this will only be permitted as part of an interior loft or mezzanine which is mostly open to the shop below. In no case may habit- able building area exceed 25' in height or two stories above the eleva- tion of the pier. (b) Building heights shall be limited south of the centerline of Lake Street. No structure may be higher than the elevation of Pacific Coast Highway. Page 5 - Statement of tion of the City Council (c) The freestanding concession stand as proposed on the beach in front of the major access point to the village shall be relocated to back within the village. The shop shall have direct access on to the beach access road and serve the convenience of the beach user. (d) Improvements on the north side of the pier shall provide a number of public amenities such as a major beach access way adjacent to the parking structure. The detail design of this proposal shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board in conjunction with the depart- ments of Development Services, Community Services, and Public Works. (e) The light wells adjacent to Maxwell's balcony shall be increased in size to provide additional natural light penetration under the pier. Other light penetrations or alternative methods of illumination including the alternate decking designs shall be required to achieve an adequate level of comfort and security for the area under the pier. (f) The project shall include a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway linking the Pierside Village with the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. The design shall be compatible with the Village and the Downtown Design Guidelines. This structure shall be constructed concur- rent with the "Pierside Village." (g) The parking control mechanisms depicted on the plans shall be relocated to a location within the parking structure. The accessway to the control stations should provide for a minimum stacking area to accom- modate 24 cars. (h) The plans shall identify public restroom locations in sufficient quantities and areas to adequately accommodate the village patrons. (i) No structures shall be developed oceanward of the mean high tide line established on the north side of the pier (405' south of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way). (j) The project shall be approved in two phases. The first phase is proposed for the south side of the pier on the area controlled by the city of Huntington Beach. The second phase is proposed for the north side of the pier. The city is presently negotiating with the state for control of that portion of Bolsa Chica State Beach. A plan shall be sub- mitted which indicates the phasing and associated development with each phase. This entitlement application shall be limited to the proposal for Phase I. (k) The ferris wheel shown on the plot plan shall be removed. (1) Retail square footage on the new pier decking shall be 90% devoted to major sit down restaurants of unique and high quality, subject to definition in the operator's lease agreement. (m) Parking layout shall include bicycle parking facilities in suffi- cient quantities to accommodate village patrons. 2. Floor plans and elevations for each commercial suite and restaurant shall be prepared and submitted to the director of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. All Page 6 - Statement of Action of the City Council structures onsite shall reflect a compatible architectural theme which is consistent with the city's Downtown Design Guidelines. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final•review and approval. 3. A detailed materials pallet shall be prepared depicting all proposed exterior materials and colors and submitted to . the Design Review Board for recommendation and approval. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and appro- val. 4. A planned sign program for the entire village shall be prepared pursuant to the Downtown Design Guidelines and submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to the issuance of any sign permits. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 5. The developer shall submit a plan which shall include the parking struc- ture and area under the pier, lighting, public plaza, and street furni- ture plan which is in compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines sub- ject to review and approval of the Design Review Board. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 6. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the city and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits. Such a plan shall include all the landscaped areas and lighting within the public parking lot, medians, and the walkway system around the project perimeter and connection to the pier. The association shall maintain all land- scaped areas within the project. All existing palm trees onsite shall remain within the project, however, they may be relocated from their pre- sent location. Perimeter landscaping, with a minimum of ten feet in width, shall be provided along the parkway area, adjacent to P.C.H. Fol- lowing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 7. A roof top mechanical equipment plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services, which indicates screening of all equipment and delineates the type of material proposed- prior to the issuance of Build- ing permits. Such projected equipment shall not exceed the maximum heights depicted in the Building Code or Downtown Specific Plan. Follow- ing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 8. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engi- neer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chem- ical and fuel properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and util- ities, etc. 9. The developer shall submit a list of all proposed uses within the village and their respective square footages to the Development Services Depart- ment for approval to determine compliance with all zoning codes and rede- velopment policies prior to the issuance of building permits. Any expan- sion or major change of uses, or increase in intensity of uses, will be Page 7 - Statement of Action of the City Council subject to an additional Conditional Use Permit. Minor modifications not proposing expansion shall also be submitted to Development Services and Redevelopment Office for review and approval (e.g. exterior tenant modi- fications, public plaza configuration, structure layout, etc.). Follow- ing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 10. All parking space design and size shall be in conformance with the Hunt- ington Beach Ordinance Code. 11. Onsite circulation shall be revised in accordance with Public Works Department requirements. Specifically, the control system at the Lake Street entrance to the parking garage needs to be moved into the garage to allow stacking distance for 12 vehicles without overflow onto Pacific Coast Highway. No addition or deletion of vehicular access points shall be made without approval of the Public Works Department. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 12. The developer shall verify the staff's traffic impact analysis for the proposed development to confirm that the traffic projections fall within the parameters of those analyzed in E.I.R. 82-2. This report shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits and should include an analysis of the traffic impacts at various times of the day and year. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 13. The developer shall prepare a parking management and control plan for review by the Development Services Department, Public Works Department, Community Services Department and all other effected departments prior to the issuance of any building permits. This plan should address valet services, shuttle programs, and methods of controlling vehicular ingress and egress. In addition the plan shall identify mitigation methods for the Phase I parking shortfall (e.g. reciprocal and joint use parking, remote parking and shuttle, limiting the issuance of certificate of occu- pancy to the extent that parking is made available) . Following the vari- ous departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 14. The project will be responsible for construction of the new decking areas adjacent to the city pier and the reconstruction of the existing pier within the project areas. This effort should be coordinated with the Department of Public Works and other city departments. 15. A review of the use shall be conducted within one year of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy to verify compliance with all condi- tions of approval and applicable Articles of the Huntington Beach Ordi- nance Code. If, at that time, there is a violation of these conditions no additional Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until the viola- tion is corrected. 16. offsite improvements (e.g. streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.) shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards and/or Caltrans standards. All sidewalks on Pacific Coast Highway shall be a minimum of 8 feet. Page 8 - Statement of Action of the City Council 17. No parking shall be allowed adjacent to the project on Pacific Coast Highway. The removal of these 14 parking spaces shall be offset by an equal number of spaces in the project. During construction of the pro- ject, the developer, in conjunction with the city, shall provide a number of parking spaces within a reasonable distance to accommodate beach and pier access. 18. Sewer, water and fire flow, and drainage improvements shall be con- structed in accordance with Public Works Department standards. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works a water network and distribution analysis prior to issuance of grading permits. All necessary improvements as determined by the analysis shall be constructed. 19. The project shall be responsible for the construction of full median improvements on Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the site in accordance with Public Works Department and Caltrans' standards. 20. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 21. All approved drives designated as fire lanes shall be signed as such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. All fire apparatus access roadways shall be designated no parking. 22. A fire sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in those struc- tures deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. An auto- matic system shall be required on all parking levels and pedestrian ways. 23. Entry gates or other control devices for the parking structure proposed at the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the ,Development Ser- vices Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department, and all other appropriate departments. 24. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney's office and contain a provision that will prohibit storage of vehicles, trailers, and other materials on site, unless an area that is specifically designated for such storage is pro- vided for in the project. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 25. The developer, Agency, and the city shall enter into a maintenance agree- ment for the public parking area, municipal pier, and all landscaping. The perimeter walkway, lighting, etc., shall be maintained by the pro- ject's association. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 26. The developer, Agency, and the city shall execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the developer to maintain all landscaping on site, including setbacks, public right of ways, and along the street front- ages. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevel- opment Agency will have final review and approval. 27. All fire access roads are to be a minimum 24 feet. Page 9 - Statement of Action of the City Council 28. All canopies or roof structures over roadways are to provide a minimum overhead clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height from the road area to the lowest point of the canopy within the 24 foot road clearance. 29. All corner turns of fire lanes are to be a minimum of 17 feet inside and 45 feet outside radius. 30. The beach access roadway on the south must be a minimum 24 feet and must loop with the beach access road on the north side of the pier. This roadway must also be a minimum 24 feet. The overhead clearance under the pier must be a minimum 13 foot 6 inches in height. The roadway must be designed to facilitate beach service vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian access, subject to city review and approval. 31. The roadway and access ways designated as fire lanes on the pier and over the subterranean parking area are to be reinforced to sustain the weight of fire apparatus. 32. Another stairway shall be located on the north side of the pier, subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and Development Services Department. 33. Fire hydrants shall be installed on fire access roadways and the pier to provide fire apparatus with an access travel distance of 150 feet or less from all structures. 34. An automatic supervised fire alarm system shall be installed to provide the following: (a) Audible alarm. (b) Water flow signal. (c) Valve tamper signal. (d) Trouble signal. (e) Manual pull station. (f) Graphically displayed in strategic location(s) . 35. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject pro- perty. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the G-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for fittings and structural members to withstand anticipated G-factors, shall be submitted to the city for review prior to the issu- ance of building permits. 36. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the facilities shall be sub- mitted to the Department of Public Works for review. 37. The developer shall provide the city with a detailed description of the project's proposed security systems for review and approval by all affected departments. 38. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alterna- tive subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Department. Page 10 - Statement of Action of the City Council 39. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equip- ped to handle them. 40. During construction, the developer shall make adequate provisions for continued pier access. The construction of the super structure of the proposed expanded deck areas on the pier shall be limited to the non-sum- mer months. 41.- The project shall be responsible for the removal and relocation of the Beach Division Headquarters and Junior Lifeguard facilities. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES; None ABSENT: None Recess - Reconvene The Mayor called a recess of Council at 11:55 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 12:05 P.M. Mayor Mandic requested a reconsideration of the motion to approve the Pierside Village as he wanted to modify Condition No. l(i) to require a 50' setback from the-mean tide line as requested by Thomas Pratte, representing the Surf- riders Foundation, during the public testimony portion of the public hearing. A motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Green, to reconsider the motion made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27. The motion to reconsider carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green NOES: Kelly, MacAllister, Thomas ABSENT: None Following discussion, a motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Kelly to modify Condition l(i) by changing the words . .on the north side of the pier (405' south of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way. ..)" to read ".. .on the north side of the pier (355' south of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way. ..)". The motion failed by the following roll call straw vote: AYES: Finley, Mandic, Green NOES: Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Thomas ABSENT: None The motion originally made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Con- ditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission at their September 16, 1986 meeting and further modified by Council carried by the fol- lowing roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: None ******************************************************************************* i Page 11 - Statement of ,F�ction of the City Council Mayor Mandic, adjourned the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at 12:35 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday, October 20, 1986 in Room B&-8, in the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California. ATTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) City of Huntington Beach) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected and qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their adjourned regular meeting held on the 13th day of . October, 1986. WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 14th day of October, 1986. Alicia M. Wentworth i y Cierk an ex-o 1cio er of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Deputy P - ,t SEE PK-ee - Mc OF ACTION OF THE CITY Mut s Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Monday, October 13, 1986 The City Clerk opened the regular meeting of .the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at 6:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: None Absent: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas Due to the lack of a quorum of the Council, the City Clerk recessed the meet- ing-to 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center. Mayor Mandic called the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green Thomas -(arrived at 7:45 P.M. ). Absent: None PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FILED BY HCAdrINGTCN BEACH TOMJRROW TO PtA DING COM- MISSICN APPROVAL OF C ONDITICNAL USE PERMIT 86-43 & COA.SrAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 8 2 - APPEAL DENIED - PIERSIDE VILLAGE APPROVED WITH MODIFIED C OMITICNS The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Huntington Beach Tomorrow to the approval by the Planning Commission of Conditional Use Permit 86-43/Coastal Development Permit 86-27, a request by the Huntington Pacifica Development Corporation and Bryant L. Morris Development in conjunction with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to permit the following: Development of an 87,500 + square foot spe- cialty commercial center, related support facilities and 696+ space parking structure on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street, Downtown Specific Plan, District 10. Said development will gen- erally be located within the existing parking lot just south of the pier. The proposed project is within an appealable area of the Coastal Zone. The proposed project is covered by previously approved Environmental Impact Report 82-2 and Main-Pier Redevelopment. Project Area Focused Environmental Impact Report (July, 1982) , The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publi- cation and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. John Cahill, Project Architect, reviewed the project, particularly pedestrian . circulation, elevations and building heights. Discussion was held regarding parking and. building heights as it relates to Pacific Coast Highway. Page 2 - Statement of Action of the .City Council Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner, reviewed the 24 issues referred to in the letter from the appellant, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, dated September 26, 1986. Mr. Adams reffered to the staff report dated October 13, 1986 and recommended the Alternative Action on the last page as follows: Approve Conditional use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission at their September 16, 1986 meeting and amended to include a provision which will require that fol- lowing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approve on the additional submittals outlined in: Condition No. 1 (a)-(m) - Significant Modifications to the site plan., Condition No. 7 - Roof top mechanical equipment plan. Condition No. 9 - (View Scape Concerns) List of proposed uses within village and review of minor modification to plan. Condition No. 11 - Onsite circulation modification plans. Condition No. 12 - Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Condition No. 13 - Parking Management Plan. Condition No. 24 - Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the village. Condition No. 25 - Onsite areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 26 - Public areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 41 - Beach Division Headquarters relocation plan. The Mayor declared the hearing open. Geri Ortega, C]nairman of Huntington Beach Tomorrow, Dr. Victor Leipzig, Lance Jacot, Charles Ellik, Norma Vander Molen, representing the Community Services Commission, Jerry Warren, Mary Rosczyk, Irene Briggs, Cory Bersch, Chanuncey Alexander, Henry Bohrman, James Lane, Dean. Albright, member of Environmental Board, Abdul Memon, President of the Downtown Merchants Guild, Sam Lanni, Ted Jo n ,on, Doug Langevin, Ray Hi en, Dr. Donald Shipley, Gail Lyons, Dorotty Campbell, Marcia Natelborg, Lorraine Faber spoke in opposition to the Pie a Village. Susan Newman, Vice-President of Huntington Beach Together, Natalie Kotsch, Larry Was ha, President of Chamber of Commerce, James Johnson, Elaine Cra t, Carole Ann Wall, Kirk Kirkland of Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Board of Realtors presented in ormal petition to the Mayor with approximately 400 sig- natures and approximately 140 letters in support of Pierside Village, Bill Holman, Barry Bussiere, 'Ron Shenkman, Vice-Chairman of Huntington Beach ToyeTer, Stan in, Mary Aileen Matheis, Matt Messier, David C. Smith, Ralph Bauer, Daniel BaEFurst, Stanford Tharp, Ann Chlebicki, Lila Nowell, Jan Snomaker, Bob Mayor, Kaye MacLeod, member of Citizens Advisory Board on Pier- si e i lage�rt Wissmann spoke in support of. the Piersia-e-V1111age. Thomas Pratte, representing The Surfrider Foundation, requested that Condition No. 1 i in the report be amended to require a 50 foot setback from the mean tideline. David Perry stated•that he has often walked down to the pier with his wife and children and has always felt safe. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Page 3 - Statement of Action of the City Council Recess - Reconvene The Mayor called a recess of Council at 11:15 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 11:20 P.M. Following discussion, a motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission at their September 16, 1986 meeting and amended to include a provision which will require that following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approve on the additional sub- mittals outlined in: Condition No. 1 (a)-(m) - Significant Modifications to the site plan. Condition No. 7 - Roof top mechanical equipment plan. Condition No. 9 - (View Scape Concerns) List of proposed uses within village and review of minor modification to plan. Condition No. 11 - Onsite circulation modification plans. Condition No. 12 - Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Condition No. 13 - Parking Management Plan. Condition No. 24 - Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the village. Condition No. 25 - Onsite areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 26 - Public areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 41 - Beach Division Headquarters relocation plan. Following discussion, a motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Bailey, to amend Condition n3 to add the words "Following various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review. and approval." The motion carried by the following straw vote: AYES: Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES: Kelly, MacAllister ABSENT: None It was the consensus of Council to modify Conditions 4, 5 and 6 by adding the words "Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval." The motion made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as follows: Findings for Approval: (COASTAL DEVELOPI4ENT PER4IT NO. 86-27) 1. The proposed "Pierside Village" is consistent with the city's Coastal Zone suffix and the visitor-serving commercial standards, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; it conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and stan- dards of the city's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 3. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Underground sewer and Page 4 - Statement of Action of the City Council 0 water utilities are existing in the area and are sufficient to handle the proposed development. Findings for Approval: (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43) 1. The proposed development of a specialty retail village will have a bene- ficial effect upon the general health welfare, safety, and convenience of persons residing or working in the area due to the type, variety, and quality of the activities proposed, and will contribute to an increase in the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed "Pierside Village" is designed to be in conformance with the city's adopted General Plan (including the state certified Coastal Ele- ment), the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. 3. The proposed "Pierside Village" is compatible with existing or other pro- posed or anticipated uses in the area. The project will directly connect with other developments on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and will be responsible for the rehabilitation and/or relocation of existing structures in the project area. 4. The proposed location, site layout, and design will properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a har- monious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another on the site are properly integrated. The proposed project will provide a greater number and variety of people an opportunity to enjoy the city beach and pier area and related ocean activities. 6. The proposed access to and parking for the "Pierside Village" will increase traffic and circulation concerns; however, controlling vehicular access to the project, separating vehicular and pedestrian access, and relocating traffic signals along Pacific Coast Highway will improve the current circulation system. Conditions of Approval: 1. The site and section plans dated September 11, 1986, and augmented site plan sheet 2, dated September 12, 1986, shall be modified to include the changes outlined below. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval on the submittals. (a) All habitable building areas shall be limited to two stories. Exceptions to this will only be permitted as part of an interior loft or mezzanine which is mostly open to the shop below. In no case may habit- able building area exceed 25' inheight or two stories above the eleva- tion of the pier. (b) Building heights shall be limited south of the centerline of Lake Street. No structure may be higher than the elevation of Pacific Coast Highway. Page 5 - Statement of Aon of the Ct • 9 . Y Council (c) The freestanding concession stand as proposed on the beach in front of the major access point to the village shall be relocated to back within the village. The shop shall have direct access on to the beach access road and serve the convenience of the beach user. (d) Improvements on the north side of the pier shall provide a number of public amenities such as a major beach access way adjacent to the parking structure. The detail design of this proposal shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board in conjunction with the depart- ments of Development Services, Community Services, and Public Works. (e) The light well., adjacent to Maxwell's balcony shall be increased in size to provide additional natural light penetration under the pier. Other light penetrations or alternative methods of illumination including the alternate decking designs shall be required to achieve an adequate level of comfort and' security for the area under the pier. (f) The project shall include a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway linking the Pierside Village with the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. The design shall be compatible with the Village and the Downtown Design Guidelines. This structure shall be constructed concur- rent with the "Pierside Village." (g) The parking control mechanisms depicted on the plans shall be relocated to a location within the parking structure. The accessway to the control stations should provide for a minimum stacking area to accom- modate 24 cars. (h) The plans shall identify public restroom locations in sufficient quantities and areas to adequately accommodate the village patrons. (i) No structures shall be developed oceanward of the mean high tide line established on the north side of the pier (405' south of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way) . (j) The project shall be approved in two phases. .The first phase is proposed for the south side of. the pier on the area controlled by the city of Huntington Beach. The second phase is proposed for the north side of the pier. The city is presently negotiating with the state for control of that portion of Bolsa Chica State Beach. A plan shall be sub- mitted which indicates the phasing and associated development with each phase. This entitlement application shall be limited to the proposal for Phase I. (k) The ferris wheel shown on the plot plan shall be removed. (1) Retail square footage on the new pier decking shall be 90% devoted to major sit down restaurants of unique and high quality, subject to definition in the operator's lease agreement. (m) Parking layout shall include bicycle parking facilities in suffi- cient quantities to accommodate village patrons. 2. Floor plans and elevations for each commercial suite and restaurant shall be prepared and submitted to the director of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. All Pa 6 - Statement of Pion of the Cit Council9eY structures onsite shall reflect a compatible architectural theme which is consistent with the city's Downtown Design Guidelines. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 3. A detailed materials pallet shall be prepared depicting all proposed exterior materials and colors and submitted to the Design Review Board for recommendation and approval. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and appro- val. 4. A planned sign program for the entire village shall be prepared pursuant to the Downtown Design Guidelines and submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to the issuance of any sign permits. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. .5. The developer shall submit a plan which shall include the parking struc- ture and area under the pier, lighting, public plaza, and street furni- ture plan which is in compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines sub- ject to review and approval of the Design Review Board. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 6. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the city and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits. Such a plan shall include all the landscaped areas and lighting within the public parking lot, medians, and the walkway system around the project perimeter and connection to the pier. The association shall maintain all land- scaped areas within the project. A11 existing palm trees onsite shall remain within the project, however, they may be relocated from their pre- sent location. Perimeter landscaping, with a minimum of ten feet in width, shall be provided along the parkway area, adjacent to P.C.H. Fol- lowing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 7. A roof top mechanical equipment plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services, which indicates screening of all equipment and delineates the type of material proposed prior to the issuance of Build- ing permits. Such projected equipment shall not exceed the maximum heights depicted in the Building Code or Downtown Specific Plan. Follow- ing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 8. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engi- neer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chem- ical and fuel properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and util- ities, etc. 9. The developer-shall submit a list of all proposed uses within the village and their respective square footages to the Development Services Depart- ment for approval to determine compliance with all zoning codes and cede- . velopment policies prior to the issuance of building permits. Any expan- sion or major change of uses, or increase in intensity of uses, will be page 7 - Statement of Aeon of the City Council • 9 Y subject to an additional Conditional Use Permit. Minor modifications not proposing expansion shall also be submitted to Development Services and Redevelopment Office for review and approval (e.g. exterior tenant modi- fications, public plaza configuration, structure layout, etc.) . Follow- ing the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 10. All parking space design and size shall be in conformance with the Hunt- ington Beach Ordinance Code. 11. Onsite circulation shall be revised in . accordance with Public Works Department requirements. Specifically, the control system at the Lake Street entrance to the parking garage needs to be moved into the garage to allow stacking distance for 12 vehicles without overflow onto Pacific Coast Highway. No addition or deletion of vehicular access points shall be made without approval of the Public Works Department. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 12. The developer shall verify the staff's traffic impact analysis for the proposed development to confirm that the traffic projections fall within the parameters of those analyzed in E.I.R. 82-2. This report shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits and should include an analysis of the traffic impacts at various times of the day and year. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 13. The developer shall prepare a parking management and control plan for review by the Development Services Department, Public Works Department, Community Services Department and all other effected departments prior to the issuance of any building permits. Trnis plan should address valet services, shuttle programs, and methods of controlling vehicular ingress and egress. In addition the plan shall identify mitigation methods for the Phase I parking shortfall (e.g. reciprocal and joint use parking, remote parking and shuttle, limiting the issuance of certificate of occu- pancy to the extent that parking is made available) . Following the vari- ous departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 14. The project will be responsible for construction of the new decking areas adjacent to the city pier and the reconstruction of the existing pier within the project areas. This effort should be coordinated with the Department of Public Works and other city departments. 15. A review of the use shall be conducted within one year of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy to verify compliance with all condi- tions of approval and applicable Articles bf the Huntington Beach Ordi- nance Code. If, at that time, there is a violation of these conditions no additional Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until the viola- tion is corrected. 16. offsite improvements (e.g. streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.) shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards and/or Caltrans standards. All sidewalks on Pacific Coast Highway shall be a minimum of 8 feet. Page 8 - Statement of Action of the City Council 17. No parking shall be allowed adjacent to the project on Pacific Coast Highway. The removal of these 14 parking spaces shall be offset by an equal number of spaces in the project. During construction of the pro- ject, the developer, in conjunction with the city, shall provide a number of parking spaces within a reasonable distance to accommodate beach and pier access. 18. Sewer, water and fire flow, and drainage improvements shall be con- structed in accordance with Public Works Department standards. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works a water network and distribution analysis prior to issuance of grading permits. All necessary improvements as determined by the analysis shall be constructed. 19. The project shall be responsible for the construction of full median improvements on Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the site in accordance with Public Works Department and Caltrans' standards. 20. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 21. All approved drives designated as fire lanes shall be signed as such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. All fire apparatus access roadways shall be designated no parking. 22. A fire sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in those struc- tures deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. An auto- matic system shall be required on all parking levels and pedestrian ways. 23. Entry gates or other control devices for the parking structure proposed at the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Ser- vices Department, Public' Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department, and all other appropriate departments. 24. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney's office and contain a provision that will prohibit storage of vehicles, trailers, and other materials on site, unless an area that is specifically designated for such storage is pro- vided for in the project. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 25. The developer, Agency, and the city shall enter into a maintenance agree- ment for the public parking area, municipal pier, and all landscaping. The perimeter walkway, lighting, etc., shall be. maintained by the pro- ject's association. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. 26. The developer, Agency, and the city shall execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the developer to maintain all landscaping on site, including setbacks, public right of ways, and along the street front- ages. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevel- opment Agency'will have final review and approval. 27. All fire access roads are to be a minimum 24 feet. Page 9 - Statement of Action of the City Council 28. All canopies or roof structures over roadways are to provide a minimum overhead clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height from the road area to the lowest point of the canopy within the 24 foot road clearance. 29. All corner turns of fire lanes are to be a minimum of 17 feet inside and 45 feet outside radius. 30. The beach access roadway on the south must be a minimum 24 feet and must loop with the beach access road on the north side of the pier. This roadway must also be a minimum 24 feet. The overhead clearance under the pier must be a minimum 13 foot 6 inches in height. The roadway must be designed to facilitate beach service vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian access, subject to city review and approval. 31. The roadway and access ways designated as fire lanes on the pier and over the subterranean parking area are to be reinforced to sustain the weight of fire apparatus. 32. Another stairway shall be located on the north side of the pier, subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and Development Services Department. 33. Fire hydrants shall be installed on fire access roadways and the pier to provide fire.apparatus with an access travel distance of 150 feet or less from all structures. 34. An automatic supervised fire alarm system shall be installed to provide the following: (a) Audible alarm. (b) Water flow signal. (c) Valve tamper signal. (d) Trouble signal. (e) Manual pull station. (f) Graphically displayed in strategic location(s) . 35. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject pro- perty. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the G-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for fittings and structural members to withstand anticipated G-factors, shall be submitted to the city for review prior to the issu- ance of building permits. 36. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the facilities shall be sub- mitted to the Department of Public Works for review. 37. The developer shall provide the city with a detailed description of the project's proposed security systems for review and approval by all affected departments. 38. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alterna- tive subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Department. Page 10 - Statement of Aon of the Cit Council 9Y 39. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire; pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be .disposed of at an offsite facility equip- ped to handle them. 40. During construction, the developer shall make adequate provisions for continued pier access. The construction of the super structure of the proposed expanded deck areas on the pier shall be limited to the non-sum- mer months. 41. The project shall be responsible for the removal and relocation of the Beach Division Headquarters and Junior Lifeguard facilities. Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, 'Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Recess - Reconvene The Mayor called a recess of Council at 11:55 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 12:05 P.M. Mayor Mandic requested a reconsideration of the motion to approve the Pierside Village as he wanted to modify Condition No. l(i) to require a 50' setback from the mean tide line as requested by Thomas Pratte, representing .the Surf- riders Foundation, during the public testimony portion of the public hearing. A motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Green, to reconsider the motion made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27. The motion to reconsider carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green NOES: Kelly, MacAllister, Thomas ABSENT: None Following discussion, a motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Kelly to modify Condition l(i) by changing the words ". . .on the north side of the pier (405' south of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way. . . )" to read " .. .on the north side of the pier (355' south of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way. . . )" . The motion failed by the following roll call straw vote: AYES: Finley, Mandic, Green I4OES: Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Thomas ABSENT: None The motion originally made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve Con- ditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission at their September 16, 1986 meeting and further modified by Council carried by the fol- lowing roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES: None ABSENT: None Page 11 - Statement of Aon'of the City Council Mayor Mandic,. adjourned the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at 12:35 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday, October 20, 1986 in Room B&-8, in the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California. ATTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Cler of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) City of Huntington Beach) I, ALICIA M. WEN WORTH, the duly elected and qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their adjourned regular meeting held on the 13th day of October, 1986. WITC'ESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 14th day of October, 1986. Alicia M. Wentworth City Merx and ex-officio C.LerK of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Deputy 8 5 4 AD INI TRATIV PLANNING (c) the notice of final city appeal action is not received in the Coastal Commission office and/or distributed to interested parties in time to allow for the ten (10) working day appeal period. S. 989.5.5 APPEALS. Development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until all applicable appeal periods expire or, if appealed, until all appeals, including the Coastal Commission, have been exhausted. The action regarding any CDP application may be appealed in compliance with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and with the following additional provisions: (A) Actions Appealable Directly to the Coastal Commission. An action regarding a CDP application for any appealable development may he appealed directly to the Coastal Commission without exhausting the appeal procedures specified by this section provided such appeal is filed in accordance with the adopted regulations of the Coastal Commission. (B) Actions Appealable in Accordance with the .Huntington Beach Ordinance ;Code. (1) Filing Procedure. An appeal shall be filed within ten (10) working days of the approving authority's action by any aggrieved person with the Department of Development Services on a form provided by the H. B. Director, and shall be accompanied by a fee set by resolution of the City Council and a statement of the grounds for appeal. Said appeal fee shall be waived in lieu of the reimbursement of that fee through the instrument of Section 2231 of the Revenue .and Taxation Code (SB 90) 'claim or similar reimbursement process established by the r.:oastal Commission. (2) Notice of Public Hearing. (a) Contents of Notice. Notice shall contain the same information as the original notice except that it shall also give the appel.lant's name and state that the hearing is an appeal. (b) Provision of Notice. Notice shall be mailed, by first class mail, at least ten (10) calendar days before the public hearing on an appealed CDP application to the following: (i) the appellant.; (ii) the applicant (if different from the appellant) ; (iii) the owner of the subject property or duly authorized agent (if different from the appellant and/or applicant); (iv) the Coastal Commission; (v) any commission or board as provided in the C-LCP; 4-� (vi) all persons who have submitted a written request for notification of action on this specific CDP application and who have submitted self-addressed, stamped envelopes or paid a reasonable fee to receive such notice. 5/85 MARINEAD I I N 3 .(3) Notice of City Appeal Action. On or before the seventh (7th) calendar day following the date of action on an appeal, the H. B. Director, or the Clerk of the City Council (as appropriate) shall forward, by first class mail, a copy of the written decision to the persons who were notified of the appeal. (See subsection (B)(2) above.) (C) Actions ApRealable to the Coastal Commission After Exhaustion of City Appeals, An action by the City Council regarding a CDP app icatior, for any appealable development may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of the Council's action by the applicant, an aggrieved person, or any two (2) members of the Coastal Commission, provided such appeal is filed in accordance with the adopted regulations of the Coastal Commission. S. 989.5.6 APPLICATION AFTER DENIAL. Whenever a CDP request under the provisions of this section has been denied and such denial has become final, no new CDP application for the same or similar request may be accepted within one (1) year of the denial date, unless the H. B. Director fihds that a sufficient change in circumstances has occurred to warrant a new CDP application. S. 989.5.7 EXPIRATION OF CDP. A CDP shall expire on the latest expiration date applicable to any other permit or approval required for the project, including any extension granted for other permits or approvals. Should the project require no city permits or approvals other than a CDP, the CDP shall expire one (1) year from its date of approval if substantial work on the project has not been commenced during that time or an extension-has not been granted by the approving authority. w. 989.5.8 CDP AMENDMENT. Upon application by the permittee, a CDP may be amended by the approving -authority. - A CDP. amendment shall be accomplished in the same manner specified by this article. for initial. approval of a CDP. All sections of this article shall apply to CDP amendments. In addition to the previous requirements of this article, notice of hearing on the requested CDP amendment shall be given to any person determined by the H. B. Director to have been aggrieved at the original hearing. (a) A CDP amendment may be approved if it is found that: (1) It will be in furtherance of the purposes of the CZ suffix; and (2) It will not significantly alter the approved CDP. (b) The notification requirements of this section shall .be the same as for Notice of City Action if either: (1) the proposed changes are the result of an immaterial error .on the part of the permittee or city; or (2) the H. B Director has determined that the proposed modification will not materially alter the proposed project and adversely impact the surrounding area. (2702-7/84) S. 989.5.9 ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. The purpose of .this section is to provide regulations and .procedures which will ensure compliance with the California Coastal Act and with the requirements of the C-LCP and the provisions of the CDP. 5/85 im /A CITY OF HUNTINCTON BEACH � 1 CA 86-127 �? COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Honorable Mayor and Charles W. Thompson, i° To City Council Members From City Administrator Subject PIERSIDE VILLAGE Date December 11, 1986 COASTAL APPEAL Attached for your review is a copy of the city's rebuttal packet to the Coastal Commission's staff report, and a copy of the report itself. As you are aware, the project was approved by an 11-1 affirmative vote. Thanks to the efforts of numerous individuals, the project can now proceed. I would be happy to address any further questions you may have. Resp lly submitted, les W. p o City Administrator CWT/MA:lp Attachments { i i 2962h • i i I i i i f IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO APPROVE THE HUNTINGTON PACIFICA PIERSIDE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT A-5-HBC-86-853 i i REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND RECOM- MENDATION DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1986 i i December 8, 1986 i f . i 1 I TABLE. OF CONTENTS i i Page TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 a. On Wednesday, December 10, 1986, the 7 Commission is scheduled to hear an appeal of the City of Huntington Beach ' s approval of the Pierside Village commer- cial center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. The City submits that its project 7 approval is consistent with the certi- fied LCP and requests that the Commis- sion find the appeals raise No Substan- tial Issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. The Pierside Village project was approved 7 by the City on October 13, 1986, subject to 41 conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . d. According to the Commission Staff Report, 7 appeals were filed on October 29, 1986, which is after the close of the 10 calen- dar day appeal period provided by Coastal Act Section 30603 (d) . . . . . . . . . . . e. The Commission is requested to determine 8 whether the appeals were timely filed . II . CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. . . . . . . . 9 i a. The Pierside Village project is located 9 south of the Huntington Pier in the post- LCP certification appeal zone . . . . . . b. The certified LCP designates the Hunting- 9 ton Pier area (District 10 ) for pier- related commercial uses . . . . . . . . . i C . Uses proposed as part of Pierside Village 9 are expressly permitted in District 10 of the LCP Specific Plan . . . . . . . . . . i 2 i i d. The LCP Specific Plan provides for a maximum 9 building height of 25 ' and no more than 2 stories above pier level . . . . . . . . i e. Pierside Village as conditionally approved 9 is fully consistent with the certified LCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f . No special permits or variances were 10 sought by the Pierside Village applicant and none were granted by the City . III . THE ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL DO NOT DEMONSTRATE 10 ANY INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE CERTIFIED LCP AS AWHOLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Allegations by Coastal Commissioners. . . 10 i 1 . Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 a. Pierside Village is proposed to be built 11 on an existing City parking lot and will provide 1 : 1 public parking space replace- ment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i b. The City Council recognized a potential 12 commercial parking shortfall and required an innovative parking program before building or occupancy permits can be issued. . . . c . Appellant Commissioners allege inconsistency 13 with LCP landscaping requirements, but pro- vide no evidence therefor . . . . . . . . d. The City Council, as part of 41 conditions 14 - ' of approval, required a detailed landscaping plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . e. Appellant Commissioners allege project 14 inconsistency with LCP parking require- ments, but ignore the Council-required parking management plan . . . . . . . . . f . Appellant Commissioners imply issuance of 14 a special permit , but none was requested by the applicant or granted by City. . . . . i 3 • I g. Appellant Commissioners assert that lack 15 of parking will interfere with beach access, but ignore 1 : 1 replacement for public spaces and other parking conditions imposed by City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h. As conditioned the site plan has been 15 revised to increase the parking supply; therefore, the development will have no parking shortfall . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . Scenic and Visual Resources . . . . . . . 15 a. The LCP Specific Plan implements the more 15 general visual and scenic policies in the LUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. The Commission certified specific height 16 limits for District 10 in the Specific Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Coastal Act basis for Commission ' s approval 16 of the Specific Plan stated . . . . . . . d. Pierside Village is fully consistent with 17 the height requirements of the Specific Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. Appellant Commissioners incongruously seek 17 to rely on a height exemption in District 10 to reduce 25 '/2-story height limit estab- lished in the Specific Plan . . . . . . . f . Appellant Commissioners allege that 19 Pierside Village is out of scale with other area development, when the Specific Plan specifically allows for the project . g . City of Huntington Beach identified the 19 Huntington Pier area as a focal visitor- serving commercial development site in the certified LCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h. There is no basis in the certified LCP for 19 any allegation of inconsistency with per- mitted scale, density, or intensity within District 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F I l 4 i 3 . Sandy Beach Protection. . . . . . . . . . 19 a. Appellant Commissioners allege that the 19 project encroaches on the sandy beach . b. The Certified LCP expressly distinguishes 20 between Sandy Beach Open Space Area (District 11) and Pier Commercial Use Area (District 10) ; the project is totally within District 10 . . . . . . c. The revised project site plan (see 20 Exhibit 7 attached to this report) , confirms location of project in District 10. . . . B. HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW . . . . . . . . 20 a. Appellant HBT alleges many of the same 20 statements as Appellant Commissioners . b. LCP land use designations and development 21 regulations for District 10 clearly permit Pierside Village visitor-commercial development and use . . . . . . . . . . . IV. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 a. Appellants have raised no significant 22 grounds for a Commission determination of Substantial Issue regarding the Pierside Village project . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. The City of Huntington Beach requests the 22 Commission to find that the appeals raise No Substantial Issue. . . . . . . . . . . C. A strong point for a finding of No 22 Substantial Issue is that Commission staff only recommends three modifications, of which two are simply restatements of City Council-required conditions. . . . . d . The City of Huntington Beach strongly 23 objects to Commission staff-recommended condition 1 (Staff Report, page 7 ) , which, if adopted by the Commission, would jeopardize this LCP-consistent project . . i 5 e. The Pierside Village project .is consistent 23 with the pier-related commercial land use designation and development controls set forth in District 10 of the certified Specific Plan . . . . . . . f. The City of Huntington Beach requests the 23 Commission to uphold the certified LCP and allow the City approval of Pierside Village to stand for the benefit of local, regional, and state environmental, recreational, and economic resources, as well as the integrity of the local LCP implementation process . i i i i i i i i 'i 6 I . INTRODUCTION On Wednesday, December 10, 1986, the California Coastal Commission ( "the Commission" ) is scheduled to hear two appeals of the City of Huntington Beach ' s ( "Huntington Beach" or "City" ) approval of the Pierside Village commercial center . The City respectfully submits that its project approval is consistent with the certified Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program and that the Commission should find that the appeals raise No Substantial Issue (Commission Meeting Notice Item 12 (a ) , Appeal No. A-5-HNB-86-853 ) . The Pierside Village commercial development was approved, subject to 41 conditions, by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on September 16 , 1986 and by the City Council on October 13, 1986 on appeal . (Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27; the 41 conditions of approval are attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . ) According to the Commission "Staff Report and Recommendation on Appeal (for ) Substantial Issue" , dated November 17, 1986 ( "the Commission staff report" ) , the appeals of the City Council action wre filed with the Commission on October 29, 1986, or 16 calendar days following i the City ' s action date. (At 1 . ) I I i 7 i i i i I I Coastal Action Section 30603 (d) provides that "any i action (taken by a local government on an appealable coastal development permit application) . . . shall become final after the loth working day, unless an appeal is filed within that time. " On the basis of the information provided in the Commission staff report, it appears that the appeals were not filed in a timely manner pursuant to the applicable Coastal Act section and the Commission should therefore dismiss the i appeals as untimely. III Huntington Beach understands that the Commission in . 1985 previously discussed the question of the commencement and duration of the post-LCP certification permit appeal period, and that Commissioners requested legal staff to promptly prepare a memorandum on the matter. Apparently no such memorandum exists. Because of the confusion introduced by two contradictory Commission administrative regulations on the commencement and duration of the appeal period, the Commission I should look to the Coastal Act to govern in this case. (Cal . Admin. Code Title 14 , Sec. 13001 , Coastal Act Sections 30333 ( "these rules and regulations shall be consistent with this division" ) and 30603 (d ) , infra. ) The Coastal Act very clearly i provides for a ten working day appeal period following local action on a coastal development permit , and no other . i 8 II . CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM f The Pierside Village commercial project is located on i the south side of the Huntington Pier , seaward of Pacific Coast Highway, and therefore within the post-certification appeals area of the certified Huntington Beach Local Coastal i Program ( "the LCP" ) . The LCP expressly designates District 10 , in which the project is solely located, for "pier-related commercial uses. " (Specific Plan, Section 4 . 12 at 115-117 , attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . ) Commercial uses, public recreation facilities, parking lots that will not result in the loss of recreational sand areas, restaurants, and i beach-related retail sales are uses permitted within District 10 by the LCP. (Section 4 . 12 .01 . ) Furthermore, the LCP specifically provides that "The maximum building heights shall be twenty-five ( 25 ) feet and no more than two ( 2) stories above the pier level. " (Section 4 . 12.04. ) The Pierside Village, as approved by the City Council with 41 conditions, is fully consistent with the certified LCP. As is shown below in response to the allegations of the appellants, the City 's approval is 9 i I i i specifically consistent with the visual/height limit, parking, and development location provisions applicable to District i 10 . Futhermore, and contrary to the impression conveyed by . appellants and Commission - staff, no "special permit" was either sought by the applicant or granted by the City to allow i any deviations from the development regulations of the Specific Plan. I III . i THE ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL DO NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE CERTIFIED LCP AS A WHOLE A. Coastal Commissioners Wornum and Garrett Coastal Commissioners Wornum and Garrett ( "the Commissioner appellants" ) , who are incorrectly identified in the Commission staff report as the "California Coastal Commission" (at 3 ) , allege that the City' s decision is I inconsistent with LCP requirements concerning parking to the detriment of public access, protection of scenic and visual resources, and _protection of the sandy beach. ( Id. at 3, 4 . ) The City feels that the project is consistent with the certified LCP and that the appeal allegations are incorrect . 10 i 1 . Parking i i The Pierside Village commercial development is i proposed to be constructed south of the Huntington Pier . The I City has approved Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27, which i will allow the proposed development on the existing city parking lot with no development on the sandy beach area. (See Exhibit 3 for the Site Plan) . The Pierside Village will total 87 ,500 sq. ft . ; however, 11 ,500 presently exists in Maxwell 's restaurant and i will remain a part of the project . Therefore, only 76,000 sq. ft. is proposed for new construction. Two other structures (of 5 ,000 sq. ft . each) on the development site will be removed. One of these structures is a beach concession stand (Dwight 's ) which will be incorporated into the project , , the i other is the beach division headquarters which will be i relocated out of the project area . i Expansion of the project to 106 ,000 sq. ft . total as discussed in the staff report is not proposed or anticipated at this time. Any proposed addition of commercial square footage would require a new entitlement and public hearing and may be subject to future coastal appeal . i i 11 I { I i The existing Cityparking lot on which Pierside Village is proposed to be constructed contains 323 parking spaces. The revised project plan will provide for new commercial-and-parking development and will contain 804 parking spaces, including a 1 :1 replacement of existing spaces for public use, consistent with Specific Plan Section 4 . 2 . 12 ( f ) , which provides that I i "If any existing oceanside or onstreet parking is removed, it shall be replaced on a one for one basis in an area that would not result in the loss of any sandy beach area and within walking distance of the existing site. " Because the City Council was fully cognizant of a potential parking shortfall for commercial uses that would. occur on the site, if no sandy recreational areas were to be paved for parking uses, the approved permit was conditioned to require the developer to prepare an enforceable parking management and mitigation program before building permits and/or certificates of occupancy are issued to assure that the minimum off-street parking standards are met . (Condition of Approval 13 , Coastal Development Permit 86-27 . ) Thus, there is no parking deficiency and the revised project is, therefore, consistent with the LCP Implementation Offstreet Parking Section. �I 12 c i i I i i 1 The revised parking plan ( see Exhibit 4 ) identifies additional parking spaces which clearly designates that the areas are set aside exclusively for mechanical and storage i space. This revision will result in the proposed parking supply meeting the project ' s commercial parking demand, and the replacement of public beach parking on a one-for-one basis. i i The projects parking requirements are outlined as follows: Proposed Required Sq. Ft. Parking Retail/Fast Food ( @ 5 sp./1 ,000 sq. ft . ) 56,000 sq. ft. 280 Restaurants ( @ 10 sp./1, 000 sq. ft . ) 20,000 sq. ft. 200 Existing Restaurant Parking 11,500 sq. ft . 77 Existing Public Parking 246 803 The revised plan will require 803 parking spaces and i provide 804 spaces; therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City 's certified local coastal program. Although the Commissioner appellants allege the City' s decision to be also inconsistent with the LCP (Specific Plan) Landscaping Section ( 4 . 2 . 13 ) , they provide no evidence in support of the allegation. In fact , City Council-adopted Condition of Approval 6 requires a "detailed i 13 landscape and irrigation plan" to be submitted to the responsible City Departments prior to issuance of any building permits . Condition 6 further requires a minimum 10-feet wide perimeter landscape area adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway. i Commissioner appellants also allege that the City ' s approval is inconsistent with LUP Policy 15 ( 1 ) , although they provide no detailed explanation of the allegation. As part of an overall LCP commitment to providing adequate community facilities, Policy 15 ( 1 ) seeks to "ensure that adequate parking is provided in all new development in the coastal zone" through one or a combination of three factors, including I meeting the City ' s parking standards, building off-site parking structures, or developing off-site parking strategies. Condition of Approval 13 provides for a parking management plan that addresses valet services, shuttle i program, reciprocal and joint use parking, remote parking and shuttle systems before building or occupancy permits may be issued. Although Commissioner appellants imply that the City granted a special permit ( i .e. , a variance) from the parking standards; however , no such special permit of any 14 kind was requested or granted for this project . Thus, Specific Plan Section 4 . 1 .02 was not violated because it was not even utilized. In short, contrary to the Commissioner appellants ' assertion that the City 's approval of the Pierside Village coastal development permit is inconsistent with the certified LCP, it is abundantly clear that the City carefully and thoughtfully applied its Land Use and Specific Plan standards so as to provide maximum public and commercial parking opportunities without infringing on sandy recreational areas . Although the appellants state that "The development . . . interferes with adequate physical access" (at 3 ) , it is noteworthy that neither they nor the Commission staff report purport to specify the nature or frequency of any such interference; in fact, the opposite is true addition beach parking spaces will be provided and additional beach accessways will be constructed. 2. Scenic and Visual Resources Commission appellants allege that the City's approval of the Pierside Village project is inconsistent with LUP Policy 6(a) concerning view protection, Specific 15 Plan Section 4 . 12 . 04 concerning heights of structures, and (without reference to any LCP section) the established physical scale of the area. The appellants appear to misconstrue the Commission 's own actions when it certified the Huntington Beach LUP in 1982 and the Specific Plan for District 10 in 1985 . To be sure, the Commission approved LUP Section 9 . 5 . 3 to protect and enhance "existing visual amenities . . . primarily through regulation of the location and design of new development" and its Policy 6 (a ) to "ensure new development within the coastal zone includes the features listed below. . . - preservation of public views . . . to the shoreline and ocean . " (At 138 . ) Significantly, when the City proposed Specific Plan Section 4 . 12 . 04 for District 10 to implement the more general language of LUP Policy 6 (a ) , the Commission did not object. That more specific implementation language states in full : "The maximum building heights ( in District 10 ) shall be twenty-five ( 25 ) feet and no more than two ( 2 ) stories above the pier level . Exception: The maximum building heights on the pier (excluding the end of the pier cafe) and northwest of the pier shall be one ( 1 ) story. No maximum building height shall be required for lifeguard towers or other facilities necessary for public safety. No parking surface or structure shall exceed the adjacent elevation of PCH. " 16 i • I That the Commission itself believes there is no i conflict between the LUP Policy and the Specific Plan requirements may easily be deduced from the Commission's i approval of the Specific Plan as consistent with the previously certified LUP. Coastal Act Section 30513 states, i i in relevant part, that "The commission may only reject zoning ordinances, zoning district maps , or other implementing actions (such as the Specific Plan) on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. " The Pierside Village development, as approved with -conditions by the City, is fully consistent with the building i height limit in District 10 adopted by . the Commission to implement the certified LUP: no part of the development is higher than 25 feet and no part rises more than two stories above the decking of the Huntington Pier; with the possible exception of certain architectural features which will provide some variation to the roofline. (See Exhibit 5) . Condition of Approval l (a) states that "All habitable building areas shall be limited to two stories . . . . In no case may habitable building area exceed 25 ' in height or two stories above the elevation of the pier . ") i i i 17 I j i I i The Commission appellants (and the Commission staff i report ) to assert inconsistency of the project approval with j the certified total LCP on the basis of the exception to Specific Plan Section 4 . 12. 04 is incorrect because the exemption in relevant part addresses parking surfaces or I parking structures, not buildings generally, which are clearly governed by the general maximum building height provision of 25 feet and 2 stories. Parking facilities within Pierside Village do not exceed the adjacent elevation of PCH (see Exhibit 5 ) , only visitor-serving commercial buildings rise -to 25 feet and 2 stories above the pier . Thus, appellants ' i contention of inconsistency is simply based on an incorrect reading of the relevant LCP provisions . The proposed project is intended to enhance visual resources through the creation of new view opportunities from i j various elevations on both sides of PCH. The project will take advantage of newly created view areas and .still maintain a select amount of views through the project from PCH (see Exhibit 6 ) . The revised plan provides a view corridor down Main Street and Lake Street to the ocean; and the amount of i development on the pier has been reduced therefore providing more view opportunities out the pier . I 18 In addition, the project has been scaled and layed out to allow redevelopment on the inland side of PCH to provide view opportunities over the project . Contrary to Commissioner appellants ' assertion that the Pierside Village is incompatible with the established physical scale of the area, the certified LCP clearly provides for significant levels of visitor-serving commercial development at this focal point of the City in that it does not apply a maximum density or intensity requirement (Sec . 4. 12 . 03) or maximum site coverage requirement (Sec . 4. 12. 05 ) , except that buildings or other roofed structures shall not be constructed along more than 25% of the perimeter of the pier . (At 116 . ) Thus, there is no basis in the LCP, which itself was certified by the Commission, to allege that the City-approved project is inconsistent with the physical scale of the area; to the contrary, development like the Pierside Village is exactly what was contemplated by the LCP for District 10 . 3 . Sandy Beach Protection Commissioner appellants allege that the project encroaches on -the sandy beach contrary to Policy 1 (a) and 19 LUP Sections 2. 2. 2, 2. 3, and 9 . 2 .5, and that further I commercial development is not among the permitted uses in the zoning district therefore adequate physical public access is being denied . (Staff Report at 4 . ) This allegation is based on the mistaken belief that part of Pierside Village, as approved by the City Council , extends outside District 10 , which is expressly and wholly designated for commercial/visitor-serving development and use, and onto District 11, the sandy recreational beach district in the City 's coastal zone. Contrary to the statement of appellants, a condition of the project approval states and the revised site plan shows that the entire development is located within District 10 boundaries and therefore consistent with the permitted uses enumerated in Specific Plan Section 4 . 12 .01, above. (See Exhibit 7 ) . B. Huntington Beach Tomorrow. Appellant Huntington Beach Tomorrow ( "HBT" ) alleges many of the same statements as the Commission appellants, including that the certified LCP Coastal Element "dictates preserving the existing views" (Staff Report At. 1 ) and that the project "will cover approximately 1/2 acres of high quality recreational sand area" ( id At. 2) . 20 As noted above, the certified Huntington Beach LCP consists of both a Land Use Plan (or "Coastal Element" ) and an Implementation Program (or "Specific Plan" ) , which, when taken together, the Commission has certified to meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, the Coastal Act at the City level, as required by Coastal Act Section 30108 .5 . The Commission has furthermore, by not rejecting the Specific Plan for District 10 as inconsistent with the certified LUP, determined that the Specific Plan for District 10 is consistent with that certified LUP, including those LUP provisions cited by appellant HBT. Absent a showing by appellants that the City 's approval of the project is inconsistent with a specific applicable provision of the LCP, the Commission may legally find no basis for a determination of "substantial issue" . It is a well-established doctrine of land use law that where both general and specific provisions apply, and both provisions have been determined to be consistent, the more specific provision(s ) shall govern. 21 IV. I CONCLUSION For all of the forgoing reasons, the City of i Huntington Beach has shown that no significant grounds for a i finding of substantial issue regarding the City 's approval of the Pierside Village project exist. The City of Huntington Beach therefore respectfully requests the Commission to make a ' finding of No Substantial Issue concerning the subject appeals . An additional strong argument for a finding of No Substantial Issue can be found in the Commission staff 's own i analysis and findings , which after 14 pages can produce only three recommended conditions of approval . A careful reading of staff-recommended condition 2 (amending City parking condition 13) and condition 3 (amending City condition 14 limiting development to the area within District 10 ) clearly shows that staff 's proposed wording neither substantially adds nor detracts from the City Council 's action to approve the project with 41 conditions. Should the Commission determine that a substantial issue exists, the City could concur with Commission staff 's recommended conditions 2 and 3 on page 8 of i the Staff Report because they essentially restate already adopted City conditions of approval . i i 22 i i . i I The City of Huntington Beach, however , strenuously opposes staff-recommended condition 1 on page 7 of the Staff Report because it would, if adopted, significantly alter and jeopardize this important community redevelopment and visitor-serving project . The certified LCP expressly designates District 10 as the only pier-related commercial zone seaward of Pacific Coast Highway. The commercial, public access, and visitor-recreational enhancement proposed by the Pierside Village project for this area is a major component of the revitalizing of Huntington Beach 's deteriorated urban waterfront . The City therefore requests the Commission to join it in upholding the certified LCP for the benefit of local, regional, and state natural as well as economic coastal resources . i The City of Huntington Beach appreciates this opportunity to respond to the Commission 's Staff Report and Recommendation on the City 's approval of the Pierside Village. Representatives of the City will be present at the Commission 's public hearing to further address the Commission. Sin y yours, Charles Thompson City Administrator 23 I i • • I i i i Attachments • Exhibit #1 - Statement of City Council Action with 41 listed conditions. Exhibit #2 - Downtown Specific Plan, District 10 requirements. Exhibit #3 - Pierside Village Site Plan ( revised ) . Exhibit #4 - Pierside Village Parking Layout ( revised ) . Exhibit #5 - Pierside Village Section Drawings (revised ) . Exhibit #6 Pierside Village Site Plan ( revised) with View Opportunities. Exhibit #7 - Pierside Village Site Plan (revised ) with District Boundaries. 0639r i • i i i 24 { • i MATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCI GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor i CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOIJTH COAST AREA �s 245 WEST BROAOWAY, SUITE 380 ' �- tONG BEACH. CA 90802 i (21313905071 FILED: 10/29/86 49th DAY: 12/25/86 180th DAY: 5/03/86 STAFF: C. Kroll STAFF REPORT: 11/17/86 HEARING DATE: 12/9-12/86 j STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON APPEAL SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE i LOCAI, JURISDICTION: City of Huntington Beach i DECISION: Permit granted with conditions by the Huntington Beach City Council PERMIT APPLICANT: Huntington Pacifica Development Corp . 2905 East 50th Street Vernon, California 90058 APPEAL NUMBER: A-5-HNB-86-853 I DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street , Huntington Beach, Orange County DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: Construction of an 87 , 500 square foot specialty commercial center , related support facilities and 696 space parking structure on 5 . 3 acres adjacent to and south of the Municipal Pier . The proposed development is Phase I of a two-stage project which will ultimately result in the creation of a 106 , 000 square foot multi-level "Pierside Village" extending for six blocks from Seventh Street to Lake Street on the seaward side of Pacific. Coast Highway. I i APPELLANTS: 1. California Coastal Commissioners Michael Wornum & Duane Garrett j 2 . Huntington Beach Tomorrow i i 1 A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 2 SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS : I . City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (certified in geographic part) i 2 . Staff Report, dated September 16 , 1986 . from the Development Services Department to the Planning Commission 3 . Notice of Action, dated October 13 , 1986, of City Council action on Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 i SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION i Staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, determine that the approval of Coastal Development Permit no . 86-27 by the City of Huntington Beach raises a substantial issue regarding consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program, and with the Coastal Act. I ' APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT: Huntington Beach Tomorrow: 1. (Reference cited : Coastal Element, Section 4 , pg 43 ) r The Certified Coastal Element dictates preserving the existing views . The Element describes the area between Beach Blvd. and the Pier . "This facility includes more visual amenities than the nearby state beaches . The parking lot adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway has been attractively landscaped and planted with palm trees and other vegetation. " Clearly, the intent of the Element was to protect the view. f 2 . (Reference cited : Section 4 . 42 . 01, pg 116) It should be clear that the intent of this requirement was. to protect the view area along Pacific Coast Highway. If it were not so intended, why would there be a limitation on the parking structure height? It is obvious that it was , in fact, intended to protect this valuable view area . The City has now approved a project that will destroy this view from Pacific Coast Highway, which is just the opposite of what the Certified Coastal Element dictates . I i i A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 3 I 3 . The proposed project will feature a pier-level structure supported by pilings and will cover approximately 1/2 acres of high-quality recreational sand area . . . The certified Coastal Element makes several references to protection of beach sand areas and improving access to the beach. These include, but are not limited to the following statements : . . . (References cited: Section 2 . 2 . 2 and Specific Plan pg 115 ) It is apparent that these measurements northwest and southeast are perpendicular to the pier , and because no measurements are given from PCH to the waterline it could be assumed that pier could be widened by 60 feet on the upcoast side and 125 feet on the downcoast side the entire length of the pier . This would cover - approximately 7 . 6 acres . It is our opinion that the intent of the approval of the Coastal Element was to protect existing sand area from development . And ' the City has approved a project that will remove existing sand area from public use. Specifically, the Coastal Element would protect existing sand areas, but the Specific Plan' s district 10 boundaries allow development on the sand . We urge the Commission to carefully review the City' s development plans , to protect views and beach area as the Coastal Act intended. California Coastal Commission: 1 . The parking deficiency is inconsistent with the LCP Implementation Offstreet Parking and Landscaping Section because it does not provide adequate parking for all uses consistent with parking standards . it is. also inconsistent with LUP Policy 15 ( 1) and Section 4 . 1. 02 of the zoning which says special permits for deviation from parking standard may not be granted . The development therefore interferes with adequate physical access . i i 2 . The development as proposed is not consistent with LCP policies on protection of scenic and visual resources and intensity of development including Policy 6 (a) of the LUP which required protection of public views , Zoning Section 4 . 12 . 04 p. 116 which establishes maximum heights and states that no parking surface or structure should exceed the adjacent elevation of Pacific Coast Highway to and along the coast and also is not compatible with the established physical scale of the area . A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 4 i 3 . The encroachment of the development on sandy beach is inconsistent with Policy l(a) and Sections 2 . 2 . 2 . , 2 . 3 and 9 . 2 . 5 . of the LUP, which protects recreational sandy beach and limits the uses and intensity for which development on sandy beach is permitted. Commercial development is not among the allowable uses and therefore the development 'I interferes with adequate physical public access . I I APPEAL PROCEDURES The City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) was certified in geographic Fart on March 13 , 1985 . The Coastal Act . (Section 30603 ) and the City' s LCP provide for limited appeals of local decisions to the Coastal Commission after certification. This project is appealable because it is located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea (Section 30603 (a) (1) . The grounds for appeal are stated in Section 30603 (b) and (c) of the Coastal Act . The grounds for appeal of this project are listed in Section 30603 (b) : ( 1) The development fails to provide adequate physical access or Vublic or private commercial use or interferes with such uses . (2) The development fails to protect public views from any public road or from a recreational area to, and along, the coast . (3 ) The development is not compatible with the established physical scale of the area . (4) The development may significantly alter existing natural landforms . (5 ) The development does not comply with shoreline erosion and geologic setback requirements . The appeals were submitted and filed in a timely manner as prescribed by Commission regulations . The grounds for appeal relate to the proposed development ' s non-conformance to the certified in geographic part Local Coastal Program. Commission regulations state that the initial hearing on an appeal be scheduled within 49 days of filing; the hearing has been scheduled within that time frame. i Section 30625 ( b) requires a regular hearing of the appealed project unless the Commission determines that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds for appeal (Section 30603 ) . If , as in i i A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 5 I this case, the staff recommends that a substantial issue is raised and no Commissioner objects , the substantial issue question will be considered moot and the Commission will proceed directly to a de , novo public hearing on the merits of the project using the certified in geographic part LCP as the standard of review. If the Commission decides to hear arguments and vote on the substantial issue question, proponents and opponents will have three minutes per side to address whether the appeal raises a substantial issue . It takes a majority of Commissioners present to find that no substantial issue is raised. If , after the vote, "substantial issue" is found, the Commission will proceed to a full public hearing on the merits of the project. The only persons qualified to testify before the Commission at any stage of the appeal process are the applicant, persons who opposed !. the application before the local government (or their representatives) and the local government . Testimony from other . persons must be submitted in writing. (Administrative Regulations Sec. 13117 ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVALS: September 16 , 1986 - Public hearing and approval with conditions by the Planning Commission• of Conditional Use Permit 86-43/Coastal Development Permit 86-27 . i October 13 , 1986 - City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission' s decision with some minor modifications of the condition approved by the Planning Commission. I LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION: 1 . a . The Planning Commission and the City Council, in approving Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 , found as follows : i 1. The proposed "Pierside Village is consistent with the city' s Coastal Zone suffix and the visitor-serving commercial standards , as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; it conforms with the plans , policies , requirements and standards of the city' s Coastal Land Use Plan. A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 6 2 . The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act . 3 . The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Underground sewer and water utilities are existing in the area and are sufficient to handle the proposed development . b. The City Council approved the Coastal Development Permit subject to 41 conditions (Exhibit 4) . STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE i The staff recommends that the Commission find that Appeal Number. A-5-HNB-86-853 of the City of Huntington Beach' s action approving the Coastal Development Permit for the development of an 87 , 000 square foot specialty commercial center by the Huntington. Pacifica Development Corporation and Bryant L. Morris Development in conjunction with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, which is not in conformance with the certified in geographic part Local Coastal Program, raises a substantial issue with one or more of the grounds listed in Section 30603 (b) of the Coastal Act . The MOTION is : I move that the Commission determine that Appeal No. A-5-HNB-86-853 raises NO substantial issue as to conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program for the City of Huntington Beach. Staff recommends a NO vote which would result in the finding of substantial issue and the adoption of the following findings and declarations : . i A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 7 i STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE COASTAL PERMIT i Staff recommends. that the Commission adopt the following resolution: j I . APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS i The Commission hereby grants , subject to the conditions below, a permit for the proposed development on the grounds that, as conditioned, the proposed development conforms with the City of Huntington Beach certified in geographic part Local Coastal Program and the access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act and that development will not have any adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act . II . CONDITIONS A. STANDARD CONDITIONS : See Attachment X - B. SPECIAL CONDITIONS : The proposed development is subject to all special conditions of the .City of Huntington Beach Coastal Development Permit No . 86-27 except as modified below (additions are underlined/deletions struck through) : 1. Condition 1(a) shall be modified as follows : (a) The top of all structures shall be located a minimum of one foot below the maximum height of the bluff adiacent . to Pacific Coast Highway. zmrz�am/gzmric�g�//�xm��zicm�ig/zmizxzg/�azzz/mazy ��/�grn�iczzgd/agr�azzlmzr�m/z�iz�zicmz/zmgz/mr �a�zz�nzx�/wxr¢x/rgrmmgzxy/m�p�,�/zm/zx�/gxm� bozmTar//ZA/pim/2 ago/may/xal6zzanzd/J61dizd-iA4/at0A oxegod/291/isYi/xoi gilt/of/tvd/gtoridg/A1603fd/zxo �X��ari:m�i/mf/zx�/Idr@�l i ; i A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 8 2 . Condition 13 shall be modified as follows : 13 . The developer shall prepare a parking management. and control plan for .review by the Development Services Department, Public Works Department, CommunityServices Department and all other effected departments prior to the issuance of any building permits . This plan should address valet services , shuttle programs , and methods of controlling vehicular ingress and egress . Yri A��iti�ri/tMe/pYAri/AMAXX/XderiZYf�/�11ti�'Atidri �a�t���A/imr/t��/PMAAri/Z/�Atkiri�/AlhdttfaxY/,(Ali/ pAtkiA$/Arid/S Kid ttUe /YXifitifig the/iggldA Pit d/Of �Attifi¢AtA/�f/��¢,d�Ari��/t0/tMe/eXterit/zxAt PAtkirig/i9/rAAde/AVAZY.Ab1eJ1 The plan shall assure that prior to the issuance of any building . permits , all parking requirements of the Phase I development have been met . Compliance with the parking requirements of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code shall not be delayed to a second phase of the project. The plan shall also assure that the hours of operation of the parking structure are consistent with the hours of operation of the existing beach parking lots adjacent to the pier . Following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval . 3 . Condition 14 shall be modified as follows : 14 . The proposed project shall not include any new development (new decking areas ) on or over existing sandy beach areas beyond 125 feet southeast of the Municipal Pier . No portion of the proposed development shall extend beyond the boundaries of District #10. as defined in the Downtown Specific Plan. The project will be responsible for construction of the new decking area adjacent to the city pier and the reconstruction of the existing pier within the project areas . This effort should be coordinated with the Department of Public Works and other city departments . i i i A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 9 II . FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS The Commission finds and declares as follows : A. Proiect Description The applicants propose to construct an 87, 500 square foot, four level commercial center with a 696-space parking structure on 15 acres adjacent to and south of the Municipal Pier seaward of . Pacific Coast Highway. The proposed project is Phase I of the development of a multiple level specialty commercial "Pierside Village" adjacent to the Municipal Pier between Seventh and Lake Streets in the downtown area of Huntington Beach. Phase I consists of approximately 55 retail shops (45 , 000 sq . tt . ) , 12 take-out food outlets (10, 500 sq . ft . ) , and three restaurants ( 32 , 000 sq . ft . including the existing Maxwell ' s restaurant) . Phase I also involves reconstruction and expansion of the Municipal Pier and the installation of a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway. The total project (Phase I and II ) would result 'in the construction of a. 106 , 000 square foot multiple-level "Pierside Village" extending from Seventh Street to Lake Street seaward of Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the downtown core of Huntington Beach. Phase II would be located on the existing state beach parking lot between the Municipal Pier and Seventh Street . The exact nature of Phase II has not been determined at this time and has not been reviewed or approved by the City. The concept of the Pierside Village, as described in the Planning Commission and City Council staff reports , is the creation of a "Mediterranean village" which will "replicate the architecture of the Greek Isles . " The uses and square footages of the project have been estimated by the City to be: 60 retail shops ( 50, 000 sq . ft . ) , 16 take-out food outlets (14, 000 sq . ft ) , and four restaurants (42 , 000 sq . ft . including the existing Maxwell ' s restaurant) . The staff reports both indicate that the project would ultimately have 1843 parking spaces . The Pierside Village project is intended by the City to be a major part of the redevelopment of downtown Huntington Beach. The City prepared a "Downtown Specific Plan" to guide redevelopment of the downtown area . The Commission certified a portion (Section Four - Development Standards ) of the Downtown Specific Plan as part of the Implementation portion of the City' s Local Coastal Program. The City' s view of the importance of the Pierside Village project in the redevelopment of the downtown is expressed in a letter (Exhibit 3 ) from Charles Thompson, City Administrator., as follows : The establishment of a year-round attraction fcr the city has long been a goal for the creation of an economically viable downtown area . The development of the proposed Pierside Village could be the first of this type of attraction to the city. . .The pier has long served as the major attraction to the area , i A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 10 i however . the recreation and visitor-serving activities associated with the pier are very limited . Through the development of a revitalization of the pier area, many of the other master-planned ideas will evolve downtown. The Pierside Village is intended to be the spark which will ignite the downtown redevelopment effort . B. Scenic and Visual Resources Section 30251 of the Coastal Act provides that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be protected and that permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas and shall be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area . Section 30251 also provides that new development in areas designated as ' highly scenic by the Department of Parks and Recreation or local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. i The City' s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) contains policies i for the protection of visual resources within the City' s coastal zone. The Land Use Plan (LUP) identifies Pacific Coast Highway as a "proposed state scenic highway" (Figure 4 . 3 ) with "view opportunities" concentrated in the downtown area . The Land Use Plan .states (Section 4 . 2 . 1, page _40) that new development in the coastal zone will be evaluated to ensure that these projects include preservation of public views to the ocean and shoreline. The visual resources of the City' s coastal zone include the ocean and shoreline, natural bluffs , wetland areas and mature trees (Section 9 . 5 . 3 , page 138) . The LUP states that public views to these features "are ' resources ' in themselves" (Section 9 . 5 . 3 . page 138 ) . The LUP policies are intended to protect and enhance existing visual amenities "primarily through regulation of the location and design of new development" (Section 9 . 5 . 3 . page 138 ) . Relevant LUP policies (Section 9 . 5 . 3 . pages 138-139) are as follows : 6 . Preserve and enhance visual resources within the coastal zone . i 6a . Ensure new development within the coastal zone includes the features listed below and establish review procedures for implementation. i Preservation of public views to and from bluffs , to the shoreline and ocean, and to wetlands . Conservation of energy and facilitation of public transit through design and siting. Adequate landscaping and vegetation. Evaluation of project design regarding visual impact . (emphasis added) A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 11 6i . Pursue the establishment of Pacific Coast Highway as a State Scenic Highway. The appellants contend that the proposed development is not consistent with the scenic and visual resources policies of the Local Coastal' Program. The appellants contend that the Land Use Plan "dictates preserving the existing views" and conclude that the proposed project "fails to protect public views from Pacific Coast Highway to and along the coast and also is not compatible with the established physical scale of the area. ,, The "Development Standards" (Section Four) portion of the Downtown Specific Plan, which makes up part of the Implementation section of the Local Coastal Program, divides the area covered by the plan into eleven districts . The proposed development is located in District #10 (Pier-Related Commercial) . The purpose of the district is to "provide for commercial uses on and alongside the pier which will enhance and expand the public ' s use and enjoyment of this area " (Section 4 . 12 . 01, page 115 ) . The permitted uses in District #10 are as follows : A. Aquariums B. Bait and tackle shops Beach rentals C. Commercial uses or public recreation facilities (beach-related) M. Museums P . Parking lots that will not result in the loss of recreational sand arew. Tiered parking is permitted within the Downtown Specific Plan area on existing lots seaward of Pacific Coast Highway provided the parking is designated so that the top of the structures including walls , etc. , are located a minimum of one foot below the maximum height of the adjacent bluff . R. Restaurants (including fast food with take out windows) Retail sales (beach-related) Other relevant sections of the District #10 standards (pages 116-117) regulate building height , maximum site coverage and open space : 4 . 12 . 04 Maximum Height . The maximum building heights shall be twenty-five (25 ) feet and no more than two (2 ) stories above the pier level . A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 12 Exception: The maximum building height on the pier (excluding the end of the pier cafe) and northwest of the pier shall be one ( 1) story. No maximum building height shall be required for lifeguard towers or other facilities necessary for public safety. No parking surface or structure shall exceed the adjacent elevation of PCH. 4 . 12 . 05 Maximum Site Coverage. No maximum site coverage shall be required . Exception: No more than twenty-five (25) percent of the pier shall be covered by any building or roofed structure . In addition, buildings or other roofed structures. shall not be constructed along more than twenty-five (25) percent of the perimeter of the pier . 4 . 12 . 10 Open Space. Public open space and pedestrian access shall be major considerations of development in this District . All new development shall provide sufficient clear width along the length of the pier for public access , emergency and service vehicles . In addition, public walkways along the pier edge or around the perimeter of new development must be provided . The appellants contend that one of the intents of the district standards is to protect views from Pacific Coast Highway. The appellants maintain that the restriction on parking structure height clearly indicates the intent to protect views in the area . The proposed development , the appellants contend, is inconsistent with the district standards as it would block ocean views from Pacific Coast Highway. The appellants conclude that grounds for appeal exist which conform to the provisions of Section 30603 (b) of the Coastal Act : ( 1) the proposed development fails to protect public views from Pacific Coast Highway to and along the coast and (2 ) the development is not compatible with the established physical scale of the area . A review of the project plans clearly indicates that there would be a significant decrease in public views to and and along the coast for three blocks between Main Street and Lake Street if Phase I were constructed as proposed . The proposed construction of a two-story commercial complex above a two level parking structure (Exhibit, 8 ) would result in a row of buildings approximately two stories above the grade of Pacific Coast Highway (25 feet above the elevation of the Municipal Pier) between Main and Lake Streets . An additional A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 13 ten feet would be allowed for roofline treatment and architectural features (cupolas , domes, dormers , etc . ) . The City maintains that , though the project will restrict public views from Pacific Coast Highway, it will also create new view areas within the development itself . The Planning Commission staff report (page 9) states as follows : The existing limited view opportunities from PCH to the ocean will be further restricted with the development of the proposed project . However, the view opportunities from the ocean side of PCH will be greatly enhanced with the proposed development . The Village will provide views from various levels and angles with a new sense of discovery and experience which is presently not available . . . i The issue of the impact of the project on existing ocean views was further elaborated on in the City Council staff report . The report states (page 12 ) that the project has been designed "to allow development on the inland side of PCH view opportunities over the project , and the creation of new view opportunities within the project . " The staff report (page 12) notes that . the project would have breezeways or view corridors "at select locations along the projects P.C.H. frontage. " The staff report concludes (page 10) that : The project is proposed to be scaled and designed to provide for views through and around and over the development . Any development on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway will partially obstruct views from the highway to the ocean. However , the project is designed to create new view opportunities from within the project looking out . Three pedestrian -plazas and spacious walkways are proposed which take advantage of the views . The project has been scaled and layed out so that development on the, inland side of Pacific Coast Highway will be able to view the ocean over and through the village from second floor plaza areas . . . The City, therefore, does not dispute the appellants , contention that the proposed development fails to protect existing public views to and along the coast from Pacific Coast Highway. The City maintains that, though these views will be obstructed to some extent , the project was designed to protect views for future development on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and that new view opportunities would be created within the village complex. i Section 30604 (b) and (c) and Section 13119 of the Administrative Regulations outline the criteria .for Commission review of appealable development . It the proposed development is located between the first public road and the sea , the standards of review are conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program and conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act . A-5-EINB-86-853 Page 14 i The development standards for District #10, contained within that portion of the Downtown Specific Plan certified as part of the Implementation section of the LCP, state that the tiered parking is permitted seaward of Pacific Coast Highway provided that no part of the parking structure exceeds the adjacent elevation of Pacific Coast Highway. The maximum building height is defined as follows : The maximum building heights shall be twenty-five (25) feet and no more than two (2 ) stories above the pier level . The proposed development basically conforms to the height parameters of District #10 as the project ' s three-level ( including a surface parking level) parking structure will be located a minimum of one foot below the maximum height of the bluff adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and the two-story retail complex above will not exceed 25 feet or two stories above the pier level . The Land Use Plan, however, as discussed above, contains a policy (6a) which requires that new development must ensure the preservation of public views to the ocean and shoreline. The LUP defines the public view to the ocean and along the shoreline as one of the City' s visual resources which the LUP policies are intended to protect "primarily through regulation of the location and design of new development" (Section 9 . 5 . 3 . page 138 ) . Though the City maintains that the project is consistent with the LUP policies as the project would protect future views from new development inland of Pacific Coast Highway and it would create new views from within. the village complex, the intent of the LUP is clearly to preserve existing public views from Pacific Coast Highway as indicated in LUP policy 6i (page 139 ) which calls for the establishment of State Scenic Highway status for Pacific Coast Highway. The LUP describes (page 87) Pacific Coast Highway as follows : Pacific Coast Highway functions as more than a collector and distributor of local and regional traffic . The highway is a major gateway into and through the Huntington Beach coastal zone. providing visual access to scenic coastal resources . A drive along the shoreline via Pacific Coast Highway can be a recreational and visual experience in itself regardless of destination. Panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean and the Southern California coast can be seen from the highway at several places . The Commission found in its 1981 review of the City' s Land Use Plan (page 35 ) that the LUP "recognizes" the public importance of the scenic views from Pacific Coast Highway of the beach and ocean areas (Exhibit 9 ) . The Commission further found that: I �i A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 15 The Plan proposes land use designations and policies which ensure that only limited small scale structures will be allowed on the beach the entire length seaward of PCH, thus ensuring that no structures will be built on the beach which will significantly impact public views to and along the coast . (emphasis added) The Commission concluded that the LUP provides "excellent" standards which will ensure that "existing views will be maintained . . . " (emphasis added) . In its 1982 action certifying the Land Use Plan, the Commission again found (Exhibit ) that the Plan provides standards which ensure that existing views will be maintained and • protected . In 1984, the Commission denied the implementation portion of the City ' s Local Coastal Program as submitted and certified it with suggested modifications . In regards to visual resources , the Commission found (page 16) that the parking structures proposed in the implementation would " impose a Significant intrusion into the public view to and along (Pacific Coast Highway) , interrupting views of the ocean. " The Commission found that the implementation portion of the LCP could only be found consistent with the visual resource policies of the LUP if existing views from Pacific Coast Highway were preserved. The Commission' s suggested modification required that no portion of the parking structures exceed a height limit of a minimum of one foot below the maximum height of the adjacent bluff . The Commission concluded (page 43 ) that the modification would ensure that "the public view from Pacific Coast Highway is not significantly impacted. " Section 30200 (b) of the . Coastal Act provides that where the Commission or any local government in implementing the provisions of the Coastal Act identifies a conflict between the Chapter 3 policies , Section 30007 . 5 shall be used to resolve the conflict and appropriate findings setting forth the basis for the resolution of the policy conflicts should be adopted . Section 3.0007 . 5 requires that when there is a conflict between one or more policies of the Act , such conflicts should be resolved in a manner that it is most protective of significant coastal resources . The proposed development though consistent with the height standards of the Downtown Specific Plan (District #10) is clearly inconsistent with the visual resource policies of the Land Use Plan. The project is also inconsistent with the intent of the Commission in certifying those visual resource policies which was the preservation of existing public views . The Commission finds that in a situation where the LUP policies and the Implementation standards conflict, the conflict should be resolved in a manner that is most protective of coastal resources . The Commission further finds that the proposed development is inconsistent with the visual resource policies of the Land Use Plan which in this case are clearly more .protective of the scenic and visual resources of the Huntington A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 16 i Beach coastal zone than are the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Commission concludes , therefore, that only as modified to preserve existing public views from Pacific Coast Highway is the proposed development consistent with the visual resource policies of the Land Use Plan portion of the certified in geographic part Local Coastal Program. i C. New Development Section 30252 of the Coastal Act requires that the location and °amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by providing adequate parking facilities . The City' s certified Local Coastal Program contains policies and standards that require that adequate parking facilities are provided as part of new development projects . Land Use Plan Policy 15 (1) requires that the City: 151 . Ensure that adequate parking is provided in all new development in the coastal zone utilizing one or a combination of the following: Apply the City' s parking standards at a minimum. - Develop parking assessment districts to build off-site parking structures . Utilize new parking standards specific to the Coastal zone in conjunction with the development of off-site parking strategies . The "Development Standards" portion of the Downtown Specific Plan II includes a general provisions section which outlines parking standards which apply to all developments within the Downtown Specific Plan area . Section 4 . 2 . 12 provides as follows : Parking. All developments will be required to meet the minimum off-street parking standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . i Subsection 4 . 2 . 12 (f ) further states : (f ) If any existing oceanside or onstreet parking is removed, it shall be replaced on a one for one basis in an area that would not result in the loss of any sandy beach area and within walking distance of the existing site . Replacement parking shall be assured prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit . I I i A-5-HNn-86-853 ' Page 17 i The proposed development includes a parking structure which will provide 696 parking spaces on three levels . The site is currently developed with an at-grade parking lot of approximately 250 parking spaces . A portion of this lot now serves the existing Maxwell s restaurant at the base of the pier , the majority of the lot is metered parking spaces used by beach goers . The Planning Commission staff report estimated (page 9) that the proposed development requires 280 spaces beyond the 696 that would be provided . The 976 space total required for the project includes the 250 existing spaces , 14 spaces along Pacific Coast Highway which will be removed as part of the project, and 712 spaces for the new uses . i The appellants contend that the parking deficiency is inconsistent with the provisions of the LCP because it does not provide "adequate parking for all uses consistent with parking standards . " The appellants also contend that the project is inconsistent with Section 4 : 1. 02 of the implementation which restricts the granting of Special permits for deviations from parking standards . The appellants conclude that the proposed development would interfere "with adequate physical access" which is grounds for appeal of a project located between the first public road and the sea pursuant to Section 30603 (b) of the Coastal Act. Section 4 . 1. 02 of the Downtown Specific Plan allows for deviations from the development regulations of the Specific Plan when a unique architectural siting or feature relating to height, site coverage, setbacks , open space or landscaping, would provide greater benefits than a strict adherence to the development standards . Section 4 . 1. 02 'does state, however, that : 1 a A special permit may not be granted for deviations from maximum density or parking requirements or deviation for .building heights in Districts 1, 2, 4, 10 and 11 or from requirements of the Conservation Overlay. The Planning Commission staff report proposed a number of ways to mitigate the parking deficiency such as a parking management plan for joint use parking, remote parking and shuttle service, valet and tandem parking, establishment of a parking assessment district, or limiting the release by the City of Certificates of Occupancy "to the extent sufficient parking exists . " The report concluded that the issue could best be addressed in terms of a study of the problem. The City Council adopted a condition of approval which requires the preparation of a parking management plan: 13 . The developer shall prepare a parking management and control plan for review by the Development Services Department, Public Works Department , Community Services Department and all other effected departments prior to the issuance of any building permits . This plan should address valet services , shuttle programs , and methods of A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 18 controlling vehicular ingress and egress . In addition the plan shall identify mitigation methods for the Phase I parking shortfall (e. g. reciprocal and joint use parking, remote parking and shuttle, limiting the issuance of certificate of occupancy to the extent that parking is made available) . Following the various departmental and other 1 , reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approval . The provision of adequate parking facilities in new development projects is a strong mandate of the Coastal Act . The Commission has in the past found this to be especially important when new development is located between the first public road and the sea. The aim in providing that sufficient parking is included in new development is to ensure that parking for beach access will not be hindered or otherwise adversely impacted by the new development . The access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act call for the protection of public access to the beach and the preservation of oceanfront lands for recreational uses which support public access . Section 30211 of the Coastal Act requires that development not interfere with the publics right of access to the sea. Section 30220 states that coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses . Section 30221 requires that oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development . Section 30223 provides that upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses , where feasible. The proposed development would be deficient 280 parking spaces pursuant to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code on a site that is presently heavily used by beach goers for parking, especially in the summer months . Huntington Beach supports some of the highest beach use demand in the region because of its central location in relation to the inland areas of Los Angeles , Orange, and San Bernardino counties . The City' s Land Use Plan notes that " (p)ressure on Huntington Beach recreation sites has been increasing steadily as beach attendance increases each year" (Section 2 . 2 . 2, page 19) . The LUP notes that the ability to support recreational demand also includes the provision of adequate support facilities , especially parking facilities . Although the City has approximately 6 , 000 spaces in beach parking lots , the LUP also notes that occasionally during the summer , parking capacity is exceeded . i The construction of such a major development seaward of Pacific Coast Highway that is deficient in parking is clearly inconsistent with the access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act . It is also inconsistent with the intent of the Land Use Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan to require that new development provide i i i i A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 19 i adequate parking and that no deviations from the City' s parking requirements be allowed in District #10. The Commission finds therefore that only as conditioned to ensure that the proposed development will provide adequate parking consistent with the City ' s parking standards is the proposed project consistent with the certified in geographic part Local Coastal Program and the access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. i D. Recreation Section 30220 of the Coastal Act provides that coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities shall be protected for such uses . Section 30221 requires that oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and forseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area . Section 30250 states that new development shall be located where it will not have a significant adverse effect either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources . The City' s Land Use Plan states (page 11) that millions of people are attracted each year to the City' s nine miles of public beaches . The beach provides a : j haven from heat and smog and attract(s) thousands of visitors each day from inland communities and adjacent counties . As the Orange County region continues to develop and as transportation costs continue to rise, the availability of recreation areas located close to urban populations will most likely become increasingly important . The LUP notes that a 1979 Orange County Environmental Management Agency study anticipates that use of Orange County beaches by Orange County residents alone will most likely double between 1978 and 1995 . For Huntington Beach this would result in annual beach attendance of approximately 16 million persons by 1995 . Total annual attendance in 1978 was approximately 7 . 9 million (page 15) . The LUP concludes , however , that : It must be noted that the above estimates for the year 1995 are based on average, county-wide growth rates and are conservative in the case of Huntington Beach. In reality, the three beach sites in Huntington Beach are among the most popular in the County and may well experience above-average growth rates . Combined annual attendance at beach sites in the City increased by 26 percent trom 1977 to 1978 . If the 26 percent annual increase in attendance continues over the next few years , -annual beach attendance will reach the 16 million mark by the year 1981 . A-5-HNB-86-853 Page _20 The LUP further notes that the City' s beaches serve a larger-than-local population and, according to the County study, the majority of visitors to the City ' s beaches are from neighboring counties . The growth of inland Orange County and neighboring counties is resulting in a steadily increasing pressure on Huntington Beach' s recreational resources, especially its beaches . The LUP acknowledges the importance of preserving these sandy beach areas for existing and future recreation demand. Section 2 . 2 . 2 states as follows : The amount of recreational demand that can be satisfied by coastal zone beach sites depends in great part on the area of flat, dry beach sand available for use. Beach sand area is one of the most important recreational resources in the coastal zone. Clearly, the City must preserve and protect the existing amount of beach sand area in order to accommodate large increases in beach use . As a reflection of this need, the Coastal Element designates the entire nine mile coastline between Pacific Coast Highway and the ocean for recreational use for the public . Additionally, the City' s coastal policy limits the development of structures and the expansion of parking facilities that would further encroach upon beach sand area . (emphasis added) The LUP recreation and access policies call for the preservation of beach sand area in order to accommodate future levels of beach attendance . Policy l(a) states as follows : 1. Provide for maximum recreational opportunities along the City and State beaches . 1a . . Prohibit development of permanent above-ground . structures on the beach sand area with the exception of the following permitted uses : - Lifeguard towers and other facilities necessary for public safety - Public restrooms and beach concession stands when located immediately adjacent to paved parking or access areas - Reconstruction and expansion related to the Municipal Pier (emphasis added) - Fire rings and volleyball nets Bike trails, bike support facilities , and handicapped access The LUP map designates the Municipal Pier and adjoining restaurant (Maxwell ' s ) as "visitor-serving commercial" , the remainder of the area between Pacific Coast Highway and the sea (excluding the Least Tern nesting site on Huntington State Beach) is designated A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 21 "recreation. " The intent of the "recreation" designation is to protect passive and active recreational uses . The principal permitted uses allowed in areas designated as "recreation" are limited to "open sand areas , beach related recreational activities , and under certain conditions , parking lots , concessions and camping" (page 105) . .The proposed development includes restoration and expansion of the pier . The expansion of the pier would involve the construction of approximately 25 , 000 square feet of new decking area over sandy beach area between the southeast corner of the pier and the existing beach access road (.Exhibit 10) . The project plans depict a commercial structure, perimeter walkway, and beach access stairway on the expanded pier area . The developer originally proposed that a ferris wheel be installed in this area . The City Council , however , in its action approving the development required that the proposed ferris wheel be deleted from the revised project plans . The appellants contend that the proposed project is inconsistent with the policies of the Land Use Plan because of the encroachment of the expanded pier over sandy beach area . This encroachment is inconsistent with the LUP, the appellants maintain, because the. LUP policies "protect recreational sandy beach and limit the uses and intensity for which development on sandy beach is permitted . Commercial development is not, note the appellants , "among the allowable uses and therefore the development interferes with adequate physical public access, " which is inconsistent with the access policies of the Coastal Act . The appellants further note that while the LUP calls for protecting sandy beach areas , the District #10 boundaries , which govern development of the pier and the adjoining parking lots , extend 60 feet on the northwest side and 125 feet on the southeast side of the existing pier . It could be assumed, therefore, the appellants contend, that the pier "could . be . widened by 60 feet on the upcoast side and 125 feet on the downcoast side the entire length of the pier . This would cover approximately 7 . 6 acres . " The appellants conclude : It is our opinion that the intent of th,e approval of the Coastal Element was to protect existing sand area from development . And the City has approved a project that will remove existing sand area from public use . In addition, we feel there are significant discrepancies between the certified Coastal Element and the certified Downtown Specific Plan that the Coastal Commission should review. Specifically, the Coastal Element would protect existing sand areas , but the Specific Plan' s district 10 boundaries allow . development on the sand . A-5-EINB-86-853 Page 22 Though it is clear that protection of sandy beach areas is a priority of the Land Use Plan, the LUP also clearly indicated in Policy 1(a) that reconstruction and expansion of the Municipal Pier was intended to be a permitted use. The Commission anticipated expansion of the pier in its 1981 and 1982 findings on the LUP. The intent of the Commission was clearly to prevent additional paving of sandy beach area for parking. The Commission found in 1981 that: The LUP policies provide that access be protected and maximized through protection of the maximum amount of sandy beach area . . .Additional paving for parking would be prohibited where it would result in the loss of sandy beach area. Expansion of the Municipal Pier is allowed in the Plan and access and recreation opportunities are maximized through policies which require that in any redevelopment of the municipal pier, public access shall be required around the entire perimeter of the pier, and at a minimum 50% of the pier shall remain open space with opportunities for public fishing and viewing. (emphasis added) The prohibition of new paving of sandy beach area for parking that would result in the loss of recreational sand area has been .incorporated into both the LUP policies and the Downtown Specific Plan standards of District #10 (the pier and adjacent parking lots ) and District #11 ( the adjacent sandy beach area) . The District #10 boundaries extend 60 feet over sand on the northwest side of the pier and 125 feet on the southeast side . The reconstruction and expansion of the pier was clearly intended to occur in this area though it is not at all certain that the intent was that the pier structure itself would eventually expand 60 feet out on side and 125 feet on the other . The appellants contention, therefore, that the pier expansion is inconsistent both with the LCP and the intent of the Commission in certifying the LCP is incorrect . The intent of the Commission, which was carried out in the certified LCP policies and standards , was the protection of sandy beach areas from any future attempts to pave those areas for parking purposes that would result in the loss of sand area . Policy 1(a) lists permitted uses on sandy beach areas (see above) . They include lifeguard towers, public restrooms , beach concession stands , reconstruction and expansion related to the pier , fire rings , and bike trails . District #11 permitted uses include access facilities , basketball courts , beach concession stands , bicycle trails , fire rings , lifeguard towers , paddleboard courts , and public restrooms . A review of the project plans does , however, reveal an inconsistency with the Downtown Specific Plan standards . The plans indicate that the proposed new pier decking would extend beyond 125 feet to the southeast and would therefore encroach into District #11. As A-5-HNB-86-853 Page 23 discussed above, commercial uses on top of an expanded pier- area is not a permitted use in District #11. The purpose of District #11 is , as described in the district regulations , the preservation and protection of the sandy beach area within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries . The expansion of the pier into District #11 is not consistent with the standards of that district . The Commission finds , therefore, that only as conditioned to revise the project plans to show that the proposed pier expansion will not extend beyond 125 southeast of the existing pier , is the proposed project consistent with the policies and standards of the certified in geographic part Local Coastal Program and the access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act . 39 f f ►M'iiw1�M�0:``E Stantonlaw 0 mom •- tARDEN = 684 s Alamitos GROVE ••.,�. gyp ,'•. 7 ., � WE TMIN T RCoa $ T A L .:. ` ..� •�. M .Il..�Ir.:••. •y.•aq• It y M Y' ` `+ire :~ ; _ :""•� $AN A AN SEAL'BEACH •. 3 :• f OUNTAIN • " VALLEY Z-0 if omm HUNTINGTON MESAA:-d' t BEACH ��• SS !vale pa NE PW ORT BEACH co ow 91 Orange walk r' EXHIBIT NO. s.:+a•r.caa•ial Gaw'k. L OL A T I O N MAP APPLMATI N NO. N LOCAT10 Al County of-Orainge of 3 • � �c.lton+.c.lklkw Gi.�ar j CIFIC FL TR (NE)o l tU MH PM OtTIOT M ! q 1 . . ..-:i r cciw f Ri•PO CZ Rt-PO•CI { J.t .� `` • RZ-PC-CZ *.ass �• i` ;�., � •�� a � ..,•»a q la•ro•a TOW" ; I MH-CZ i - �� 1 i 112-P9-CZ / la-ra-ct R2•/O-c2 IIZ-Ppcj\ / i DOWN 01ST rT*N T • •� �►., -� III • I Ct1p���-4- f HUNTM/GION NACM HUNT.INGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION J! °° City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR November 19, 1986 DR EDD 1 N OV 191986 Mr. Tom Crandall, District Director CA11FORNIA California Coastal Commission COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area SOUTH COAST DISTRICT 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, California 90802 Dear Tom, This letter is intended to further explain the city's desire for improvement and development of our downtown area. The city has, over the course of about 30 years, studied a number of proposal for the revitalization of the downtown area. Many efforts have begun, but none have ever gone beyond the proposal point until the recent Main-Pier Redevelopment Area was established in 1982. This step showed the development community that the city was ready to seriously begin a true revitalization effort in the long-neglected downtown area. In order to guide this new development, the Downtown Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in October, of 1983, and later certified by the Coastal Commission as the implementation portion of our local coastal program. With these approvals and certifications in hand, the city began the task of negotiating with various project developers. The City Council decided that the first priority for development in the downtown should be a first-quality hotel on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. Through preliminary discussions with hotel developers/operators, it became clear that in order for the city to be in a position to attract a hotel of the quality desired, a number of other activities would need to occur prior to, or concurrent with, the hotel development. These activities included the following: The need to rehabilitate the north/west side of Main Street on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. The need for additional public parking and improvements_to the circulation system in the downtown area. The need to establish an overall master plan with design guidelines and controls to assure the quality of future development in the downtown area. The need to establish a year-round, visitor-serving area at the beach and pier area. x 1 (3rl I Telephone. (714) 536-5202 /.Mr. Tom Crandall November 19, 1986 Page Two In order to address each of these items, the city has done the following: Requests for development proposal were solicited for the north/west side of Main Street, or the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. In March, 1986, a development partnership was selected for a two-block consolidation project. The partnership is comprised of the current property owners and A be N Equities. The negotiations have begun for a mixed use commercial, bed do breakfast, and residential project with onsite parking. The need for additional public parking- has been addressed by the City Council in the sale of municipal bonds and the authorization to use $20,000,000 of the proceeds for the development of public parking facilities in the downtown area. Three locations have been identified, with the first structure proposed on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway, just north of the pier. This structure is intended to be designed and constructed concurrent with the parking facilities proposed in the Pierside Village project. Preliminary design shows that about 1 150 cars will be accommodated in this facility. The city has recently approved a long-term lease of this site from the State Parks and Recreation Department. In addition to the need for parking opportunities, there is also the need for improvements to the overall downtown circulation system. In order to address this, the City Council adopted, in September of this year, a new precise plan of street alignments for Orange Avenue, 6th Street, Lake Street, and Walnut Avenue. These plans call for the widening of the public right-of-ways at the time of new development to accommodate additional travel lanes and landscaped medians. In an attempt to further guide and control future development in the downtown area, the City Council contracted with an architectural/ planning firm (3D/International) to prepare a master plan and model of the downtown area within the guidelines of the Downtown Specific Plan. This plan, when adopted, will serve as the master plan for downtown redevelopment. The portion of the plan showing downtown parking areas and the Main-Pier Project Area, including Pierside Village and the hotel project, were adopted by the City Council in October of this year. The desirability to control the quality of public improvements and private developments proposed for the downtown area has been addressed with the city's adoption of Downtown Design Guidelines. These guidelines are intended for use by the various project architects and will establish the level of expectation for all development submittals in the area. i Mr. Tom Crandall November 19, 1986 Page Three The establishment of a year-round attraction for the city has long been a goal for the creation of an economically viable downtown area. The development of the proposed Pierside Village could be the first of this type of attraction to the city (the city is also exploring the development of a Cousteau Ocean Center on the inland side of P.C.H., near Lake Street). The pier has long served as the major attraction to the area, however, the recreation and visitor-serving activities associated with the pier are very limited. Through the development of a revitalization of the pier area, many of the other master-planned ideas will evolve downtown. The Pierside Village is intended to be the spark which will ignite the downtown redevelopment effort. Although the present Pierside Village proposal is a relatively new idea, the concept for this type of proposal as anticipated and discussed in the city's Downtown Specific Plan. District 10 is clearly intended to provide for commercial uses on and alongside the pier in order to enhance and expand the public's use and enjoyment of the area. The concerns expressed in the appeal are the same concerns expressed by city staff, the city Planning Commission, and the City Council, and are addressed in the conditions of approval. The original plan submitted by the developer, which were given to your office for review, were conditioned to be amended. The developer must submit a number of additional items, subject to the Redevelopment Agency's approval, before any building permits will be issued. -Included in that list of additional submittals are the following: Modifications to the site plan which will establish view corridors and enhance view opportunities, reduce building heights and reduce the amount of pier decking and uses over the sand. i Prepare a Parking Management Plan. This plan is intended to identify mitigation methods for any parking shortfall. To the extent that a parking shortfall is not adequately addressed, the city shall limit the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy to the level of available parking. i In addition, the developer must submit all of the following (subject to approval of the Redevelopment Agency): I 1. Detail design and layout of each restaurant j 2. A building materials pallet 3. A planned sign program t 4. A rooftop mechanical equipment plan S. A list of proposed uses 6. An onsite circulation plan 7. A traf fic impact analysis 8. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the village 9. Maintenance agreements with the city. 10. A detailed landscape plan I i M r. Tom Crandall L' November 19, 1986 Page Four It was with the attachment of conditions which addressed the specific areas of concern for additional review and approval that the city Planning Commission and City Council are able to unanimously vote for project approval. i This project is extremely important in the redevelopment and prosperity of downtown Huntington Beach. We feel that the project will open new opportunities for the enjoyment of the ocean and beach area and will provide the community with an activity that all can be proud. In order to help us achieve a mutually agreeable project, 1 would like to meet with you and your staff before the December Coastal Commission hearings. I would like for you to see our downtown master plan model and better understand the overall scope of the city's redevelopment effort. The city is certainly open to reviewing any comments, concerns, or ideas you or your staff may have to make the Pierside Village project a reality. If ;ny office can supply your office with any additional information that's necessary in the preparation of the staff report to the Coastal Commission, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 536-5575. Sincerel C arles W. Thompson, City Administrator CIt'T/MA:lp i Enclosures: Statement of Action of the City Council (Pierside Village - Conditions of Approval) The following items were hand delivered on November 7, 1986: Downtown Specific Plan (two copies) Site Plan (one set) Request for Council Action packet (Pierside Village project, dated 10/13/86) Correspondence between the city and Coastal Commission, dated 3/21/85, 2/3/86, 4/7/86, 4/28/86, and 5/7/86 ;I 'i i � FINDINGS FOR APPRO` (COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PF_`MIT NO. 86-27) . `.J 1. The proposed "Pierside Village" is consistent with the city's Coastal Zone suffix and the visitor-serving commercial standards, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; it conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the city's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 3. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Underground sewer and water utilities are existing in the area and are sufficient to handle the proposed development. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43) 1. The proposed development of a specialty retail village will have a beneficial effect upon the general health welfare, safety, and convenience of persons residing or working in the area due to the type, variety, and quality of the activities proposed, and will contribute to an increase in the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed "Pierside Village" is designed to be in conformance with the city's adopted General Plan (including the state certified Coastal Element), the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. 3. The proposed "Pierside Village" is compatible with existing or other proposed or anticipated uses in the area. The project will directly connect with other developments on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and will be responsible for the rehabilitation and/or relocation of existing structures in the project area. 4. The proposed location, site layout, and design will properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another on the site are properly .integrated. The proposed project will provide a greater number and variety of people an opportunity to enjoy the city beach and pier area and related ocean activities. 6. The proposed access to and parking for the "Pierside Village" will increase traffic and circulation, concerns; however, controlling vehicular access to the project, separating vehicular and pedestrian access, and relocating traffic signals along Pacific Coast Highway will improve the current circulation system. t CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site and section plans dated September 11, 1986, and augmented site plan sheet 2, dated September 12, 1986, shall be modified to include the following changes: (a) All habitable building areas shall. be limited to two stories. Exceptions to this will only be permitted as part of an interior loft or mezzanine which is mostly open to the shop below. In no case may habitable building area exceed 25' in height or two stories above the elevation of the pier. xtit i a rT 4' - 5- Htvg-t6 - k53 (b) No structure m�.,be higher_than the elevation of PE is Coast Highway ' south/east of the center line of an extension of Lake Strut. `. __ • (c) The freestanding concession stand as proposed on the beach in front of the major access point to the village shall be relocated to back within the village. The shop shall have direct access on to the beach access roaa and serve the convenience of the beach user. (d) Improvements on the north side of the pier shall provide a number of public amenities such as a major beach access way adjacent to the parking structure. The detail design of this proposal shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board in conjunction with the departments of Development Services, Community Serv'ices, and Public Works. - i (e) The light wells adjacent to Maxwell's balcony shall be increased in size to provide additional natural light penetration under the pier. Other light penetrations or alternative methods of illumination including the alternate decking designs may be required to achieve an adequate level of comfort and security for. the area under the pier. (f) The project shall include a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway linking.the Pierside Village with the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. The design shall be compatible with the Village and the Downtown Design Guidelines. This structure shall be constructed concurrent with the "Pierside Village." (g) The parking control mechanisms depicted on the plans shall"be relocated to a location within the parking structure. The accessway to the control stations should provide for a minimum stacking area to-accommodate 12 cars. ( (h) The plans shall identify public restroom locations in sufficient quantities and areas to adequately accommodate the village patrons. (i) No structures shall be developed oceanward of the mean high tide line established on the north side of the pier (405' south of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way). (j) The project shall be approved in two phases. The first phase is proposed for the south side of the pier on the area controlled by the city of Huntington Beach. The second phase is proposed for the north side of the pier. The city is presently negotiating with the state for control of that portion of Bolsa Chica State Beach. A plan shall be submitted which indicates the phasing and associated development with each phase. This entitlement application shall be limited to the proposal for Phase I. (k) The ferris wheel shown on the plot plan shall be removed. i (1) Retail square footage on the new pier decking shall be 90% devoted to major sit down restaurants of unique and high quality, subject to definition in the operator's lease agreement. (m) Parking layout shall include bicycle parking facilities in sufficient quantities to accommodate village patrons. i 2. Floor plans and elevations for each commercial suite and restaurant shall be prepared and submitted to the director of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. All structures onsite shall reflect a compatible architectural theme which is consistent with the city`s Downtown Design Guidelines. A detailed materials pallet shall be preparea depicting all proposed exterior materials and colors and submitted to the Design Review Board for recommendation and approval. 4. A planned sign program for the entire village shall be prepared pursuant to the- Downtown Design Guidelines and submitted to the Design Review board for review and approval prior to the issuance of any sign permits. 5. The developer shall submit a plan which shall include the parking structure and area under the pier, lighting, public plaza, and street furniture plan which is in compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines subject to review and approval of the Design Review Board. 6. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the city and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits. Such a plan shall include all the landscaped areas and lighting within the public parking lot, medians, and the walkway system around the project perimeter and connection to the pier. The association shall maintain all landscaped areas within the project. All existing palm trees onsite shall remain within the project, however, they may be relocated from their present location. Perimeter landscaping, with a minimum of ten feet in width, shall be provided along the parkway area, adjacent to P.C.H. 7. A roof top mechanical equipment plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services, which indicates screening of all equipment and delineates the type of material proposed prior to the issuance of Building permits. Such projected equipment shall not exceed the maximum heights depicted in the Building Code or Downtown Specific Plan. 8. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fuel properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities, etc. 9. The developer shall submit a list of all proposed uses within the village and their respective square footages to the Development Services Department for approval to determine compliance with all zoning codes and redevelopment policies prior to the issuance of building permits. Any expansion or major change of uses, or increase in intensity of uses, will be subject to an additional Conditional Use Permit. Minor modifications not proposing expansion shall also be submitted to Development Services and Redevelopment Office for review and approval (e.g. exterior tenant modifications, public plaza configuration, structure layout, etc.). 10. All parking space design and size shall be in conformance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. i I 11. Onsite circulation shall be revised in accordance with Public Works Department requirements. Specifically, the control system at the Lake Street entrance to the �-�- parking garage needs to be moved into the garage to allow stacking distance for 12 i `• vehicles without overflow onto Pacific Coast Highway. No addition or deletion of vehicular access points shall be made without approval of the Public Works Department. 12. The developer shall verify the staff's traffic impact analysis for the proposed development to confirm that the traffic projections fall within the parameters of those analyzed in E.I.R. 82-2. This report shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits and should include an analysis of the traffic impacts at various times of the day and year. 13. The developer shall prepare a parking management and control plan for review by the Development Services Department, Public Works Department, Community Services Department and all other effected departments prior to the issuance of any building permits. This plan should address valet services, shuttle programs, and methods of controlling vehicular ingress and egress. In addition the plan shall identify mitigation methods for the Phase I parking shortfall (e.g. reciprocal and joint use parking, remote parking and shuttle, limiting the issuance of certificate of occupancy to the extent that parking is made available). 14. The project will be responsible for construction of the new decking areas adjacent to the city pier and the reconstruction of the existing pier within the project areas. This effort should be coordinated with the Department of Public Works and other city departments. 15. A review of the use shall be conducted within one year of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable Articles of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. If, at that time, there is a violation of these conditions no additional Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until the violation is corrected. 16. Offsite improvements (e.g. streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.) shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards and/or Caltrans standards. All sidewalks on Pacific Coast Highway shall be a minimum of 8 feet. 17. No parking shall be allowed adjacent to the project on Pacific Coast Highway. The removal of these 14 parking spaces shall be offset. by an equal number of spaces in the project. During construction of the project, the developer, in conjunction with the city, shall provide a number of parking spaces within a reasonable distance to accommodate beach and pier access. i 18. Sewer, water and fire flow, and drainage improvements shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works a water network and distribution analysis prior to issuance of grading permits. All necessary improvements as determined by the analysis shall be constructed. 19. The project shall be responsible for the construction of full median improvements on Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the site in accordance with Public Works Department and Caltrans' standards. i , r 20. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 21. All approved drives designated as fire lanes shall be signed as such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. All fire apparatus access roadways shall be designated no parking. ' 22. A fire sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in those structures deemed . necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. An automatic system shall be required on all parking levels and pedestrian ways. 23. Entry gates or other control devices for the parking structure proposed at the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department, and all other appropriate departments. 24. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney's office and contain a provision that will prohibit storage of vehicles, trailers, and other materials on site, unless an area that is specifically designated for such storage is provided for in the project. 25. The developer, Agency, and the city shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the public parking area, municipal pier, and all landscaping. The perimeter - walkway, lighting, etc., shall be maintained by the project's association. 26. The developer, Agency, and the city shall execute a landscape maintenance . � I agreement requiring the developer to maintain all landscaping on site, including setbacks, public right of ways, and along the street frontages. i 27. All fire access roads are to be a minimum 24 feet. 28. All canopies or roof structures over roadways are to provide a minimum overhead clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height from the road area to the lowest point of the canopy within the 24 foot road clearance. 29. All corner turns of fire lanes are to be a minimum of 17 feet inside and 45 feet outside radius. j 30. The beach access roadway on the south must be a minimum 24 feet and must loco with the beach access road on the north side of the pier. This roadway must also be a minimum 24 feet. The overhead clearance under the pier must be a minimum 13 foot 6 inches in height. The roadway must be designed to facilitate beach service vehicles; bicycles, and pedestrian access, subject to city review and approval. 1 31. The roadway and access ways designated as fire lanes on the pier and over the subterranean parking area are to be reinforced to sustain the weight of fire apparatus. i 32. Another stairway shall be located on the north side of the pier, subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and Development Services Department. i 33. Fire hydrants shall be ' stalled on fire access roadways am ' he pier to provide fire apparatus with an acc travel distance of 150 feet or less-.Wom all Structures. 34. An automatic supervised fire alarm system shall be installed to provide the following:. (a) Audible alarm. (b) Water flow signal. (c) Valve tamper signal. (d) Trouble signal. (e) Manual pull station. (f) Graphically displayed in sttategic location(s). i I 35. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from evth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the G-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for fittings and structural members to withstand anticipated G-factors, shall be submitted to the city for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 36. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the facilities shall be submitted-to the Department of Public Works for review. i 37. The developer shall provide the city with a detailed description of the project's proposed security systems for review and approval by all affected departments. 38. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Department. i 39. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. i 40. During construction, the developer shall make adequate provisions for continued pier access. The construction of the super structure of the proposed expanded deck areas on the pier shall be limited to the non-summer months.. 41. The project shall be responsible for the removal and relocation of the Beach Division Headquarters and Junior Lifeguard facilities. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council uphold the action of the Planning Commission. ' i Staff Recommendation: i The staff recommends that the City Council approve Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 based on the findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission with the suggested amendments outlined in the Alternative Action section of this report. _..............-- -__--__-------------_-__-------- ___--'-_ __---_____--_ ------- � r�ly Ewa PARKINO TABULATIONS ) ~` ` ^ . . / � w= ' ^ � ! ' GO-AMICAF OWLS low" a cc 03 SITE PLAN \ � . \ . . \ , _ ' - 1 . � d ��Mh/Yt 1 _ L.� W►0..�� J iEl LA ,A . to o� PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ELEVATION :1 uy 72 rn SURFACE PARKING ^t' ^ „ r_^ �ri � , i ^^r � •�r�_,fl ' �7 '�''�C ���' - ,�' � �'C r•. :7 l ^ P^ __ J C n C ._.� 7^_ trfl C cr. — ._ LI „ r• C ', il -'�"�"'��'L�.'�r��- I�.; �_'J r. 1..otj(R�.v r` ��Y4Y.�j���� ' C r? 1.' -•7'.- Tr"'1 � f'r - y - 'Y rrL I L 'r l r .. r •7� t � 7 T r r. _ r � i' � i?!. t;�l. -n .`'r �•I fl `.. �-1 , a t � cl'G'�' ' S c 't B E A C H r' I,r �, A C C E S S.7 •r__ . ... .. .. . ... r � at � SECTION EE � W C 26.00' _ RETAIL z � RETAIL.' 13.00, i SURFACE PAR%M RETAIL `%' RETAIL -1.001 -- PED STREET PARKING BEACH SERVICE / MECHANICA RETAIL _"•°°• ACCESS - POAP PARKING - 0•50• SECTION FF• 1 _35- 7:sual resources Section 30251 of the Coastal Act reciires _: at -e'.+ de':elocmen= " . . .shall he sited and designed to ?rctect views to arc along t a ocean and scenic ccasta- areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land-ors, to be visually compatible wit the character of surrou.-ding areas, and where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality degraded areas. . ." The Plan recoenizes the public importance o:: the scenic views fram PCF o: the be_c � and ocean areas and to and from the Pier as well as the inland views to wetlands and bluffs. The Plan also recognizes the significant potential to upgrade the scenic resources within the towntown and existizc visitor serving areas tc enhance the visual' criality of the City's coastal zone. The Plan proposes land use designations and policies which ensure that anly limited small scale structures will be allowed on the beach tie entire lent- seaward of P H, t us ensuring that no structures will be built on the beach which will significantly i_ act public views to and along the coast. Revised- policies fuz-=-er recuire that new development o_ tae pier at a 35 foot heig t will be. limited to only 50% of tie Bier. at least ha:: the pier shall remain open, and lateral guhlic access will be provided around the entire :eri-eter o: the pier, thus assuring tat :u lic views along the pier are -protected, and impacts to views of pier fora PC:i are =i.niaized. Policy 6(i)also re^tires that all new develc;ment c reserve views to and from .^,i1::s and to and along the shoreline. i policies which were discussed under the aza -ls Section also ?rchihit landfcr:_ alteration. or cevelccuent of the bluffs above Hclsa Chica and seaward of _CH, whit. cvald i^:act visual resources Oi t.:e j:uffs and s.,ereline. The :.UP :urther =rc=oses _clicies to govern _.e '-:rcvemen- of_!_-:he scenic a d ,isual c-ua' :' of t::e PCH ccrri or and -.?is_tor ser-iing areas o_ cow-t-cwn, - desic-i cop.=roll =o .cntrol bulk and _ 1acemen: o_' struct;:=es, si=n controls wail_`: i-4-it :.eight, size, design and materials and restrict place=e: of signs; screening and landsca=ing controls, Cclicies ensuring tat cluster cevele:=en= is encosraaea to _=ize ocen space. As suchi the L: s-..F"_daz-ds Lo ens-,.I`e `-,—'. e. 4 --i_=_ --t eels be maintained, and; t:he isL'a: and scenic of =he `itv's =pasta: zone will be enhanced. .he L.;P crovi'.es excellent mec.^-anisms :o. �;=crad a scenic ^;ua-__-1, _ncreEse _-:d5='" a:.... reduce im acts ` em si;»s ind ct:.er _eay.; =s O :e:el' :a a5 L.'.e Ka =Z--tects /. and =aintains and a=-lances scenic and visual' c_:a:_lies and is consistent w_t.. Section 30251 cf the Coastal act. No areas c_ the :,...=_-,_cn Beac:, coastal zone nE:e pee- i_en t.:_ed as hav,:. ac:i=air-:ral ,:sane or =c=ert:al. Fence, Secmicns 302.:1 and 3C242 of, =-e --oasta: Act are ace irately =c.:-=ssec by the ?lam as revionat-ed. Fcres= and So: =esaurces Since :_nzi n;=or. ?ea_.. lacks a.^.v =rarest or timherland the Plan as is consistent wit- :e=_-'cn 3C7-42 of t a Act. �x�L t3 ct � • Na _g-r. r t� ^ 7LC L1,7rt1 't_ru r,c 'r' �1,'-' ( r� ' i �`r ,C� �r rJ^°C t rL • C L '1 C. I Id r \ plc C ^7 L ter` i < 7^L7;c�L� �;L r,� EXISTING RESTAURANTcr �rL 1 C �' w r� C L I Cn e i C7 r �cCc'r• G.r L�` "�C J �:`^�^J � °y -1�•,: ��� OOL i I 1rl nC^ L 1 I C �[� Cr C it n L �c^.t nC .+ �• inn I r• �. l .! r. > r C j+' f �r C rl I D[Sr6NnT[Q �C r nC r- r rl,4 1 1 LOCATON rl1 1•ROR : ttro 4 I LI rV<. j•.l - - ULJ I �— / •.fir — rl 'u Li _ L r , 1 r. n _ r, r InL �^ a ExH1 gIT l O b ( ,� _P D October 13 , 1986 OCT1,e 1986 -i Councilman Dan MacAllister CIT OF - Cud Y [� Huntington Beach City Council CITYCOIj' ("' 2000 Main Street COvNCI ONCE--CH ��.�stp� Huntington Beach , CA 92643 OFFICE /d ,zo-F'G 6011AIc11, IY/tb' Dear Mr . MacAllister , lftd-ev '"7e /4ems c� vveaL 5�v /a/z 7/J ( I counsel you to vote against the proposed Pierside Village during tonight ' s council meeting. I believe there are several reasons to study the plan further and look for other developers and options . Look at the history of Bryant L . Morris Development in San Diego and Long Beach . You will find criticism concerning parking at the Pierside Village proposal valid . Both Seaport Village and Shoreline ' Village lack space to handle parking needs of patrons . Also , the management of Shoreline Village maintains some rather arrogant attitudes regarding their facility . The Long Beach unit maintains a policy of towing vehicles left in their parking lot overnight ( I believe they are towed at 3-4am) . As you might guess this doesn ' t encourage an inebriated patron to call a cab or take a ride with friends . This same unit also closed public access roads and for a period of several weeks collected $3 for parking . The City of Long Beach informed Shoreline Village that a $3. charge and blockage of public access were illegal . Shoreline Village continued with the policy until police officers physically removed barricades and lot attendants . This is not a company I want representing our Huntington Beach businesses. Neither my wife or I patronize . Seaport Village or Shoreline Village . It ' s doubtful you will find us at Pierside Village . Please vote against this current proposal . Sincerely William M. Ho ge 6381 Balmoral Drive Huntington Beach , CA 9 6 7 714-848-9518 I� 4) o r CGtj2S� rL tV't"a�t�'`7 ! �O October 8, 1986 ! t f--- ✓s The Honorable Robert P. Mandic, Jr., Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Mandic and Members of the City Council: As a resident and taxpayer in the City of Huntington Beach, I want you to know that I support your efforts to redevelop our downtown area. This redevelopment plan will greatly improve the economic base of our City, will provide an attractive, safe beachfront community for my family and friends to enjoy and will reduce the crime in that area. It is time to re- turn the downtown to the residents—we have been driven away by the un- pleasant, unsafe atmosphere that currently exists. I recognize that no construction project of major consequences can be imple- mented without some inconvenience—but the benefits of this project, starting with the Pierside Village--far outweigh the temporary disadvantages. I urge you to vote yes! Let's clean up the downtown and let our City real- ize its true potential. Sincerely, Signature e -- 2Z ee yrf Print Name M&7/ Xpc-l�c-ll Xlf-� -237 p? (Address) d 2 Fail s ity r� P1 NOTIGE� PUBLIC NO_T:ICE / NOTI n CE OF end continues for ten (10) :,U,o .ed to Puoitsh Advertil,6-ments of zi i.u,.ro :.:ctuding public UBL_ICPUBLIC HEARING working days. Applicants polices by Decree of the Superior Court o+ Orange County. APPE'ALTOTHE will be notified by the California. Number A-6214• dated 29 September. 1961. and CO PLANNING Coastal Commission as to MMISSION'S the date of the conclusion of ,k-24831. dated 11 June. 1963. APPROVAL OF the Commission's review • CONDITIONAL USE period,and as to whether or PERMIT N0.86 Inoilanfappeal has been filed. STATE OF CALIFORNIA coasrAL Applicants are advised not i DEVEL MEN. to begin construction prior PERMhT N0�88-27 to that date. / (PP,herslde Village) ALL INTERESTED PER- COUnty of Orange Pubm Nouce xavenaenp cove.sa NOTICE IS HEME1BY SONS are Invited to attend by this emasw.t is set in r point /-7_ ENahat the Huntington said hearing and express atn to mce column aom l/ �l Beaa ouncll will hold opinions or submit evidence ;,a public hKe+"+1gIn`the Coun- for or against the application cIlGhambe►q?et,the Hunt- as outlined above.All appll- Pingtorl B a ti;C,c Center, icants,exhibits,and descrlp- I am a Citizen Of the United States and a resident of w2000 Main=''Strsset Hunt- ikons of this proposal are on i,ington Beach,Rallforrila,on ilile with the Office of the Clty the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen F;irre-tlate antl.atetie in- cl 200o Main street, dicated bIs ow`.to receive and Huntington Beach,years, and not a party to or interested in the below ltler the nts of CAII- cons stateme fornia,for inspection by#the ,.r ;fall persons who wlsh'to be public. entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange / heard rele*crie to she appll- HUNTING1TON BEACH / zcatlon desribed below. CITY COUNCIL, By: Allcla Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the 'D TfE: Monday, October M. Wentworth, Glty Cek, 13,t986 Phone(714)538-5405 "TIME 7 30,P�M Dated 9/30/86 NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, ISBJECT Con tlItional Published Orange Coast tinted and published in the City of Costa Mesa, u; a aeKr m It N o'. Daily Pilot October 2,lsas p Y 66743*CoasteDevelopment Th 15 7 PermitANo 66-2T Appeal County of Orange. State of California, and that aAPP.1cATnekunt;' PUBLIC HEARING I gton Pacifica+ Develop-"-q Notice of 1 men')f,Corp"xand fbryaht: IMrtrns Dewe�lopment In con! Iun�ctIon;with ih;, THu Mgton,� 3each Red'eveloprnentf O A*gency� ,eiPtEl APPELLANT Huntington of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete S Bea#ch Toinorrow copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, • pp� c ?Lo.c Qla Downtown s JSpecrnctPlay,Dlstrict�t0 'J {PR�OP�OSAL ,To permit Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, �f development:of a 8766 .i i t•�f square footspeclalty,,com Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna tme�f&Nfl_itiril 'al nter reaied_s ONE TIME �1 n Jr� spoand:,. _96M Beach issues of said newspaper for 1: spkirig ikd r�eyon :.. r ,lh_eoceande of.Pacific CR9MtAt )M�S{to Wit the issue(S) of Coast Highway' betwe`e Main .St.'66t'0ind Lake,; >s rh�. ,kS1reel_ SaldpdeveI'op�- e:rat will generally lie located R.withinM. eRistin arkln lot,•lust iouth�ofjheiple--'r ; October 2 6 COASTAL STATUS: The 198 propose- roject Is within• I.an�ap.pas area of the "Coastal Z'.'P see below)f EN°VIROJNME'NTAL , 198 1$STr9TUS The'prop s d pro- Iect.icoviere�dr�tiy�p vl o usly approved Environmental In pacf`"Repoif,`Nos 822 antl 198A__ PfNaln rPler•'Redevelopment CProjeAreaFocused En- `Svlronmen lm act Report (July,1982). it A copy-of the 1 proposed project filed on September 3,1986 es on file In the Department of De- 198_ velopment Services. i CgOA�STAILI DEVELOP- kMENTX%ERMIT APPEAL W&EDURE: App oval of the Coastal I declare, under penalty of perjury, that 1"Ie jpDe0velopmenl+tPerrnll I9 ap- foregoing is true and correct. peal pIgsIoilJ*,p. coastal I Commission„}pursuant to i RRC S 3__ A+denims may Abe ape_ale0Q(-._)_ 19,4 Tftie October 2 6 14,Gallforrila Administrative Executed on 198 _ code) only of th a0' has epproved the.,CTU P eon the to Mesa, California. 'vbe9lsxof ocalPlend use.regu- latlons zbuthast dented the 1s`suariceofa-'c"oastal de- �r ve�lopm,eri�permltbecause It 7:canhot;makA the findings re- quired by Section 13311, Signature Titl`e4 of the California Ad- mI strative Code. Pursuant to- PRC- S. ._._ /�^ 30603,an appeal by an fie I r,� 1 / grieved person must be filed /) oY in wilting,and a sad California Co s as tat tal Cm- o ' mission 245 W Br6adway- 2 Swte 380�?POB 1450 rig C 1 8eac9h Calffornle 908011-1450(413)590�071 / eThe appeal period beglnsq when the C Mon. ,-, 1 -- !=>a.00 OF 4l LfCA �� �cefves this nohce of action" i N RH 86-80 RE UES"� FOR CITY COUNCIPACTI Q O Date October 13, 1986 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, Ctiy AdministraLwo�A/- James W. Palin, Director of Development Services Prepared by: �(.Jo Subject: APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPRO OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-27 AND CONDIT AL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43 (PIERSIDE VILLAGE) Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for Council consideration is an appeal to Planning Commission's approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43, a request to permit the development of a 87,500 square foot specialty commercial center, related support facilities and 696 space parking structure on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street. The proposed "Pier Side Village" will be located within the existing City Beach parking lot on the south side of the municipal pier. The appeal was filed by Huntington Beach Tomorrow. RECOMMENDATION: At their regular meeting of September 16, 1986, the Planning Commission took the following action: ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-27 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43 WERE APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir, Pierce NOTES: Livengood, Winchell, Rowe ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Plo 5/85 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: (COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PEf•T NO. 86-27) 1. The proposed "Pierside Village" is consistent with the city's Coastal Zone suffix and the visitor-serving commercial standards, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; it conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the city's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 3. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Underground sewer and water utilities are existing in the area and are sufficient to handle the proposed development. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43) 1. The proposed development of a specialty retail village will have a beneficial effect upon the general health welfare, safety, and convenience of persons residing or working in the area due to the type, variety, and quality of the activities proposed, and will contribute to an increase in the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed "Pierside Village" is designed to be in conformance with the city's adopted General Plan (including the state certified Coastal Element), the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. 3. The proposed "Pierside Village" is compatible with existing or other proposed or anticipated uses in the area. The project will directly connect with other developments on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and will be responsible for the rehabilitation and/or relocation of existing structures in the project area. 4. The proposed location, site layout, and design will properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another on the site are properly integrated. The proposed project will provide a greater number and variety of people an opportunity to enjoy the city beach and pier area and related ocean activities. 6. The proposed access to and parking for the "Pierside Village" will increase traffic and circulation concerns; however, controlling vehicular access to the project, separating vehicular and pedestrian access, and relocating traffic signals along Pacific Coast Highway will improve the current circulation system. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site and section plans dated September 11, 1986, and augmented site plan sheet 2, dated September 12, 1986, shall be modified to include the following changes: (a) All habitable building areas shall be limited to two stories. Exceptions to this will only be permitted as part of an interior loft or mezzanine which is mostly open to the shop below. In no case may habitable building area exceed 25' in height or two stories above the elevation of the pier. (b) No structure may be higher than the elevation of Pacific Coast Highway south/east of the center line of an extension of Lake Street. (c) The freestanding concession stand as proposed on the beach in front of the major access point to the village shall be relocated to back within the village. The shop shall have direct access on to the beach access road and serve the convenience of the beach user. (d) Improvements on the north side of the pier shall provide a number of public amenities such as a major beach access way adjacent to the parking structure. The detail design of this proposal shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board in conjunction with the departments of Development Services, Community Services, and Public Works. (e) The light wells adjacent to Maxwell's balcony shall be increased in size to provide additional natural light penetration under the pier. Other light penetrations or alternative methods of illumination including the alternate decking designs may be required to achieve an adequate level of comfort and security for the area under the pier. (f) The project shall include a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway linking the Pierside Village with the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. The design shall be compatible with the Village and the Downtown Design Guidelines. This structure shall be constructed concurrent with the "Pierside Village." (g) The parking control mechanisms depicted on the plans shall be relocated to a location within the parking structure. The accessway to the control stations should provide for a minimum stacking area to accommodate 12 cars. (h) The plans shall identify public restroom locations in sufficient quantities and areas to adequately accommodate the village patrons. (i) No structures shall be developed oceanward of the mean high tide line established on the north side of the pier (405' south of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way). (j) The project shall be approved in two phases. The first phase is proposed for the south side of the pier on the area controlled by the city of Huntington Beach. The second phase is proposed for the north side of the pier. The city is presently negotiating with the state for control of that portion of Bolsa Chica State Beach. A plan shall be submitted which indicates the phasing and associated development with each phase. This entitlement application shall be limited to the proposal for Phase I. (k) The ferris wheel shown on the plot plan shall be removed. (1) Retail square footage on the new pier decking shall be 90% devoted to major sit down restaurants of unique and high quality, subject to definition in the operator's lease agreement. (m) Parking layout shall include bicycle parking facilities in sufficient quantities to accommodate village patrons. 2.. Floor plans and elevations for each commercial suite and restaurant shall be prepared and submitted to the director of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. All structures onsite shall reflect a compatible architectural theme which is consistent with the city's Downtown Design Guidelines. 3. A detailed materials pallet shall be prepared depicting all proposed exterior materials and colors and submitted to the Design Review Board for recommendation and approval. 4. A planned sign program for the entire village shall be prepared pursuant to the Downtown Design Guidelines and submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to the issuance of any sign permits. 5. The developer shall submit a plan which shall include the parking structure and area under the pier, lighting, public plaza, and street furniture plan which is in compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines subject to review and approval of the Design Review Board. 6. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the city and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits. Such a plan shall include all the landscaped areas and lighting within the public parking lot, medians, and the walkway system around the project perimeter and connection to the pier. The association shall maintain all landscaped areas within the project. All existing palm trees onsite shall remain within the project, however, they may be relocated from their present location. Perimeter landscaping, with a minimum of ten feet in width, shall be provided along the parkway area, adjacent to P.C.H. 7. A roof top mechanical equipment plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services, which indicates screening of all equipment and delineates the type of material proposed prior to the issuance of Building permits. Such projected equipment shall not exceed the maximum heights depicted in the Building Code or Downtown Specific Plan. 8. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fuel properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities, etc. 9. The developer shall submit a list of all proposed uses within the village and their respective square footages to the Development Services Department for approval to determine compliance with all zoning codes and redevelopment policies prior to the issuance of building permits. Any expansion or major change of uses, or increase in intensity of uses, will be subject to an additional Conditional Use Permit. Minor modifications not proposing expansion shall also be submitted to Development Services and Redevelopment Office for review and approval (e.g. exterior tenant modifications, public plaza configuration, structure layout, etc.). 10. All parking space design and size shall be in conformance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. i • 11. Onsite circulation shall be revised in accordance with Public Works Department requirements. Specifically, the control system at the Lake Street entrance to the parking garage needs to be moved into the garage to allow stacking distance for 12 vehicles without overflow onto Pacific Coast Highway. No addition or deletion of vehicular access points shall be made without approval of the Public Works Department. 12. The developer shall verify the staff's traffic impact analysis for the proposed development to confirm that the traffic projections fall within the parameters of those analyzed in E.I.R. 82-2. This report shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits and should include an analysis of the traffic impacts at various times of the day and year. 13. The developer shall prepare a parking management and control plan for review by the Development Services Department, Public Works Department, Community Services Department and all other effected departments prior to the issuance of any building permits. This plan should address valet services, shuttle programs, and methods of controlling vehicular ingress and egress. In addition the plan shall identify mitigation methods for the Phase I parking shortfall (e.g. reciprocal and joint use parking, remote parking and shuttle, limiting the issuance of certificate of occupancy to the extent that parking is made available). 14. The project will be responsible for construction of the new decking areas adjacent to the city pier and the reconstruction of the existing pier within the project areas. This effort should be coordinated with the Department of Public Works and other city departments. 15. A review of the use shall be conducted within one year of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable Articles of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. If, at that time, there is a violation of these conditions no additional Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until the violation is corrected. 16. Off site improvements (e.g. streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.) shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards and/or Caltrans standards. All sidewalks on Pacific Coast Highway shall be a minimum of 8 feet. 17. No parking shall be allowed adjacent to the project on Pacific Coast Highway. The removal of these 14 parking spaces shall be offset by an equal number of spaces in the project. During construction of the project, the developer, in conjunction with the city, shall provide a number of parking spaces within a reasonable distance to accommodate beach and pier access. 18. Sewer, water and fire flow, and drainage improvements shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works a water network and distribution analysis prior to issuance of grading permits. All necessary improvements as determined by the analysis shall be constructed. 19. The project shall be responsible for the construction of full median improvements on Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the site in accordance with Public Works Department and Caltrans' standards. 20. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 21. All approved drives designated as fire lanes shall be signed as such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. All fire apparatus access roadways shall be designated no parking. 22. A fire sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in those structures deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. An automatic system shall be required on all parking levels and pedestrian ways. 23. Entry gates or other control devices for the parking structure proposed at the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department, and all other appropriate departments. 24. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney's office and contain a provision that will prohibit storage of vehicles, trailers, and other materials on site, unless an area that is specifically designated for such storage is provided for in the project. 25. The developer, Agency, and the city shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the public parking area, municipal pier, and all landscaping. The perimeter walkway, lighting, etc., shall be maintained by the project's association. 26. The developer, Agency, and the city shall execute a landscape maintenance agreement requiring the developer to maintain all landscaping on site, including setbacks, public right of ways, and along the street frontages. 27. All fire access roads are to be a minimum 24 feet. 28. All canopies or roof structures over roadways are to provide a minimum overhead clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height from the road area to the lowest point of the canopy within the 24 foot road clearance. 29. All corner turns of fire lanes are to be a minimum of 17 feet inside and 45 feet outside radius. 30. The beach access roadway on the south must be a minimum 24 feet and must loop with the beach access road on the north side of the pier. This roadway must also be a minimum 24 feet. The overhead clearance under the pier must be a minimum 13 foot 6 inches in height. The roadway must be designed to facilitate beach service vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian access, subject to city review and approval. 31. The roadway and access ways designated as fire lanes on the pier and over the subterranean parking area are to be reinforced to sustain the weight of fire apparatus. 32. Another stairway shall be located on the north side of the pier, subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and Development Services Department. i 33. Fire hydrants shall be installed on fire access roadways and the pier to provide fire apparatus with an access travel distance of 150 feet or less from all structures. 34. An automatic supervised fire alarm system shall be installed to provide the following: (a) Audible alarm. (b) Water flow signal. (c) Valve tamper signal. (d) Trouble signal. (e) Manual pull station. (f) Graphically displayed in strategic location(s). 35. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the G-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for fittings and structural members to withstand anticipated G-factors, shall be submitted to the city for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 36. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the facilities shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. 37. The developer shall provide the city with a detailed description of the project's proposed security systems for review and approval by all affected departments. 38. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Department. 39. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 40. During construction, the developer shall make adequate provisions for continued pier access. The construction of the super structure of the proposed expanded deck areas on the pier shall be limited to the non-summer months. 41. The project shall be responsible for the removal and relocation of the Beach Division Headquarters and Junior Lifeguard facilities. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council uphold the action of the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends that the City Council approve Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 and Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 based on the findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission with the suggested amendments outlined in the Alternative Action section of this report. i • ANALYSIS: Applicant: The Huntington Pacifica Development Group and Bryant L. Morris Development in conjunction with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. Appellant: Huntington Bech Tomorrow. Location: The ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Lake Street and the City Pier. Request: To permit the development of a specialty commercial project "Pier Side Village." DISCUSSION: On September 16, 1986 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27. The request was for the development of phase one of a specialty retail development project. The proposed phase one project consists of approximately 55 retail shops (45,000 sq. ft.), 12 take-out food outlets (10,500 sq. ft.), 3 restaurants (including the existing Maxwell's for a total of 32,000 sq. ft.), 696 parking spaces, reconstruction and expansion of the city pier (22,000 sq. ft. on the south side), and a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway. The Phase I project will contain a total of 87,500 sq. ft. of visitor-serving commercial activities. The overall project plan (Phase I and II) proposes the creation of a multiple level mediterranean village for a total of: 60 retail shops (50,000 sq. ft.), 16 take food outlets ()14,000 sq. ft.), 4 restaurants (including the existing Maxwell's for a total of 42,000 sq. ft.), 1843 parking spaces, reconstruction and expansion of the city pier, and a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway to the proposed hotel location. Upon completion of both Phase I and Phase II the Village will contain a total of 106,000 sq. ft. In accordance with the city's Downtown Specific Plan, the proposed uses and development may be permitted in District #10, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. After reviewing the project and amending the list of conditions, the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit and accompanying coastal development permit. The appeal filed by Huntington Beach Tomorrow states that the appellant supports responsible downtown redevelopment; however, they express concern that the project will make the downtown area a congested tourist attraction and intensify parking problems. The appellant has based the appeal of the Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 on the following: 1. That the plan does not conform to the Local Coastal Plan in respect to building height, view shed, and parking requirements. The plan submitted with the Coastal Development Permit Request was approved with conditions by the Planning Commission. Compliance with those conditions will bring the project into total conformance with the Downtown Specific Plan which is the implementing instrument of the Local Coastal Program. The appeal of the Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 outlines the following issues: 1. Parkin The plan approved by the Planning Commission calls for 696 parking spaces to be constructed in Phase I. Initial staff review indicated that the project will have a parking short fall of approximately 280 spaces. This parking short fall will be addressed in a parking management plan to be prepared by the developer as conditioned by the Planning Commission (Condition No. 13). One of the mitigation measures will be limiting the issuance of certificates of occupancy to the extent that parking is made available. In addition, refinement in the plan and parking layout may yield additional spaces. Staff recommends that Condition No. 13 be amended to state that the parking management plan be approved by the Redevelopment Agency prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, the developer has agreed to an annual replacement parking rent ($100,000/year) as an in lieu fee to assist the Agency in financing public parking facilities in the downtown area. 2. Plan Details The plan submitted for review and approved by the Planning Commission contained sufficient detail to conduct a standard plan check and staff review. District #10 of the Downtown Specific Plan has a limited number of development standards which need to be addressed. Due to the fact that the project is also subject to Redevelopment Agency through the lease of City property, many of the development details will be further controlled. As conditioned in the approval the developer will submit for review and approval all floor plans and elevations as they are proposed. These plans cannot be designed in detail until the various tenants have committed to the project. In addition, project was conditioned to submit a separate Planned Sign Program and Landscape Plan which is standard for projects of this magnitude. At the Planning Commission's discussion additional information could have been requested; however, no request was expressed. 3. Project Size The project review has been very open and has included numerous opportunities for public involvement for a number of years. As part of the original Disposition and Development Agreement with Huntington Pacifica Development Group the developer was granted the option of proposing development on the north side of the pier. Therefore, the developer is responsible for the preparation of a total development master plan for the entire District #10 area which is a total of 15 acres. The project is proposed to be reviewed and approved in phases. The phase one area consists of approximately 5.3 acres. The comparison of this project with the other specialty retail developments by acreage is awkward due to the fact that the other projects are all on one level with all surface parking. The Pier Side Village is proposed to be developed on three terraces with structured parking. Therefore, the development yield on five acres would be comparable to other projects of ten to fifteen acres. . 4. Project Size The project is proposed to be scaled and designed to provide for views through and around and over the development. Any development on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway will partially obstruct views from the highway to the ocean. However, the project is designed to create new view opportunities from within the project looking out. Three pedestrian plazas and spacious walkways are proposed which take advantage of the views. The project has been scaled and layed out so that development on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway will be able view the ocean over and through the village from second floor plaza areas. All buildings will comply with the height limitation as conditioned in the Commission approval (Condition No. l(a)). 5. Conditions of Approval 3,_4, 5, 6 & 9 These conditions reflect the standard procedure for any project of this scope and complexity. The Design Review Board typically reviews such items as building material types and colors, and other related features on projects within Redevelopment Project Areas. Staff recommends that these conditions be amended to state the various reviews conducted by the Design Review Board and Development Services Department be approved by the Redevelopment Agency prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. Traffic Report A traffic analysis has been prepared by the City's Public Works Department. This analysis was based on information contained in the Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Specific Plan (82-2), the Greer Company Traffic Impact Report (8-85), and the Parsons, Brinkerhoff and Quade Parking and Transportation Study (8-85). Condition No. 12 states that the developer shall verify the staff's traffic impact analysis for the project and that this report must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits, and shall be expanded to include impacts at various times of the day and year. 7. Traffic Stacking Condition No. 1 (g) and No. 11 state that the parking control systems located at the entrance to the structured parking shall be located to allow for a stacking distance of two lanes 12 vehicles in depth for a total stacking capacity of 24 cars. The detailed design of the control mechanism has not been determined, a control arm may or may not be employed. 8. Safety Features Provisions for public safety are of prime importance in all development projects throughout the city. Condition No. 37 states that the developer shall submit a detailed description of the project's security system. In addition, the project will be totally sprinklered and a valet parking system will be used. 9. State of California Review The primary responsibility for project review is local and not a state or federal responsibility. Staff has sought input from various offices in the state government on the proposed project. The plans have been reviewed by the State Coastal Commission, Cal Trans, and State Parks and Recreation Ofice. In addition, the State Coastal Conservancy may become involved to assist in funding certain portions of the project. The State Lands Commission will not become involved in the project because their jurisdiction starts at the established mean high tide line. The proposed project will be developed inland of that point; therefore, no formal review or approval is necessary from that agency. 10. Project Boundary Condition 1 (j) states that the site plan shall be modified to include the boundaries of the proposed project phases. 11. Public Restrooms Condition No. IN states that the site plan shall be modified to identify public restroom locations in sufficient quantities and areas to adequately accommodate the village patrons. 12. Condition of Approval No. 10) The condition states that the site plan shall be modified to show that no structures are proposed beyond the mean high tide line. The project is not proposing any development on the sand, however, the expanded deck area adjacent the pier will be built over the sand. 13. Condition of Approval No. 7 The purpose of this condition is to make sure that the project has adequately addressed the issue of architecturally screening roof top mechanical equipment. The developer proposes to do this with roof top architectural features such as cupolas, dormers, domes, hips and other variations. The Downtown Specific Plan allows for additional building height (up to ten feet) for non-habitable architectural features. All construction must conform to building and ordinance codes. 14. View Corridors The Downtown Specific Plan does discuss the need to preserve view corridors, however, this concern is intended to preserve existing view and breeze corridors for the inland residential areas in the Townlot section of the downtown area. Multi-block developments are proposed for the area between Main Street and Lake Street inland of PCH; therefore, the need to maintain view corridors is not as significant as the creation of new view opportunities from various elevations on both sides of P.C.H. The proposed project will take advantage of newly created view opportunities and still maintain a select amount of views through the project from P.C.H. 15. Breezeways The Environmental Impact Report discussed the establishment of breezeways in conjunction with new multi-block developments. This will occur on the inland side of P.C.H. with greater building setbacks and the requirement of public plazas. The proposed project will also include breezeway areas along and adjacent to the pier, along Lake Street at Corridor and at select locations along the projects P.C.H. frontage. 16. Traffic Analysis As stated in response to issue No. 6 staff has prepared a traffic analysis of the proposed project, and the developer is required to verify and expand the study. In addition, Condition No. 11 and No. 16 which address both on site and offsite circulation improvement which may be required as traffic impact mitigation measures. 17. Views As stated in response to issue No. 14 the proposed project has addressed the issue that views be protected and increased. The project has been scaled and layed out to allow development on the inland side of PCH view opportunities over the project, and the creation of new view opportunities within the project. The extent of the proposed projects PCH frontage is approximately 1,000 feet in length or three blocks, not up to six blocks as stated. The Downtown Specific Plan does not require a maximum site coverage amount. 18. Public Notice In addition to the required 300 foot notification to property owners adjacent to the project site, written notification was expanded and distributed to all property owners within a two block area of the property. The City also placed a quarter page advertisement with map in the Huntington Beach Independent. The plans for the proposed project were available for public review ten days prior to the public hearing and the staff report was available on the Monday prior to the hearing. 19. Conditions of Approval The conditions of approval are standard for a large scale project. It is not unusual for the Planning Commission to approve a project with conditions which require plan modification. In reference to the proposed project the Agency will have an additional opportunity in the lease of city property to include further requirements on certain issues in the project development. Staff recommends that the Agency approve the modified plans, traffic analysis, parking management plan, CC & R's and other submittals require with conditions of approval to further address the expressed concern. 20. Elevations Project elevations are generally not depicted on project site plans, but submitted as separate sheets. The plans and elevations submitted by the developer were sufficient to conduct a proper plan check. Also, sufficient dimentions were included to check proposed building heights. Condition No. 2 states that additional floor plans and elevations will be submitted for further review and approval, as they are proposed. The Planning Commission could have requested additional information for further review if deemed appropriate. 21. Police Building This issue indicates a misunderstanding of the proposed project site plan. The structure identified as "Police Building" on the site plan is presently being used by the junior lifeguards. This activity will be relocated to the new lifeguard headquarters. The project will be responsible for the removal of the existing structure. 22. Concession Stand This issue also indicates a misunderstanding of the proposed project site plan. The freestand concession stand mentioned in the Condition No. 1(c) does not presently exist that location. "Dwight" snack shop is presently located within the city parking lot. The condition recommended by the Planning Commission will relocate the use to a new area adjacent to the beach access road, but built within the proposed village. Access to this facility will be directly of the beach access road at the beach level. 23. Condition of Approval No. 24 The convenants, conditions and restructions, require will address all standard isues such as trash collection, storage, TV antennas, advertising, signage, etc. The Agency will review and be a party to any association formed to enforce them. 24. Economic Study The City and developer have conducted numerous marketing studies in conjunction with downtown redevelopment in general and the proposed project is particular. Williams Kubelbeck and Associates prepared a Market Study for the City in 1983. The developer commissioned Laventhol and Horwath to conduct a Marketing Feasibility Study in 1985. The Agency's economic consultants Katz Hollis and Coren and Keyser Marston have both reviewed the proposed project and have been very instramental in the recommendation of the economic negotiations involved in the project agreement. This developer took record with development projects of this type, scale and similar location which indicates a good understanding of specialty retail market places. The appellant has raised a number of issues in an attempt to make the project a better development. Staff feels that approval by Council of the amended conditions outlined in the Alternative Action Section of this report will address all of the appellants concerns and provide the Agency with additional controls over project implementation. Environmental Status: On July 18, 1983, the City Council, following the Planning Commission's recommendation, certified that Environental Impact Report No. 82-2 had been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and all state and local guidelines. The E.I.R. addresses the type and intensity of development which could be proposed within the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan. 0 0 Resolution No. 5284 states that the City Council finds the benefits accruing to the city, both economically and socially, by virtue of the Downtown Specific Plan, override the significant effects detailed in Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2. In addition to the E.I.R. for the Downtown Specific Plan, the Council approved, following Commission recommendation, a focused Environmental Impact Report in conjunction with the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project area adoption in July, 1982. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 based on findings and conditions as approved by the Planning Commission at their September 16, 1986 meeting and amended to include a provision which will require that following the various departmental and other reviews the Redevelopment Agency will have final review and approve on the additional submittals outlined in: Condition No. 1 (a)-(m) - Significant Modifiations to the site plan. Condition No. 7 - Roof top mechanical equipment plan. Condition No. 9 - (View Scape Concerns)•List of proposed uses within village and review of minor modification to plan. Condition No. 11 - Onsite circulation modification plans. Condition No. 12 - Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Condition No. 13 - Parking Management Plan. Condition No. 24 - Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the village. Condition No. 25 - Onsite areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 26 - Public areas Maintenance Agreement with City. Condition No. 41 - Beach Division Headquarters relocation plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of Appeal from Huntington Beach Tomorrow dated September 26, 1986. 2. Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting of September 16, 1986. CWT/JWP/MA:sar 2851h/2859h I Huntingto B Tomorrow CITY OF Co-chairmen: HUNTINGTON BE:.Grl,CALIF- Steering Committee: Thomas G. Harman y Thomas G. Harman Geri Ortega ��p A ;� > t Geri Ortega ii 1 Alan Strasbaugh Treasurer: Don Shipley Harold Ewell Arline Howard Kay Seraphine Lynn Gorman September 26, 1986 Huntington Beach City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 Planning Commission Hearing Date: September 16, 1986 Project Description: Pierside Village Project Dear Sir: Huntington Beach Tomorrow, a grassroots citizens group that supports the concept of lower density in Huntington Beach, hereby appeals the decision of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission in connection with its action on September 16, 1986, in approving Conditional Use Permit 86-43 and Coastal 'Development Permit No. 86-27 . This appeal is being filed jointly by Huntington Beach Tomorrow as well as by certain other individuals listed below, all of whom are residents of the City of Huntington Beach. The appellants support responsible downtown redevelopment, however, they oppose the massive Pierside Village Project that would make our downtown area a congested tourist attraction and intensify our mounting traffic and parking problems. The grounds for the appeal of Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 are as follows: 1 . The plan as approved does not conform to the City-approved Local Coastal Plan for the area in that it violates height limitations, viewshed requirements, and parking requirements. The Conditions of Approval of Use Permit 86-43 are inadequate as approved. (See below. ) The grounds for appeal of Conditional Use Permit 86-43 can generally be stated as follows: 1 . Phase I of the project is being built with a shortage of 280 parking spaces. The conditions of approval 419 Main Street 0 Box 208 • Huntington Beach, California 92648 9 714/538-8597 concerning parking are inadequate, and no provision is made to mitigate the problem created by the lack of 280 parking spaces. This project is to be built over existing parking set aside for beach users without adequate provisions to provide alternative or additive parking for beach users over and above requirements necessary for the new businesses. 2. The plan as submitted and approved does not contain any specific details. A specific detailed site plan is necessary in order to make an intelligent decision on the propriety of the plan. The only thing submitted to date is a very general "conceptual" site plan. Major decisions on sign programs, floor plans, elevations, landscaping, and other major features of the project simply cannot be made without a specific plan. 3. The public has been misled. The staff report submitted to the Planning Commission at page 1 indicates that the total acreage in the project is fifteen acres. This statement is incorrect in that the total acreage within the Phase I project area is more in the range of seven acres. This major discrepancy is confusing and misleading to the public and is an area of concern. Both staff and the developer have compared this project to a similar project in San Diego that sits on eleven acres and contains 100 ,000 square feet. 4 . The overall project size is unnecessarily massive and bulky. The project should be reduced in size in order to comply with the requirements of the environmental impact report. The EIR states at page 39 "Views from the bluffs and from PCH will be preserved. Views to the ocean are protected and increased—by lot coverage restrictions along PCH" . The massive size and excessive height of the building obstruct the views and violate the environmental impact report. 5. Conditions of Approval numbers 3. , 4. , 5. and 6 . circumvent the conditional use permit process, deny the public the right to a public hearing and allow the City planning staff to make major decisions on sign programs, floor plans, elevations, landscaping; and other matters of major concern. Condition of Approval number 9 . should be rewritten in such a manner that the uses within the proposed village would be restricted to the list of permitted uses as outlined in the Downtown Specific Plan. This Condition should be further revised to provide that the authority to approve uses should be made by the Director of Development Services and not by a clerk at the filing counter. -2- 6. A traffic report should be completed before approval of the conditional use permit. How can a project of this magnitude be acted on without this information? 7 . The plan calls for "stacking" of automobiles coming off of Pacific Coast Highway and entering the parking structure. The plan is deficient in that there is no designation in the plan where the "arm" for this proposed stacking of automobiles will be located.k 8. There are no conditions or discussions in the staff report for the design of safety features in the subterranean parking lot. This should be a major concern due to vandalism and the concern for public safety, particularly in view of the recent Labor Day riot. 9 . The staff report fails to address the question of whether or not the State of California has agreed to the construction and modifications proposed for the pier. 10 . The plan as submitted contains no delineation of the precise area included in the Conditional Use Permit. These lines of delineation need to be set forth specifically in great detail. For instance, the north side of the pier area is shown on the site plan, but is is not a part of Phase I as submitted. 11 . The plan contains no details concerning the size, location, and number of public restrooms. In beach areas, these types of facilities are subject to excessive vandalism and frequently are the scene of criminal activity. It is important to address this problem in advance and make the appropriate plan. 12 . Condition of Approval No. l (i) provides that no structure shall be developed oceanward of the mean high tide line. The site plan shows structures beyond this point on the pier. Additionally, Condition No. l(i) is poorly worded in that it apparently gives the developer the right to build "on the sand" . Condition of Approval No. l(i) states "No structure shall be developed oceanward of the mean high tide line. . . " . Does this mean that the developer can build out onto the sand until he reaches the mean high tide line? This particular Condition of Approval should be "tightened up" so that it is clear no construction activities in the village will take place beyond the northerly boundary of the existing service road. -3- 13. Condition of Approval No. 7 dealing with rooftop mechanical equipment is both poorly drafted and inadequate. No "approval" by the City is required of the developer. The developer simply needs to submit his plan and then he has the right to build it. Rooftop mechanical equipment and other devices such as satellite dishes, TV antennas, outdoor eating facilities, and things of that nature should be prohibited under Condition of Approval No. 7 . Attention should be directed to the fact that equipment of this type will be in clear view of the general public while traveling on Pacific Coast Highway and great care should be taken to either remove this equipment in its entirely or provide for adequate architectural screening. If mechanical structures and devices are placed on the roof of the buildings, how will this affect the height limitation imposed on the project? 14 . The Downtown Specific Plan provides that Second and Third Streets are to be protected as view corridors. The massive size, bulk, and height of the Pierside Village project will effectively block these view corridors when a person looks to the South towards the ocean. No provision is made in the plan for this apparent inconsistency. 15 . The environmental impact report prepared in connection with the Downtown Specific Plan provides at page 39 that viewscapes will be protected because of the requirement for 30-foot wide breezeways. The proposed plan does not adequately and specifically indicate where these breezeways will be located or for that matter whether they will be required at all in the Pierside Village project. 16. The environmental impact report prepared in connection with the Downtown Specific Plan at page 29 states "A final recommended mitigation measure would be to require an individual traffic analysis for each development on a site of half a block or more as it is proposed, and include circulation system improvements as conditions for approval of such projects if impacts are expected to be significant" . No such traffic report has been prepared or submitted as required by the EIR. 17. The environmental impact report prepared in connection with the Downtown Specific Plan provides at page 39 that views of the ocean are to be protected and increased. Specifically, the EIR states that "Views of the ocean are protected and increased by the use of . . . lot coverage restrictions along PCH" . The Pierside Village structure stretches 4-6 blocks along PCH without lot coverage restrictions as required by the EIR. -4- 18 . The general public received inadequate notice of the Planning Commission meeting of September 16, 1986. Although Staff may have complied with the letter of the law by giving written notice to property owners within 300 feet of the project, certainly the spirit of the law and the concept of fair dealing was not complied with when this project was placed on the agenda of the Planning Commission for hearing on September 16 , 1986 . The staff report was not available to members of the general public until the morning of the hearing on September 16, 1986 . How can members of the general public be expected to analyze, digest, and be prepared to testify in a competent manner at a hearing on a project of this importance when the details of the plan are made available to the public only eight hours prior to the hearing? 19 . The Conditions of Approval are inadequate, vague, ambiguous, and lacking in specifics. These Conditions of Approval really say "This site plan is so bad we' ll take care of it later" . Using this type of approach in the planning process for a project of this magnitude and importance is inexcusable and improper. 20 . The elevations as depicted on the site maps are incomplete. Maximum building elevations cannot be determined or calculated with the inadequate site maps. 21 . The site plan - surface parking diagram attached to the staff report identifies a "Police Building" to be located "on the sand" . Because of the sensitive type of equipment stored in these types of buildings and the need for high security, it is inappropriate for a police building to be located in the middle of the beach. This facility should be more properly located in an area of the project that is "out of sight" , perhaps in the area where mechanical equipment will be located. 22 . Condition of Approval No. 1(c) calls for the removal of the existing freestanding concession stand so that it will be relocated within the village. The existing concession stand known as "Dwight's"has been operated by the Dwight Clapp family under a concession agreement with the City for 56 years . Appropriate provisions should be made to protect this longstanding family business that for so many years has been operated successfully and appropriately on the City beach. Putting this concession stand "inside the village" will require members of the general public who are at the beach for a family outing to enter the village to buy soft drinks, hamburgers, strips, and things of that nature. This will impose an unreasonable burden on the public users of the beach who are customarily attired in swimsuits and have bare, sandy feet. A direct access to the concession -5- stand by beachgoers should be provided rather than forcing beachgoers to enter the village. 23. Condition of Approval No. 24 dealing with Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions is inadequate. The CC&Rs which deal with many important topics such as trash storage, TV antennas, advertising, signage, and things of that nature should be specifically adopted in advance so there will be no problems concerning the CC&Rs at a future date. 24. No data or economic study has been made or is available that supports the proposition that 55 retail shops, 3 restaurants, and 12 fast-food outlets can be economically supported by the project. Given the lack of beach customers during the winter months, the chances of maintaining so many profitable "boutique" types of businesses would not seem to be feasible. The same analogy would apply to fast-food restaurants. Respectfully yours, HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW By: THOMAS G. HARMAN LYNIQ GORMAN Co-Chairman By: `%� 64,7 GERI ORTEGA, LANCE JACO Co-Chairman g'l.Q LORRAINE FABER -6- _ S � Lu K s.a g #'..i,�•e ,.?''r 7`--. y,,tab s } .r r_ i 5 =. °'•x'^4�4 tiALt' s s. �3.,a -_:.e3�sx '.+4*.... F huntington beach development services;:department STAFF `y E OR _ .. 4 .. - P_ ­­ , ..e - - TO: Planning Commission FROM: = Development Services - DATE: September 164 1986 SUBJECT: MAIN-PIER I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (PIERSIDE VILLAGE) APPLICANT/ THE HUNTINGTON PACIFICA DATE ACCEPTED: DEVELOPMENT CORP. & BRYANT August 15, 1986 L. MORRIS DEVELOPMENT IN CONJUNCTION -WITH THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOP- MENT AGENCY REQUEST: To permit development. of MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE a specialty commercial October 5, 1986 project "Pierside Village: " LOCATION: The ocean side of Pacific ZONE: Coast Hwy, between 6th St . Downtown Specific Plan and Lake Street District 10 & 11 ACREAGE: 15 acres GENERAL PLAN: . Visitor Serving Commercial EXISTING USE: Beach Related Commercial and Parking 1 .0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends • that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No . 86-27 based on. the findings and subject to the conditions contained in Section 7. 0 of this report. . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: -Submitted for- Planning Commission review and action is a conceptual development_ .plan=for ;the_ development- of a. *Pierside •Vi11age" _ - consi�sting of a 106,000:;sq.ft.. (94,500 sq.ft. "�of- new construction and"-.,,, 11,5.00 sq.ft. �existing) specialty :beach related coinmecial.project, =_"Piersid'e ,Village.' Theµpro ject; is propose�d :r��two phases �on 15 acres locaTted>onthecean side of PacficCoast" Sghway. between-� 6th~ Str. regt�q- 3- — - - -.Y3 Y _ v„ .>} ,..L " r ,- is y.9-P`' a _y _. - �",yp _ ?" •-a�y .c` y "r= 4. r and LakeZ-51131- _ Sts.eet 4 :t: s— .r _r ar A=FA1t1A=� r �� � 4 The project proposes (Phase I and II) the creation of a multiple level mediterranean village consisting of: 60 retail shops (50,000 sq.ft.), 16 take out food outlets (14,000 sq.ft.), 4 restaurants (including the existing Maxwell's for a total of 42,000 sq.ft.), 1843 parking spaces, reconstruction and expansion of the city pier, and a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway to the proposed hotel location. Attachment 4 is a project description provided by the developer. - In accordance with the city's Downtown Specific Plan, the proposed uses and development may be permitted in District #10, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 is a request for the development of Phase I of the "Pierside Village." The project is proposed for the portion of the total site extending south of the pier. The area is bounded by the city pier, Pacific Coast Highway, an extension of Lake Street, and the existing beach access road and established mean high tide line. The project proposes (Phase 1) construction of 55 retail shops (45,000 sq.ft.), 1-2 take-out food outlets 00,500 sq.ft.), 3 restaurants (including the existing Maxwell's for a total of 32,000 sq.ft.), 696 parking spaces, reconstruction and expansion of the city pier (22,000 sq.ft. on the south side), and a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: On July 18, 1983, the City Council, following the Planning Commission's recommendation, certified that Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2 had been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and all state.and local-guidelines. The E.I.R. addresses the type and intensity of development which could be proposed within the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan. Resolution No. 5284 states that the City Council finds the the benefits accruing to the city, both economically and socially, by virtue_of the Downtown Specific Plan, override the significant effects detailed in Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2. In addition to the E.I.R. for the Downtown Specific Plan, the Council approved, following Commission recommendation, a focused Environmental Impact Report in conjunction with the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project area adoption in July, 1982. 4.0 COASTAL REVIEW: In July, 1977, the city of Huntington Beach began work on the Local Coastal Program as a means of implementing the California Costal Act of 1976. The Huntington Beach City Council adopted the Coastal Element as part of the city's.General Plan on January 19, 1981. On March 16, 1981, Council authorized staff to draft the Downtown Specific Plan as a means of implementing portions of the Coastal Element. The Costal Element was certified in geographic part by the Coastal Commission in November, 1982. The 54 • - _ ....._ .. - .. ..- - - _ _ - _ '-c i<. _ _ -z •'- -. `c..,.,.K'c... 2 __z.;;i r." -.was»- � i"zY.�.�-1;__�..-.. - Downtown Specific Plan was adopted by Council on October 10, 1983, and certified by the California Coastal Commission in March of 1985. The Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan sets forth development standards and recommends public improvements for the city's downtown area. The Downtown Specific Plan is intended to implement the land use designations in the Coastal Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Specific Plan, along with zoning ordinances for those portions of the city's coastal zone outside the downtown area, and in conjunction with a Coastal Zone (CZ) suffix, is the implementing phase of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The Downtown Specific Plan states the following: "The purpose of the Downtown Specific Plan is to encourage the revitalization of this important area of Huntington Beach. The Plan promotes a mix of commercial, residential, and recreational uses which will be able to take advantage of the area's proximity to the ocean. Many sections of the downtown project a negative image of Huntington Beach. The effect of these existing conditions is to discourage new investment, which in turn, perpetuates the unsightly and unproductive environment. The principal goal of the Downtown Specific Plan is to change the overall negative image which has evolved through the years, and establish a framework for the physical improvements, both public and private, which will create an attractive, unique, vibrant, and viable community that will make people want to live, work, and play in Huntington Beach." The city's Coastal Element adopted goals and policies to provide the guidance for decisions regarding activities in the coastal zone. One of these policies addresses visitor-serving facilities and states the following: Additional support facilities are necessary in order to accommodate the large numbers of visitors attracted to recreation areas in the coastal zone. The coastal land use plan is designed to provide for sufficient areas strategically located to serve the needs of existing and future levels of visitors. The intent of the following policies is to specifically encourage adequate visitor accommodations. Protect, encourage, and where feasible, provide visitor-serving facilities in the coastal zone which are varied in type and price. Encourage the provision of additional restaurants and hotel/motel accommodations in keeping with the alternative chosen by the City Council. - The following statement from the Downtown Specific Plan expresses the city's intent to implement these goals and policies: si t The design concept concentrates on the city pier, realizing that all other areas within the downtown are linked, either directly or indirectly,to the pier. The level of energy and excitement generated at the pier head area needs to be capitalized upon and spread through the Downtown Core. The pier area has the potential to accommodate even more people than it presently does by offering a variety of uses, services, and activities. Developments at the pier should be scaled to a pedestrian level with passive activities such as strolling and viewing given equal consideration with more vigorous activities such as surfing, swimming, and bicycling. Pedestrian boardwalks on various levels and the pier itself will offer view of the ocean and ocean activities. The overall form and shape of all development in downtown Huntington Beach should allow people to see the ocean from as many places as possible. The pier area will-continue to serve as the major attraction in the city and should become the catalyst for the revitalization effort. The design concept identifies the pier head and the area immediately across the Pacific-Coast Highway as the focus for the greatest intensity of future development. These new developments should be scaled down and buffered with intensified landscaping and compatible uses as the development approaches the existing residential neighborhoods. The interdependence of public and private development activities will create a major activity node at the pier head. The document further states that the city: "Envisions. restoration of the pier in conjunction with expanded visitor-serving and recreational uses. With these improvements complete, the pier would become the hub of a major tourist recreational area and the catalyst for commercial revitalization downtown." The pier and adjacent beach areas are located within District #10 of the Downtown Specific Plan. The following is an excerpt from the Specific. Plan: District Ten includes the area on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway most suited for commercial development. This District includes the pier and the existing parking areas on either side, comprising approximately 15 gross acres. The visitor-serving commercial uses most appropriate for the District are beach-related and complementary to activities which occur around the pier, such as surfing, fishing, and sunbathing. Additional parking in structures would also be appropriate provided that they do not extend above the level of Pacific Coast Highway and block views. This provision should still provide for the option of multi-level commercial 4. 4 % 37, ­7 activities in this District. The pier is a prime location for restaurants that can take advantage of the panoramic views. Equally important as the new commercial activities which may be accommodated is to ensure that the major emphasis in this District is public open space. The pier and beach area must remain accessible to the public for free recreational pursuits. District Ten is part of the pier head node as described previously. This commercial/recreational activity node is of primary importance in the revitalization effort of the city. Development within this District will probably be initiated with city efforts. The extent and intensity of development in District Three and further inland will directly determine the amount of revitalization which can occur to the pier and the beach related commercial uses which can be accommodated. In addition, the present amount of parking can be approximately doubled without obstructing views or drastically changing the overall character of the District. It is within the parameters of these statements and the detailed development standards for the District that the city has proceeded with the proposed development for this area.- The final approved plans will have to comply with the goals and objectives of the Coastal Element and the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan. The stated purpose for District Ten is "to provide for commercial uses on and alongside the pier which will enhance-and expand the public's use and enjoyment of this area." The District allows for commercial uses, including retail sales and restaurants along with public recreational facilities. The District does not call for a maximum density on intensity of development. The major concerns in the District are building height and beach encroachment. The project will comply with these approved restrictions. The proposed project being on the ocean side of P.C.H. is within an appealable area of the Local Coastal Zone. The city's action on a Coastal Development Permit application for an appealable development shall be deemed final and in effect when the ten working days' appeal period to the Coastal Commission has expired following the city's appeal process. 5.0 REDEVELOPMENT REVIEW: On September 7, 1982, the City Council adopted the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area for the downtown area, bounded by 6th Street, Walnut Avenue, Lake Street, and the Pacific Ocean. On June 20, 1983, the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area was expanded to roughly coincide with the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan. This expanded area covers a total of 336 acres. As a means to implement the concept development of the Downtown Specific Plan, the city's Redevelopment Agency called'for Requests for Proposal in the original Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. The Agency received a number of responses to this request and selected Huntington Pacifica Development Group as the developer for the first project in the downtown redevelopment effort. On August 20, 1984, a Planning and 5 A Negotiating Agreement for the master planning of the area and the development of selected portions was entered into with Huntington Pacifica Development Group. Over the course of approximately one year, the project concept and scope evolved into a development proposal. On August 19, 1985, the Agency authorized the execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement for the development of the following: 1. A first-rate, high quality hotel of a minimum of 300 rooms; 2. A retail commercial building with a minimum gross leaseable area of 15,000 sq.ft. to be located on the "PCH Commercial Portion; 3. A Pierside Village consisting of specialty commercial uses with a minimum gross leaseable area of 75,000 sq.ft., plus a multiple-tiered parking structure with not less than 500 spaces. Part of the minimum gross leasable area of 75,000 sq.ft. shall consist of deck area added to the pier; such added deck area shall approximate 25,000 sq.ft.; and 4. Surface and subterranean parking with a minimum of 300 parking spaces beneath and adjacent to the Area I hotel of 300 rooms. A public plaza of approximately 20,000 sq.ft. which would include open passive rest and landscaped areas, an elevated connecting pedestrian walkway to Pierside Village. Through the negotiation of the agreement, it became apparent that the original project scope would need to be modified. One of the proposed modifications was to allow the project to be constructed in phases. Allowing the specialty commercial (Pierside Village) on the ocean side of P.C.H. to precede the inland development of a hotel and related commercial. On August 12, 1986, the Agency gave conceptual approval to the project design and the implementation phasing, provided. that assurances were drafted into the Agreement, requiring the hotel to follow the pierside project within a -reasonable timeframe or the developer would incur penalties. In accordance with the city's adopted redevelopment procedures, the Planning Commission serves as the project review body prior to the issuance of any development permits. 6.0 ISSUES'-AND ANALYSIS: The city of Huntington Beach has a well established potential for development. The city is located within minutes of Long Beach,_Newport Beach, Irvine, and Costa Mesa areas which have experienced a great deal of change in the past few years. This location means the city shares a sub-regional market with portions of both Los Angeles and Orange counties. 1 t 4£ i'-- r 'kr�. -.a r 's�-h�3:� r .ysw r The Huntington Beach downtown area has been the subject of many special plans and studies over the past three decades. The area has a variety of residential, commercial, and recreational uses surrounding an older Downtown Core with the municipal pier serving as the focal point. Huntington Beach has miles of prime public ocean frontage, with numerous vacant and under-utilized parcels across from the beach. The potential development sites in the downtown.are sizable and attractive and present various opportunities for consideration. The city recognizes that market demand will exert pressures for the future development of these parcels. The city must respond to these demands in a manner which will achieve the optimum potential while at the same time protecting the existing character of the neighborhoods. As a part of.that effort, the Agency began the process of project implementation at the primary city node of activity. The Pierside Village concept as part of a larger Main-Pier Phase I effort, can be the spark of vitality the downtown area has needed for a number of years. The project does present a number of development issues which need to be addressed and resolved through adequate conditions of approval. The following will attempt to highlight the significant issues and analyze the project's overall impact. The Downtown Specific Plan clearly outlines the development standards for proposals in District Ten. The following chart will show the allowable and required standards in comparison with the proposed. 4.12 DISTRICT 10 Purpose: To provide for commercial uses on and along side the pier which will entrance and expand the public's use and enjoyment of the area. ALLOW ED/REQUIRED PROPOSED: 4.12.01 USES: Commercial uses or Commercial uses and public recreation facilities public recreation facilities (beach related) (beach related) Parking lots & structures Parking lots & structures Restaurants Restaurants Retail sales (beach related) Retail sales (beach related) 4.12.02 ALLOWED/REQUIRED: PROPOSED: Minimum Parcel Size: None Approximately 6.0 Acres 4.12.03 Maximum Density/ PHASE I PHASE II Intensity: None Retail (55 shops) 45,000 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft. Fast Food 02 shops) 10,500 sq.ft. 3,500 sq.ft. Restaurants (3) 32,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. Storage 11,552 sq.ft. Service Mechanical 11,336 sq.ft. TOTAL: 87,500 sq.ft.* 18,500 sq.ft. *(TOTAL excludes storage and mechanical) 4.12.04 Maximum 25' & 2 stories 25' & 2 stories Height above the pier above the pier elevation level with some roof features NOTE: An additional extending up to an 10' is allowed for additional 10' in roofline treatment height. & architectural features. 4.12.05 Maximum None 32% Site (excluding the Coverage parking structure as coverage) 4.12.06-09 Setbacks, None 60' off PCH 4.12.10 Open Space Public Open space, 15,000 sq.ft. Open Space pedestrian access 5 pedestrian access ways ways and public 5,000 lin.ft. public walk- walkways shall be ways. provided. PARKING: PHASE I REQUIRED PROPOSED Retail, Fast Food, Mechanical be Storage 78,388 sq.ft. 392 Restaurants 32,000 sq.ft. 320 712 Existing Parking Spaces 264 TOTAL: 976 696 *Therefore, an onsite shortfall of 280 PHASE II Retail, Fast Food 8,500 sq.ft. 43 Restaurants 10,000 sq.ft. 100 143 Exis ting Parking Spaces 315 TOTAL: 458 1147 *Therefore, an onsite surplus of 738 Shortfall (Phase I) 280 Surplus (Phase II) 738 TOTAL: 409 *Therefore, onsite parking surplus of 409 spaces The shortfall in parking for Phase I can be mitigated in a number of ways. A parking management plan should be required which_would address reciprocal and joint use parking, peak hour vs non-peak hour tradeoffs, remote parking and shuttle, valet and tandum parking, participation in a.parking assessment district, or limiting the release of Certificates of Occupancy to the extent sufficient parking exists. Due to the unique characteristics of the Pierside Village, these issues can best be addressed in a separate _ study. Two other major issues and concerns are in the related areas of public access and view opportunities. Public access to the village area and beach will certainly be enhanced by the proposed development. Oversized walkways and stairs will aid in the movement of people through and around this presently popular area. Presently access points to the beach are limited and tight and no access opportunities exist from the pier to the sand. The proposed project will greatly improve the present situation. The existing limited view opportunities from PCH to the ocean will be further restricted with th development of the proposed project. However, the view opportunities from the . ocean side of PCH will be greatly enhanced with the proposed development.-,.The Village will provide views from various levels and angles with a new sense`of discovery and experience which is presently not available. - t i r •.�. "2•i ':.� a+..�a:sv^ A�`tom;, t .:I The proposed project will most importantly open up the beach and pier area to a far greater number and variety of people. Currently, many people are fearful of the downtown area or simply find nothing there which is of interest to them. The project has the ability to provide a good economic resource for the city, but more importantly, it can become the catalyst of an overall downtown rehabilitation with something of interest for almost everyone. 7.0 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27, based on the findings and.subject to the conditions outlined in this report. Staff has provided additional findings for Commission review upon which an alternative action for denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 may be based (Section 8.0 of the report). FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43) I. . The proposed development of a specialty retail village will have a beneficial effect upon the general health welfare, safety, and convenience of persons residing or working in the area due to the type, variety, and quality of the.activities proposed, and will contribute to an increase in the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2.' The proposed "Pierside Village" is designed to be in conformance with the city's adopted General Plan (including the state certified Coastal Element), the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. . 3. The proposed "Pierside Village" is compatible with existing or other proposed or anticipated uses in the area. The project will directly connect with other developments on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and will be responsible for the rehabilitation and/or relocation of existing structures in the project area. 4. The proposed location, site layout, and design will properly adapt the proposed - structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another on the site are properly integrated. The proposed project will provide a greater number and variety of people an opportunity to enjoy the city beach and pier area and related ocean activities. 6. The proposed access to and parking for the "Pierside Village" will increase traffic and circulation concerns; however, controlling vehicular access to the project, separating vehicular and pedestrian access, and relocating traffic signals along Pacific Coast Highway will improve the current circulation system. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: (COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-27) 1. The proposed "Pie rside.Village" is consistent with the city's Coastal Zone suffix and the visitor-serving commercial standards, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; it conforms with the plans, policies,"requirements and standards of the city's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 3. The proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Underground sewer and water utilities are existing in the area and are sufficient to handle the proposed development. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site and section plans dated September 11, 1986, and augmented site plan sheet 2, dated September 12, 1986, shall be modified to include the following changes: (a) All habitable building areas shall be limited to two stories. Exceptions to this will only be permitted as part of an interior loft or mezzanine which is mostly open to the shop below. In no case may habitable building area exceed 25' in height or two stories above the elevation of the pier. (b) No structure may be higher than the elevation of Pacific Coast Highway south/east of the center line of an extension of Lake Street. (c) The freestanding concession stand as proposed on the beach in front of the major access point to the village should be relocated to back within the village. The shop should have direct access on to the beach access road and serve the convenience of the beach user. (d) Improvements on the north side of the pier should provide a number of public amenities such as a major beach access way adjacent to the parking structure. The detail design of this proposal shall be subject-to review and approval by the Design Review Board in conjunction with the departments of Development Services, - Community Services, and Public Works. (e) The lite wells adjacent to Maxwell's balcony shall be increased in size to provide additional light penetration under the pier. Other light penetrations or alternative methods of illumination may be required to achieve an adequate level of comfort and security for the area under the pier. (f) The project shall include a pedestrian overcrossing of Pacific Coast Highway linking the Pierside Village with the hotel. (g) The parking control mechanism depicted--or the plans shall be relocated to a location within the parking structure. The access way to the control station should provide for a minimum stacking area to accommodate 12 cars. (h) The plans should identify public restroom locations in sufficient quantities and areas to adequately accommodate the village patrons. 11• x - s _ - YS F-c " ` "� +4 +k.d, :._r4---cTMfh it ' T*Y Hn _ r t am !(i) No structures shall be developed oceanward of the mean high tide line established on the north side of the pier (405' south of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way). (j) The project shall be approved in two phases. The first phase is proposed for the south side of the pier on the area controlled by the city of Huntington Beach. The second phase is proposed for the north side of the pier. The city is presently negotiating with the state for control of that portion of Bolsa Chica State Beach. A plan shall be submitted which indicates the phasing and associated development with each phase. This entitlement application shall be limited to the proposal for Phase I. 2. Floor plans and elevations for each commercial suite and restaurant shall be prepared and submitted to the director of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. All structures onsite shall reflect a compatible architectural theme which is consistent with the city's downtown design guidelines. 3. A detailed materials pallet shall be prepared depicting all proposed exterior materials and colors and submitted to the Design Review Board for recommendation and approval. 4. A planned sign program for the entire village shall be prepared and submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to the issuance of any sign_-_ permits. 5. The developer shall submit a lighting, public plaza, and street furniture plan which is in compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines subject to review and approval of the Design Review Board. 6. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the city and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits. Such a plan shall include all the landscaped areas and lighting within the public parking lot, medians, and the walkway system around the project perimeter and connection to the pier. The association shall maintain all landscaped areas within the project. All existing palm trees onsite shall remain within the project, however, they may be relocated from their-present location. Perimeter-landscaping, with a minimum of ten feet in width, shall be provided along the parkway area, adjacent to P.C.H. 7. A roof top mechanical equipment plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services,.which indicates screening of all equipment and delineates the type of material proposed prior to the issuance of Building permits. 8. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fuel properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities, etc. r 12. A. +. _:, .. o- s�--� _ -•d - _ _= r tea.. A , .. ... . " -,77777 9. The developer shall submit a list of all proposed uses within the village and their respective square footages to the Development Services Department for approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Any expansion or major change of uses, or extension increase in intensity of uses, will be subject to an additional Conditional Use Permit. 10. All parking space design and size shall be in conformance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 11. Onsite circulation shall be revised in accordance with Public Works Department requirements. Specifically, the control system at the Lake Street entrance to the parking garage needs to be moved into the garage to allow stacking distance for 12 vehicles without overflow onto Pacific Coast Highway. No addition or deletion of vehicular access points shall be made without approval of the Public Works Department. 12. The developer shall verify the staff's traffic impact analysis for the proposed development to confirm that the traffic's projections fall within the parameters of those analyzed in E.I.R. 82-2. This report shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits and should include an analysis of the impacts of various times of the day and year. 13. The developer shall prepare a parking management and control plan for review by the Development Services Department, and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. This plan should address valet services, shuttle programs, and methods of controlling vehicular ingress and egress. 14. The project will be responsible for construction of the new decking areas adjacent to the city pier and the reconstruction of the existing pier within the project areas. This effort should be coordinated with the Department of Public Works and other city departments. 15. A review of the use shall be conducted within one year of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable Articles of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. If, at that time, there is a violation of these conditions no additional Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until the violation is corrected. 16. Offsite improvements (e.g. streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.) shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards and/or Caltrans standards. All sidewalks on Pacific Coast Highway shall be a minimum of 8 feet. 17. No parking shall be allowed adjacent to the project on Pacific Coast Highway. The removal of these 14 parking spaces shall be offset by an equal number of spaces in the project. During construction of the project, the developer, in conjunction with the city, shall provide a number of parking spaces within a reasonable distance to accommodate beach and pier access. - 13. 1 �r 07- 18. Sewer, water and fire flow, and drainage improvements shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works a water network and distribution analysis prior to issuance of grading permits. All necessary improvements as determined by the analysis shall be constructed. 19. The project shall be responsible for the construction of full median improvements on Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the site in accordance with Public Works Department and Caltrans' standards. 20. Energy efficient lighting, such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy conservation. 21. All approved drives designated as fire lanes shall be signed as such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. All fire apparatus access roadways shall be designated no parking. 22. A fire sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in those structures deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. An automatic system shall be. required on all parking levels and pedestrian ways. 23. Entry gates or other control devices for the parking structure proposed at the entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department, and all other appropriate departments. 24. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney's office and contain a provision that will.prohibit storage of vehicles, trailers, and other materials on site, unless an area that is specifically designated for such storage is provided for in the project. 25. The developer, Agency, and the city shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the public parking area, municipal pier, and all landscaping. The perimeter walkway, lighting, etc., shall be maintained by the project=s association. 26. The developer, Agency, and the city shall execute a landscape maintenance agreement with provisions determined by the city for the maintenance of. landscaping along the street frontages. 27. All fire access roads are to be a minimum 24 feet. 28. All canopies or roof structures over roadways are to provide a minimum overhead clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height from the road area to the.lowest point of the canopy within the 24 foot road clearance. 29. All corner turns of fire lanes are to be a minimum of 17 feet inside and 45 feet outside radius. vv .14. y` t t 5 -j - 4�7 30. The beach access roadway on the south must be a minimum 24 feet and must loop with the beach access road on the north side of the pier. This roadway must also be a minimum 24 feet. The overhead clearance under the pier must be a minimum 13 foot 6 inches in height. The roadway must be designed to facilitate beach service vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian access, subject to city review and approval. 31. The roadway and access ways designated as fire lanes on the pier and over the subterranean parking area are to be reinforced to sustain the weight of fire apparatus. 32. Another stairway shall be located on the north side of the pier, subject to review and approval of the Fire Department and Development Services Department. 33. Fire hydrants shall be installed on fire access roadways and the pier to provide fire apparatus with an access travel distance of 150 feet or less from all structures. 34. An automatic supervised fire alarm system shall be installed to provide the following: (a) Audible alarm. (b) Water flow signal. (c) Valve tamper signal. (d) Trouble signal. (e) Manual pull station. (f) Graphically displayed in strategic location(s). 35. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the G-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for fittings and structural members to withstand anticipated G-factors, shall be submitted to the city for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 36. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the facilities shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. 37. The developer shall provide the city with a detailed description of the project's proposed security systems for review and approval by all affected departments. 38. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities,.water heaters, and central heating units. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will-install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Department. V W 39. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 40. During construction, the developer shall make adequate provisions for continued pier access. The construction of the super structure of the proposed expanded deck areas on the pier shall be limited to the non-summer months. 8.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43) 1. The proposed "Pierside Village" will have a detrimental effect upon the general health welfare, safety, and convenience of persons residing or working in the area and be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed use is not in conformance with the city's adopted General Plan. 3. The proposed use is not compatible with existing or other proposed or anticipated uses in the area. 4. The proposed location, site layout, and design will not properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another on the site are not properly integrated. 6. The proposed access to and parking for the "Pierside Village" will create traffic or circulation problems. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: (COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-27) 1. The proposed "Pierside Village" is not consistent with the city's Coastal Zone suffix and the visitor-serving commercial standards, as well as other provisions of the Huntington.Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; it does not conform with all plans, policies, requirements, and standards of the city's Coastal Land Use . Plan. ATTACHMENTS: - 1. Area map. 2. Site plan, elevations„ and section drawings, dated 9/11/86. 3. Augmented site plan sheet 2, dated 9/12/86. 4. Project description. 2798h `s 1 , ` AVE. C ID MUE: Nib e �.u. MIRA t:—yam,—' a.PCAN bt, � •'�' 3 I�DE lI I ;�' rit i;�'k•t,..,fi � •p .} B L.J i � z• MH T,co-F�•Av R2•PD-CZ R PD- - dy. o u . f e) a ?: C � BA 71AIORE AVE • ' 1$ ,� � �'T� p#a r•t t i:.' ;': �'S'TFc4i, J - � ((R2-PO-C2f •R2'PD-C2 :}J � g ti, }e .c r,� f."- ...._ r... ... qQ'!. r\ •\ � - ..:.ter }- - .- P f= J t Qs•s A t.�i y� a Fw.-roa FM•PD-CZ r / m I .ies�::.o4: 1,..,•vnptgr:-.. r t r r P - IIt(cw;:Ad f r R2-PD-CZ TOWN FIC ° I MH—CZ A1Me ro ct 1111�7 t.. d S tii`pr Ir ( q1 / �DI ST ICTMBa� �; �' R2-PO-CZ m S. ro-c:F°:uil�f i i r... R2-PO-CZ �+ R2-PD-CZ 9*y�lr Y°� 3"{e•: � SpfC/a n � R2-PDCrKiVEOI_-,••,'�.. *y cl °�41 �.�� R2 PDCZ ir') �'''t' y \ Rio �? 1 4ti .i •-:, ;;;i__;7tf + ' c 2-PD-CZ r,• ' F!cR�lC��iO % -C DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN- t '),{: ti DIST , Y r CtIpa6 -,-43/CPPt3G-,wZ- 7 Cy i sJx r �• i � J+�• r t. �CY7 t to i ' rrt. �t~tr NUNTINGTCINBEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION t +. i �'¢'{.1rf:,wk}� �s-tlp+i la-r'. r '.. • 7 . . jJt•yy PIERSIDE VILLAGE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA BRYANT MORRIS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pierside Village is proposed to be an oceanfront specialty retail center on four levels; two levels below grade (one subterranean parking level and one partially subterranean level of narking .and retail with beachfront exposure) , and two levels above grade (housing the majority, of the retail activities) . The project has been designed to comply with the Huntington Beach District 10 Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown Architectural Design Guidelines. The retail shop areas are proposed to be Type 5 - One Hour -Construction and- will conform to all Huntington Beach Build- ing Ordinances. The retail structures will beerected above the- two subterranean parking levels, which will be Type I- cast in place concrete with' steel reinforcement-fully sprinkled structures. The finished surfaces of -the project will replicate the _ Mediterranean architecture of_ the Greek -Isles. Thus, 90% of all exterior vertical surfaces will be whitewashed stucco; with the remaining 10% being the painted wood trim elements such as -doors , stairways, shutters , and railings . All common area finished floor surfaces will be slabbed and honed metamorphic stone pavers set in a white mortar bed with expressed grout lines. Roofing will be either traditional terra cotta tile .or traditional parapeted flat masonry roofing, tvpical of .1editerranean island architecture. - Landscaping will be typical of the Mediterranean motif as well; ie, .flowering vines such as Bougainvillaea placed randomly _ throughout --the common areas, planted in authentic olive oil vats. Other landscaping will be container.,.planted flowers and plants indigenous to the Mediterranean.,and Southern Califor- nian climates. PLEASE REFER TO RENDERINGS -� 7"t' 7-.' -r '' - � -r 7 i'� ��: .✓x i- a' +v.`�' �ay. C°E.A t �. �� �' ,4,h -.t: ?- te4 ; J• .1- ..," ,�s __ y"4__ ,G-... rl_ - �..."'� a Ytx l#.}-��^X-��---` � c��y.�.�' -.`s�-r1A`a���fa4,;, ��,�`�,��, �"4 'ti" n --? r .s i i.s, "Yr _ - -L r - v-'-Y s4 4- , K.^� s• =Yy; y �sd.. '�, ?c'-Gr '"z3. F� s jN y�:,. E_.�:-,f�`.'yx�.; �2�••:c„`�p� 1 P a ,C a. .s• �S-; •d` [j�s`v<s. x4i.c k� Y' 'k'Y .;+_.., v'rc� r s_ a. ►A O 1 r 1 O O O A.I M 1 o N M A I-------------- - I I • -� --- T t E F ' 1 - t a T r frr rrr-r�'�W� R IT.FrT Fr f 4-TT117 r� / I I MMACI rA1Ml10 , l ... � ' AM STRUT YANI lfN!!/I — `1 I !IL1J I � _.. • id �f 1 A B C D E IF W ' r l — — f_A ,''�G�i:^ .•' Y .!ACM PARKING TABULATIONS 4- lTANOAM STALLS N Yy I AMWAr.TALL! IT .! Iowa A "r:"•�'jl '! MAVAC!rAMMo N W i TIMAC!L!I!L ►AMMO IN ;::•:, MAC"LlY4►AMMO Nl ' IOIAL IAMMO l/l ITKLI r t SITE PLAN 2 is R ;r i; o P — n ' � necN •oouo ■oho Lu cc I C„ N •yf O PROMENADE PLAN +" to b in t k �1�4 11 F Qq�J t � 7 �4F Ir l j{ y r 5 : }pry' 1 .•1,.f}"i 1."� 1ti�Tl'IJ.i T.:..it r n .r 1� F � `.,(`�.Ytl _��'r=��7 c�=.unw ruw.a niwlor��—r�uioao araa�wrr=--�l------------- -------------�� __—_=___________==� ( �_____ �•��:•�S --------------------- ----------- I I--_—_--_�____--__—_I—___---��'`` ' �_---- •j^t, 1 I .jr 1 ■/Tw4DOY.MRM..1•N•M R' ll��L1L1 111_ll11��111 _ .,;y(•. ;•'� •' ��� �---_----_—i=—_---- o o • • •Tan••.i •wnp•1AoraroAL. I _�` ;�--_- � � 1�, a.rT•r..rwwcl 1.1 1 1_I1.1 1 �_I � t I ,1 rpj @PROM"DOTAL i filet, " I O wawn,DOTAL ' 1F L- -- -- -----� �-- _� 0. wl ♦l PARKING TABULATION91 —j •ralowo STALLS 1.0 1 Awiooa r rwor orwu 1' to COMPACT STALLS TOTAL 100 ♦� . • 1'7, ,1 If TERRACE LEVEL PARKING PLAN Y j• ' i, to w 1„ EQZMF— r NUNNO MANS OM •. ° O O _ - - = i-�-I-f-�{-�� ICI- °� I�I��FI�Ei • I.I_I E I-I-I E -�-�-I-��I-�-E�-I-f-I = � � a � � :. �� r. SAW — --11Iar"-- NAI�M�MMI�.NNM84 NORM 00.7i O ° Y U{.TNO M.TAYUWI 1 I o o IL L-----------� ma 6 s. sa d ', >t`?: ;•', PARKING TABULATIONS J _i„+•;7:�'. n/uouio 91MAS an •'}' Cr` CONTACT STALLS Iw Q jF TOTAL 480 )0- i J BEACH LEVEL PARKING PLANIL t h?t1 1 � p i •. . ' Ay' r r l F/4 h _ j , � �i I�I,I;�j � z m .0 2 ELEVATIONS BRYANT L MORRIS DEVELOPMENT Wgm 03 PER SM MN&OPMMT MA� J�CWJGL KNnwroN aEAcH PACF= P&MAM Morft" CALFOR14A �! t• rl GRAM 9 l (1 It •{ wraN u�� FFdd YffOM lff f � t::,� ol RAW OOwN t TO f0' .,AVfrMATCH LEG I LEVEL on l _ PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ELEVATION j. 9 . _•',:thy.�.'. f ,�. " c c Kj ,7:eazly i ..Mr ,Vt=,�.. �rl•a I is i. ■■rl■O K■1MMM� .i. NORTH PIER ELEVATION O '% Oil 01 ' Q t 4_^— ■arnr■ur n •,\ "i��:. A- a r. 6nQ ' t• f ..... ,4 SOUTH PIER ELEVATION flls' to M , 1 dd �+ r �}$4 s+"� .• � .fir� �'J ez ZVI Lf IL 6A I w1Cw LOG 9L W s ,t �r�d�,�,�5 +Jj di f nL r .y"Y' 10 � •,d' a��M+ n171 fSF 7 I t NORTH ELEVATION ( MAIN STREET ) t I Gl y e t x jT yyy,�� �h�j f i Itr��• • ti. �x ^i AEfi4.: Tea r xIA Nb� 4�-, `•YS a, UCj '°yB�f �pOP TO: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE UNDERSIGNED (BUSINESS 6 PROPERTY OWNERS IN DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON EACH) SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WE, AS SIGNERS OF THIS PETITION, AND AS BUSINESS & PROPERTY �tWNERlJkC "TOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO SET A PUBLIC HEalkT.Wd F0%EkjA;1 PIER I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (PIERSIDE VILLAGE) CONDITIONAL ' S 9 RM` 86-4 ;"'SAND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 86 27. WE SUPPORT THE CONCEPT, BUTT RE I Q•If�F�p& THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT ADEQUATE: THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PARKING PROVIDED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED IS EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED WE ARE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO MODIFY PLANS TO PROTECT EXISTING BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WE HAVE READ THE ATTACHED INFORMATION SHEETS. co 'Signature Address,._... , Signature Address I Signature Address " �l Signature. L' �~ Address Signature Address Sign t re Addre s Signatu e � � i ;! Address Signature i r' Address u✓ �, / lt �t) '` j 2`/ ;•=G21� CfJ41 fz' S u� ,�7�.. Flo ���L Signature f ..�� it ' Add s ApApAj JOUGLAS M• LA1J6-Edit Signatu ' arR6 Pv wTucKmvr hz N,a rAL grab44 (awNfiR- a I MAMA) ST E Address TO: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE UNDERSIGNED (BUSINESS 6 PROPERTY OWNERS IN DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH) r SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WE, AS SIGNERS OF THIS PETITION, AND AS BUSINESS & PROPERTY OWNER IN DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAIN-PIER 1 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (PIERSIDE VILLAGE) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-43, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 86-27. WE SUPPORT THE CONCEPT, BUT ARE CONCERNED THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT ADEQUATE: THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PARKING PROVIDED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED IS EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED WE ARE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO MODIFY PLANS TO PROTECT EXISTING BUSINESS AND PROPER OWNERS THE DOW TOWN AREA. WE HAVE READ THE ATTACHED INFORMATION SHEETS. Sig ture , n f car , .� Address C,C Signature G l ` G>,r�•a.• Sr/¢ �*NnCie�n+�J Add ts S i gnatu_r e,% _ ccnit--� Addre ACI $Ss Signature �o z "J�; Address 1 - S i gna re Adop6ss c0 S i C O' I C"1 1 ►1 s T. c f Address-11� _ Signature I: I Ole Add f Signature l Ad res Address TO: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE UNDERSIGNED (BUSINESS & PROPERTY OWNERS IN DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH) SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WE, AS SIGNERS OF THIS PETITION, AND AS BUSINESS & PROPERTY OWNER IN DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAIN-PIER I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (PIERSIDE VILLAGE) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-43, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 86-27. WE SUPPORT THE CONCEPT, BUT ARE CONCERNED THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT ADEQUATE: THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PARKING PROVIDED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED IS EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED WE ARE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO MODIFY PLANS TO PROTECT EXISTING BUSINESS AND PROP RTY OWNERS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WE HAVE READ THE ATTACHED INFORMATION SHEETS. Si re [-4 '19r s Wture - cock— Add - Box ttc V- j�N Si e /'�/o'. k4i,-AI71 wpzTOAI - B Eat W C,7f C2 -- eAle � signature n a y G l 6 Ad es - ignat re - Alf t l rr Ad ress �U _��� 13 MUD IRE � jlC n. ! -G a,6 Si9n ��eL41 Ll i-► J) Add- Signature Ell Address Signature Address Signature Address Signature Address TO: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE UNDERSIGNED (BUSINESS 6 PROPERTY OWNERS IN DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH) SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WE, AS SIGNERS OF THIS PETITION, AND AS BUSINESS 6 PROPERTY OWNER IN DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH, REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAIN-PIER I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (PIERSIDE VILLAGE) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-43, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 86-27. WE SUPPORT THE CONCEPT, BUT ARE CONCERNED THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT ADEQUATE: THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PARKING PROVIDED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED IS EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED WE ARE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO MODIFY PLANS TO PROTECT EXISTING BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WE HAVE READ THE ATTACHED INFORMATION SHEETS. Signature Address Signature Address Signature Address Signature Address Signature Address Signature s Address ' Signature Address Signature Address Signature Address Signature i F Address i INADEQUATE TIME FOR PUBLIC REVIEW THE CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR PIERSIDE HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR NEARLY A YEAR. THE FINAL PLAN, REVIEWED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS, WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON MONDAY SEPTEMBER 15, WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 16. THE DEPARTMENT REVIEWS WERE COMPLETED LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON, SEPTEMBER 12. IN A FOUR TO THREE VOTE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE PLAN. THE DETAILED PLANS WERE AVAILABLE ONLY 33 HOURS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IMPROPER NOTIFICATION PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 600 FT. OF THE PROJECT DID NOT RECEIVE A WRITTEN, MAILED NOTICE. A NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER -- DID YOU SEE IT? CHAMBER OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHAMBER INDICATED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING THAT THE CHAMBER SUPPORTED THE PROJECT. DID THE CHAMBER BOARD MEET MONDAY OR TUESDAY (9/15 & 9/16) , AND TAKE OFFICIAL ACTION ON THE PLANS? CONDITIONS OF THE PLAN INADEQUATE A) NO CONTROL ON SIZE OF SHOPS. LEASING FORMULA (ATTACHED) SHOWS 425 SQ.FT. WHICH MAKES THEM SPECIALTY SHOPS. NOTHING STOPS THEM FROM EXPANDING TO 1 ,000 OR MORE FEET TO "REGULAR" SHOPS. A VAGUE CONDITION (9) ALLOWS A CLERK TO DECIDE SQUARE FOOTAGES AND PROPOSED USES. DEVELOPER STATED THAT THERE IS NO DISCOUNT ON LEASES TO EXISTING SHOP OWNERS - THIS IS FREE ENTERPRISE. H,B. COMPANY IS "DONATING" THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN LAND, AND THE CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IS PROVIDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THIS PROJECT (LAND, ETr. .) . THIS IS FREE. ENTERPRISE? 8) THE CITY STAFF REPORT STATES PHASE 1 OF PIERSIDE WILL HAVE AN ONSITE SHORT- AGE OF 280 PARKING SPACES. CONDITION 13 HAS THE SOLUTION: "THE DEVELOPER SHALL PREPARE A PARKING AND MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL PLAN FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. THIS PLAN SHOULD ADDRESS VALET SERVICES SHUTTLE PROGRAMS, AND METHODS OF CONTROLLING VEHICULAR AND INGRESS AND EGRESS". THE CITY HAS SOLVED OUR DOWNTOWN PARKING PROBLEM THE SAME WAY THEY SOLVED CHARTER CENTER ON BEACH AND WARNER! . . . . ALLOWING A SHORTAGE OF 280 SPACES DOES NOT SOLVE DOWNTOWN PARKING. IF STATE OWNED LAND CAN BE PURCHASED ON THE NORTH SIDE, A SURPLUS OF 409 SPACES IS ESTIMATED. PHASE I SHOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO BE BUILT ON NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE NOW! ! ! C) PIERSIDE HAS BEEN COMPARED TO PROJECTS IN LONG BEACH AND SAN DIEGO. THOSE TWO PROJECTS ARE ONE LEVEL. PIERSIDE IS 100,000 SQUARE FEET LARGER THAN SAN DIEGO (11 ACRES) ; 282,000 SQUARE FEET LARGER THAN LONG BEACH (7 ACRES) . PIER- SIDE IS LESS THAN 5 ACRES AND IS ABLE TO PROVIDE 13 ACRES BY BUILDING THE PROJECT ON FOUR LEVELS. THE PROJECT IS THE LARGEST ON THE LEAST AMOUNT OF LAND. D) ORIGINAL "PROJECT SCOPE" SHOWED A TOTAL OF 75,000 SQUARE FEET. CITY STAFF'S COMMENT IN REPORT DATED 9/16/86, "THROUGH THE NEGOTIATION OF THIS AGREEMENT, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE ORIGINAL 'PROJECT SCOPE' WOULD NEED TO BE MODIFIED." IN EVERYDAY LANGUAGE - LET'S MAKE IT BIGGER. THE PROJECT IS NOW 106,000 SQUARE FEET! BRYANT MORRIS WATERFRONT PROJECTS SAN DIEGO LONG BEACH SEAPORT VILLAGE SHORELINE VILLAGE PIERSIDE. VILL'AGE TOTAL ACRES 11 7 13 (ALL LEVELS) TOTAL SO FTG(ALL LEVELS) 480,000 304 ,500 586,700 • TOTAL NET 90,000 72,000 106,000 LEASEABLE # SHOPS / 55 / 46,500 22 / 26,000 60 / 50,000 NET LFASEABLF # FAST FOOD / 13 / 12,000 9 / 7,000 16 / 14,000 NET LEASEABLF # RESTAURANTS / 3 / 31,500 2 / 24,000 4 / 42,000 NET LEASEABLE TOTAL PARKING 500 400 696 SPACES RATIO OF NET LEASEABLE T'OOTAGE 180 SO FT / CAR 180 SO FT / CAR 152 SQ FT / CAR • PER PARKING SPACE . 1 I ( •A 0 1•1 f f O a t M 1 f f w f r I�1 1 E F _ 1 I I 101+1111111T 1�_i.. FmOil I I I I I MT-4T T fl I I I R-H I I ....a•r.ri. .. 3 I ! ! r"ftffft `2" ww ff.nr twlro urrwn.rt r ' T _ ' fo•c« � Iloea•f fo.f d F> A B C D E F ww It C Q f D: r ff.cr U PARKING TABULATIONS •1 I �1. KUIfNe ItYlf M 1r1OCM ff�f 1t tOtq M a I I .r1•.a.rww « w I r•a mot• A •rws or"ALL@ I II I n I (� SITE PLAN i ,f«r1 woo a m w.=. , 4 Oil . o 1-mo .""Lon @ J� • Z - Q 1 t •to W o0ww ro „ MItMO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ELEVATION 9 • Bryant L-Monis Development 429 Shoreline Village Dr., Suite N, Long Beach, CA 90802 (213) 435-7779 September 12, 1986 Mr. Mike Adams Principal Redevelopment Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Lear Mr. Adams: We submit the following leasing formula for Pierside Village. It would only be prudent, however, that several re-evaluations will follow before we have a finalized formal leasing program. f i 3 Major Restaurants * Average square foot size: 10,000 * 39% of total square footage * Full service themed specialty restaurants r r 3 24 Specialty Food Boutiques (Fastfoods) * Average square foot size: 510 * 22% of toal square footage * Over the counter and cafe type specialty and finger foods, e.g. creperie, gourmet coffees & 'teas, cookies-freshly baked, brownies bars & squares, juice bar, natural foods, gourmet hot dogs, inter- national chocolates, fresh roasted nuts, fudge, popoorn, salad bar, potatoes. 65 Specialty Retail Boutiques f * Average square foot size: 425 * 42% of total square footage * Highly specialized single category and themed gift retail, e.g. kites, silk floral, puppets, wooden toys, travel accessories, sunglasses, crystal, leather, card, stationery, etc. , pottery, mugs. The types of shops listed herein are sane of the typically found uses in the specialty environment. f I Sincerely, c t L. is p :nh f= �/ - _► �, r, �G �f, �� � � 1 _� \ s • Publish - 10/2� q'3%o !_p,/J 7- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO THE PLANNING CU-1MISSIGN S APPROVAL OF CONDITICNAL USE PERMIT NO & COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-27 Pierside Village NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Monday, October 13, 1986 TIME: 7:30 P. M. SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43/Coastal Development Permit No 86-27 - Appeal APPLICANT: The Huntington Pacifica Development Corp. and Bryant L. Morris Development in conjunction with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. APPELLANT: Huntington Beach Tomorrow ZCNING: Downtown Specific Plan, District 10 PROPOSAL: To permit development of a 87,500+ square foot specialty ��"" commercial center, related support facilities and �6 s 62q Y2'�' space parking structure on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street. Said development will generally be located within the existing parking lot just south of the pier. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is within an appealable area of the Coastal Zone($ems. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered by previously approved Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2 and Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area Focused Environmental Impact Report (July, 1982) . CUT FILE: A copy of the proposed project filed on September 3, 1986 is on file in the Department of Development Services. OP COASTAL APPEAL P A"' n taken by the City Co o -the a Coastal Develo ermit may be appea d directly to astal Commission within workin ys from the date of the Council's ctio . The from must be filed in accordan with the adopted regulations of the ifor 'a Coastal Commission with: Cali nia Coast a Commission 2 W. Broadway, Su 380 . 0. Box 1450 Long Beach, CA 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions .of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405 Dated 9/30/86 a C..�7 r'>s?r�Y''"2r f*4..�•.tt r , ;ti� �c,d/C�:r 4 e,�f!-�i., � a•'gi's,� �q;�.�,;r'xM4•-, ,fx-`'Sr a,}'i F •?i' H r.< - y � E.h,'�i�,Y /:�.� ' -F'A` d.F .f4 i'a af't 7 ;f,.2 `� P:.�+;"1�P.?° ., tf',;. a :dr �,54. «d r{'r r �� y F,r"Z:'Ar y.' nr•.• 1 ,fit pp i t:>r r„i` i��Y�cy k� �ra ` 'w,vi S4 ' >��.�.,, ����,�,�r �}+�{F, r fl""ls' � 'tk`�` s^�L� •7�i P is. Kr r �{!�A'Si+f.t7'xy,sP. t•"1L�y3 � K r SI`d r��., k ' r>'SlY,1'r, k.sM� ` :•_.. �F:�,� Z '. �; "S,��fr2 t7Y�, J� '�t� � �, rJ.� 't{ 1 �F ¢ i r � f••4a 4 rA.y J'�� �j A, 1 '� A YT• ,,� t�,r,� � y!•5� � ✓�r ,� r�lv > �� "` ci � f � t`.4�+c+� µ '''4Y 5. t ^t ;+,tt•� 6 � - {a li'F's '''�. C r•1 41 O rtf � '� :'� •.r In ��'ic �"��E4'�",� M' �,'. `'X, r�rt � i et''s Y >�rr '��S.sZ }� s�'" `1:c O •r1 d W ,C F ��d, •'yz; r r"^ e' ��x"�r7( t af+ 'tr7J 'Fj la�t1R3'+�Yl �,ri� "Id>��. •rl �C � O G) L' 1`l / J,R + �. !Js, s�*x, ':r��F ;�': >xMi ;� �`yry,rP � a� UJ .-1 f0•.•� .0 O r•1 O #+ ^�, _ }h •:`Se , +l �st+ �t'i,k Ft y (£,t�� Rrry a U) JJ 'O �. C 41 Q) •.-1 r�•.i ` }}a 4 •.- s r/r{c.l 1,�c ` I .-1 f0 to A U r'-1 (a 0) L+ ',�gn H to S4 GL y t �r' 41 O -A Z° ', z•% rr r-4 O JJ f0 f0 N O C•r1 M 0J/��.0 WC '•�r-.y1 IV (�a) :Uy .� '*R 7 � ''• �' , 41 1. � � 1;_�rit. � 13� ` i� 1 N • f0 N •r1.0 fn .1.J U J:. O W r }�' .•��} + ",;. (v U) C 4J 1.4 ••4 4J C„ 4„1 y iI s • t,,fi'�it; ,k �r J. 1 ,� y,�u i3t {F 4) N r-1 0G)0 N O a) W 1 , e, a 41 ::1 O 9 Q O O O � .�"s"'S.#- .� ���>• I. 9•t�4 ri �'r'<t1r fwa � ,/' ry $5✓, J ,, !. �• r0 ,,,,) 1 r e �y; Sb' I . . ,r yP s'.�ty?� k, >t 4�t',•iFr Jt ,� N d f0 t0 �i U .1 t $�" „het ';�',� i ��24 � �s. . P-4 >1 r-4 U'Ci• Q� � Q� 1•� y"�}��y, �YY.- f. r { J't"� JJ /0 11 :1 d.••) ✓ U JJ N C, INSt sy J f N •ri tT Ja N 3 +; • x m �x�'{' t k i i`r O RI U N N CDl1 N 'C7 aJ O1 i t , my r\ b rjr t "�yft 3 nYL• R i 3 r JJ (2F W JJ ri 'J 1 Gl Gl b7 fi r� n 4n y-; 2yy�1 "13•.1�,iYc..R 4.'"a's ° 1j�` fr f{{Yt> a • I' tii'; � t , 'v�F7 ,<�. r. , t' '�'�f �"�'<�# � ��ts7rjvJ •s b N -AJJ a1 dr C 10 CJ J.: ..Q ^r; r ,f'�.' y •'�'y . .4���,',,S�v, , r ::c 1 ��Ei l '�' t + x+ e � i Q1 F•.'1 IT r-i O q3 4 rZ I : 3�r?�� "J i 4'".�'� '� ,1 �(f PI �,,�,i�`.�e4t Iry'�,t,` r-1 N N 1a H � C I •r-1 .1.) O �,.. � 4'�'`�i�s�`g+ri Y+ „.t 4 O O totr O 41 C o 41 •:Al N Ca 00 r{•. J J JJ e 3 b 3 . RS /0 - ,LJ , '. " N OCt O E .34 N O A- er) >1 W N rt C r a r r-1 rl N M .0 � pp O Rf U 3 ra rat K r '2• ^k,�?: w r.,<•,� �1 ` w d tt 1 ►+J r-•I c Ei r'•) .• f0 Its 10 04 r-4 O O ,aJ •r4 ro aJ U-A C a!^ o ro N � �� •, xr N r-1 ° O $4 rC O •.4 •.4 •rl 41 O N•rl �J �]+'C7 ri V� O J.1 r-I N 'J , ro ,� �, D JJ C11 G)0) RJ W f!1 Z7 iJ oV'' a U fo 4J . -r4 C,' •ri ° 10 s. 14 �" ^{+ ' P ! p ,�!i. f. /' 1 , .tar• . 't7 (st�`jt� r i• {, x 5 r a "� �1 k �� fir. N !A C N 10 IT, RS►'i J. G1 •1� N " t^ �' ' O 3 U 3 JJ O d 1a r�� 'rr,n,{�t'� t'iw������'� x X�tycl�i � �' � �};t �;�"t. "'�'� � : Cl+ • � /0 `'O U rCJ `O U (L f0 G 1; O J] R7 Mu1 to 1.� rr,. ;r fa'1 JJe1 •�t + r r �k# CD ­4O UO ­4 W (0 4) 4.) Imo'"., ka ';•'�., '� •+{t:s;_x2 ai' ,•' y > O ►,i O N • 'C7 C 0n O FO Oh 0 4J •.-I C Y` 1 a -IF r ` N rl 4J 1 N o C t� tll Gl u1 a N N c0 ? }� we,ti* 4�, Aw tss�+$3, + ?,a, t 'Cy .A 0 �"� rtf O • v' CO .Q N rt GJ {•:s "� ' 'sslr!stlLS tt.,," � •{y� .0 '� O ' Writ r-f ^ 1' O f.l•rl ',�:' Fr$+y k+d�. a.�' J d; .teh4. •,L�a�. 6r� i', �F• r��9� th�f'"i�i,� •,� �,� {, gg ,1s i�' 1 N C 1J b+ U •.� CTM 'C7 C U r1 •. Ja r; ,' P� � it •.-1 U •r•1 CT r4 Ln M C r-1 O_1 N a yt Y t: ? aij�• s r,'�,\ iY' r , ..'� �.,a a�1I ,' >. . ...GZI. 1 u d n�1.a a N ta C 1 x 'fl,`•J ry.5, 4 `9 F. t �1 W •r'1 v ..^' °a aJ V/ ? iti'ua f1 + !� ' fi " a a a O J1 U CT 11 r1 CL U •.+ 4 l s f W C'y O S.d • d'°` S:, aF ? ,w•. Srir{ C 'J�F ' e' O' JJ f0 C C b 0 N yJ I•$ �f . �; A?' !, IjY'i isi `ti•J,' dr7 a °�!A'1G 4 t'/ ,�d" �` fit{ t''§I •rl O •r.1 frl J-1 3 r-{ .Q N b • ✓n` d at• a ....R.. ' "IJ 1[1 C .r4 Q1 to) C N d 01 R3 'LS E rl 1J Ir J a t+a•y5,fl}.'S`�",s�,'yJ. Gl*1'` ,}. v• # a r C•.-1' LL G1 •rl �r r� ry F ti > rtf O O N •.1 >•i^M to'����'yr~�r ''F1l Y"Vt Jr rt <4�h`�h '1°t {? ' M1 j '• 5 �y'.r ° :J /4 •" C � r ­4 O W rV W N -A N •A p ra M O W U i�sw y + r�k1,+ F y e t Yss lvi Y4 s it {it't5. f N O • 4 •r1 �, JJ � C � ^� 1a W = 1 u ri rr4�,� a7 ti� o k rF•,t, •`4..� iM1,l.�tr '4;,.tbwYN� j',{r,1 1r t ?J' J f< W U 1 JJ iJ 4 •�' -'•1 H U O .0 4) C. w M C JJ .Q 1J P,N° 1 4�,1`'4.,ts.�•i-Y• :4M',t��J}� ��,l�t dt',^�'f �'/it�fi,{,F 5jd �� � F{:'f°c Wei;.:f. t 4 l f.�rr, a r1i=1, •Ft Y�. yr,s •, d4 .r. ?erX4` .It;t ,:;ba.w. t'6pp:s ,r.,'•o:rf ,C4 1 aVii :fit 't': 4 ': �T i• .,,j?vT,'1..f,•, Y"t'. r.J•.:E e' ..;-. w, Q :S, ,O.,SS ;' i $ ' ��,,rr , ar;•t.+'�,,� '� ri. ::\:b..,t 'gy�.'.»k'- •.{' F,.:�• '� .7 s ,e d•`! J-�.t`t•�,, 'Jk.y. l��'iM ,.y,}. xsk'S" '.L�.�: t'L �f• ;t, r -fi - k s rs.;t• .�., ,7 t` J.L e ;Pt, 'tiA• ,S ,[d s t:.. .)',,, .I gip: '4tE't'• " ie •:�k (, ;it r•.. �r� •Tir 4< 't t. .�:. '4✓,, ,F.p. 1 .�(t. '7�Y.r. '.�i?Pft�. �•,s�•' 1 :lti. I E,�.x. r,R ��.,�',: ,; < k 4 � ,,,ry�e,ty f I fi`ah ,<ts ,*c,L 1 F,zz t,a �..��'?�,•S <r», ,.. t. r, ,��s•^,�# s r,•?'�a4• a:� Y�t, �7f -P. '..�. �.�rj r, b. ,,.. ? /t rF✓<. ��r,,S t. L,.:Y J) 7 ,9' t7 ,'. '., AUr.,,� h.K� �:^.: .,t2,yn. .q'F.'•?g' ,�.'.Jr�rf, .. •t >p.�' ":'•.'�..• .:, 4t., +tS,1 a F[.'-P: ,7� `!.' , T:i'4 tYs: +,`$ ��'?:, j: A+ Z� • ,F r tl .� d tiYr R i,'k`?.. f>F J t"z.!' 4 r,*[, Jt:,J- '�,J'.J .tf tyf�',..� r rz•• �n '�r � s ,� ;k� .�. �,+�k.a�n;� �,r,�,, ,.E t ,,,al'':,'•'J.,a ::� ?� 4. '� :!•(: -,5+. i -.-r t.>.' ,1• .�:f:' ., �1"�k tt•• <ta. ,y4.�a "✓ •.�" . .� 'P, a` ,� ,..' G,�' r .•t;;� ,.t., ih '.f :�.,:;,, �' F ,t•.:,ti, {, a, .re..• k'f�+. '''4 -�$:' s X. -.?; ..i'::r r. +�7 c'• ;s'p..:�, t5�,::K � �'t''.>!. :,'r� i a ,S:Z,. �^'..� 'a��'i. ,idy .��'1. , ,Y�•;,n :g • . .. •t",�i., ,� � .< t'^.i'i'::Yv x,,r. ,y �.:q, :: •,�i r 4;t: �e n✓•. ... . is.,.t': J.,;_ t'�.' .t�. �,?:, � ,1.' a iwk ..,�¢7?'y � ., ,r., ;" r�� .'�! ••><4 d. `•� � '.k¢` y�� J, ,_,>, ,,t,#.�•�t• ;r:"�'., ,'�;{:s, F s 7z,s'.., U,*� � �,5 t,:�`• �'.,, y r t� 'v �F cy � '� .1:i �4.t . i' �i',,E;} J,v v r�".:.�t�. � •+,�l:Y. rtF ..��'. a�.�• �s. ' "•.•-i It r,a ,fit Mt., q t. ,'i, ( ` ��„s, ' .$ :,sr s,.'; ."i� �: ..I. �.,r•� � v'7:'ftrl• t.. !�� .tizhssx,...S, Rr�.ti:.5 aA: {ir.H44.`.. k,LL1{fly."$r'+ �:,f��. ..h'K ,�. 1 'P �' � .'f,' 'i.,}!' _Q J:: ,}y;.i• y •w s . �r,I 'n r. r'} r 'A4. {,.., �,l�tf! i 3'•;;-i5 r K:,a< ,/...air x, trXQe 1Fu "' •�5•. 4.�k..�• <i., � W. 4+ 'If•is• '.^A y f�sq�� } S' A ;k' 1'f ..4d .,$: .#` ;��1, 'r ,t,; :1' 1.r.•, C �,$i � ,A .,y ¢ ".1,SY?'3 .,F� ,•¢., �^'�' 4 li7`f�,. :.fiY:E.t,;, t,V, qr`. ( 'L,. ,!`;ia 5,.. y i t., t U ,.n n 9. t i; y• >V. � 3t .�.6, ,.p y9,•s, ,.,t; !Fx ,;I'`,'Y.. 2$Fy4'i'1 +P°`?(>v.7'' q ..r :f°{'.. -•I .i:. ?,� d'Y'h'�' '+ .$ Q -S. ` .7!t, "'t i r M 5 F'', 4 N. .�...r:'N 1 0.. rA�,:IM' ,y.:,:>. i .k ":v •�°" 'f' `r.. F� .S +v ':;9. - ..-�+. .(/�r ,'��c. r' ;,>�, a+ rr,,�'�F 'ht: YF' ,i+ .•t.t., !, _ F5 9 .t`.k .C,4J' to t.,e: .� `y, w� M "� ��,�'�. :"r. :t't .� . , �,.;Y� .tf,� �� � , .pit -�.: �•� .� ,. ,.w..sr-,t,t,;. ..Fr.', s"4 ,gyp, .r,. '?4 r, •c Bccs�, .�•;,�'" � f 5 ,f ;t': axe ,�. ,v. ►t� a�:'»+' �t. .�,. tic i j t „atr.. ..o�,'�:v -i�P 5 �.vC '{' `! rs.��9- .7;'� � =5 r. „� � ,f!%'! ,?hro%i' +,t,:?2 t �i' � n •a �, .y> is '�'i. y '4.: t - 'f NOTICE OF PUBLIC 4EARING F 1�.To Ai-01 } CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43 At-a) COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-27 (Pierside Village ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach n will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below.. DATE/TIME: Tu ,-s�, EeptembeF e"'p�,,�..p�lr'"' APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43/CD(' �o �27 AfO' APPLICANT: -e�$liir$ fi96A—� : ZONE: ... Downtown Specific. Plan, District 10 REQUEST: To permit development of a �7 p p ±, square foot specialty commercial center , related support facilities and , + space parking struct r o he ocean side .of o96 Pacifi ast Highway between �- - - and Lake Street: Said development will generally be located within the existing parking iotrer to—gym— �aar�h, of the pier . -rk'L. p°m S► - j e - 1 S wt ivy at n• �j (Ctr0�2 Gt� ®-� '-ENV1R �NML;AN'.L,M" ,� U "' The proposed project is covered by C4LQ previously approved Environmental Impact ' Report No. 82-=2 and Main-Pier' Redevelopment 1 project Area . Focused Environmental Impact Za/lQ, Report (.July• 1982) , 51 Kq& ►s ON FILE: A copy of .the proposed project is filet t n the Department of Development Services, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. - '��� a� ALL IINR N EERE TEED RSONS are in�ed tott nd said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as _outlined above. If there" are any further questions please call the Redevelopment Department at 536-5582. a s W Pa , cr to Hun n o e c P1 i Comm' si (6113d-4) `fil-euvt{ 1� .el'C'►`n r�a in I ' F. k •. ' / ` � .I �' 1 ' i �, � � ,I {� � 9 3�`�' �� t �� I ��I+F"��'Fy,;A' We +,,+ , � � , ' " I••i•I i I .S-!. Y�(�..St. 67 df r1 ,,,�.5 • ..1. i I � ! I I �tl i I I •�• rw+ q,' 31`� a��y��'eP:. I : I � • ¢ � YeS' 4,rt $ r t h7{�iy{{R� . • ! I � I I i � ' , + i !.� .' ! ! ��++f,!s�l t Y ;°i >Rtr� ;r�.qt f. z .4• I y� ,S,rx r, :�� Ln mA ' t � • � .,I�_„ � �; � (, e• �} 4 �! � ( JI t ,11 �� � t 'S} S ����' rp�1tY ' � •.iN'� �i ,�� � � � I I I I � I f riI � R'Cei•I'a .. 1 Yr j'ra4„�f+ I ;I I tl.. 'r ' � t4 1A 1•° ' .. 1 ' • / ; /�� �i ', ! i t ! •�" i � !' � I S 1 ?�'i,'(.�r.. I, �¢1''I S• �``'t �N r 'Yt �Y�}'jtP�''�ri,if,. • I �� UU �' \\ \ I f I � y ::: t I.. t�. ,! �Y n� `r It I +_ n �� i '•i .. � � { f! �.:' 4 � Fri};�?';1. V � � V �n�A .. I { I i I vs,., �.'y `.• 77 FI - � ri1���t'� �3. l •• � (. i I •.� ' Ltd '+�` � ;e ; � r�}*�I IjS � s� it i .. � _ I I I 'V � I I , i.v,•i ,I ',r y ,I '!�) >ll''Ti t I.{J�.�,f,' ( �'#+i [�..,,'<14 I71'`pF3 i I 1 • t,r 1 15 I , t'f� t I I i ' + ,?1 •'I r ,� .{ �,r+ I ` 1 y 1t `e r(T �f���� ' ------ ---71�-- ' �mow.:• •�-` :.wwr• � ��•;�• �, �y • CP 04* a�t"r"Em.a. AGO ....... /• � �� rnM I - _ � �`� III l.t: .. "K i as - / ro wNv ♦ ,.� :, MOB 0 AW it I PEIF t' .,\+file'•�/ � ^y\•, .I I ' Approval of pursuant to PRC S. 30603. A denial may be appealed (5.13319, Title 14, California Administrative Code) only if the City has approved 0-. t��Q *1eve1TVm t on the basis of local land use regulations but has denied the issuance of a coastal development permit because it cannot make the findings required by Section 13311, Title 14 of the California Administrative Code. Pursuant to PRC S. 30603, an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission's review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405 Dated 9/30/86 - Z c F USE BALL POINT PEN ONLY-PRESS FIRMLY - 2 CASH RECEIPT. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH s ,All P.O.BOX 711 i i HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 - } (714)536.5511 KAOH CITY TREASURER-WARREN G.HALL Y ` DEPT.ISSUING1 ��`'` DATE RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS FOR f// IO � �� AMOUNT RECEIVED CASH ED CHECK' $ U A.B.Al RECEIVED BY i 1 ACCOUNT AMOUNT i f f '• M1 1 � 1 } S i i i I. f TOTAL No. 377746 , . . CUSTOMER COPY r i NOTICE TO CLERK TO S HEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: FROM: 1_- f e2-EJO , PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE DAY OF C:5�, 198 . AP's are attached I��s �ejO'1�—OS AP's will follow No AP's Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition Appeal Other n Adoption of Environmental Status (x) IR ND NONE Has City Attorney's Office been YES NO informed of forthcoming public hearing? Refer to ' �j , 44-arm--mj ei 'I - Extension# for additional information. * If appeal , please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal . IS THIS AN APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT (COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ? Pily / YES NO State of California Dept. of General Services Real Estate Division 6-0 Home Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Norman L. Worthy 801 - 13th Street. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 , 024-152-01 Stanford Tharp 1321 Riverside Burbank, CA 91506 - 024-152-02 Energy Development Corp. j 400 S. Beverly Dr. , Ste. 315 Beveriv Hills, CA 90212. 024-152-03 , i John Conley 117 The Masters Circle Costa Mesa, CA 92627 1 024-152-04 01 Frank M. Cracchiolo 19712 Quiet Bay Lane-. - i Huntington Brach, CA -T" f748 024-152-10 - CA�c.I� - H cA e-I 2Co4E5 I � -154-02140q Charles Sarrabere gie J. Taylor = Jhen-F_,.Davis- _:.. - 81anclie wood Via San Remo - Walnut. Ave ;; ''._t!,;" - 2b1 5th Street 44P�ort Beach, CA 92663 tington Beach, CA 92648 024-154-04 024-154-06 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - Clyde Ronald Gates Richard Edward Gardner Gwendolyn I. Wallace 823 Westbourne Drive 1896 Pacific Apt. 502 502 California Street Los Angeles, CA 90069 San Francisco, CA 94109 Huntington Beach,' CA 92648 024-154-07 024-163-U 024-166-03 Assistance League of Allen L. Nelson LeoaD. Marchand Huntington Beach 114 Ocean Ave. Apt. 3 4801 Curtis Circle 302.-Walnut Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-163-.12 024-166-04 024-154-08 Jadoun M. Naber Allen L. Nelson Helen T. Madzoeff 126 Main Street Norma S. Nelson Edward Osepian Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P. 0. Box 836 1 1714 Park Street 024-154-09 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-163-13 Adel M. Zeidan Ella Christensen Gwendolyn Tubach, etal John Naber 633 E. Hartford 33516 Couser Canyon Rd. 126 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Valley Center, CA 92082 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-166-11 024-154-10 Thomas Holwerda William J. Carden �Q,,,cc�d End Cafe 6736. H9.Ilpark Drive ��oS� era;., Gt-��+ p�,5Ni�. P. O. Box 111 Los A _—eies, CA 9006.' Garden Grove, CA 92643Cap,�piCp. ! Huntington Beach. CA 92648 024-163-02 �n�1 I - ' - - - -- --- -- 7-- Norma A. Nelson Maxwell' s Barbara Beal 114 Ocean Ave. ; 317 Pacific Coast Highway 2100 Old Quarry Rd.. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i Riverside, CA 92506 024-163-03 + j 024-146-01 Harvey D. Pease Ruby Scott William J. Tater @Jack-In-The-Box, Inc. 7821 Talbert Ave.- 10062 Merrimac Drive P.O. Box 783 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 San Diego, CA 92112 024-166-02 024-146-03 024-163-14 . j Cynthia G. Taylor Cotton Artalee G. Miller James M. Briggs . 1588 E. Ocean Blvd. 199 N. E1 Camino Rea1,St:-143F .; 14312 Willow Ln. Balboa, CA 92661 ` Encinitas, CA 92024 Tustin, CA 92680 024-163-08 024-146-06 024-146-05 I _ - Norma S. Nelson Jerry C. Williams Blanche A.` Wood P.O_ Box 836 19902 Maritime Lane -201 •--�Sth'Street -=- Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach; CA 92648 ( Huntington $each, CA 92648 024-163-09 024-146-07 024 146 10 ct r - 'James Iu 7 44_ Alice E. -Spar John Teberg - 951 Hamilton Ave. P. O.' Box 270 - tii„6071 Ma Feld Dr _ -CA 94301' Huntington .Beach,`CA 92648 Bunti=�g .��BeaCh� 92648 Palo :Alto.: g- x F 024 146Al2 :.4g 4024:;246-I4 � � 024-163-10 p C'�lroline Burnes Joi in Teberci rrc ie J. Tay]-or Scott 9200 Westminster Ave #90 "Main Str- eet J.'Box 725 Westminster, CA 92683 0Huntington Beach, CA 92648 *Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-147-01 024-147-25 024-147-36 David Burris Thomas Caverly Sylvia Shandrick 220 5th Street 533 Temple Hills Drive 228 2 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Laauna Beach, CA 92651 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-147-03 024-147-26 024-148-01 Willaim Gallegos Thomas Caverly Robert Koury 210 5th Street 533 Temple Hills Drive P.O. Box 65176 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Los Angeles, CA 90065 024-147-05 024-147-27 024-148-02,03,04,06,.07,08,09 10,14,15, Marjorie Decker Pacific Southwest Realty 355 Vista Susan ta Barya P.O. Box 1907 P.O. Box 2097 Term Annex Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Los Angeles, CA 90051 024-147-08 024-147-28 024-148-11 & 21 Leonard Lindborg Susan Wullner Dennis Niccole 17220 Newhope Street #127 355 Vista Baya 400 3rd Street Fountain Valley, CA 02708 Newport Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-147-09 024-147-29 024-148-12 Sylvia Shandrick Willaim Gallegos Paul Tahmisian 228 ; Main Street 21.0 5th Street 1264 E. Sonoma Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Altadena, CA 91_001. 024-147-10 024-147-30 024-148-16 Assistance League of H.B. City of Huntington Beach Sylvia Shandrick 301 Walnut Street P.O. Box 190 228 z Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntin Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 024-147-11 47-31 & 024-148-05 024-148-19 Douglas Langevin Ben Trainer Frances Hine New Owner 6772 Presidente Drive 1123 loth Street 024-147-14 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Monica, CA 90403 024-147-32 024-148-20 Thomas Wurzl , John Teberg Margaret Shupe 333 Civic Center Drive West 211 Main Street 415 N. Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92701024-152-05 024-147-15 024-147-33 Pauline Cooper Elmyra Terry Stuart Omohundr_o 213 Main Street 122 5th Street 8070 Langdon Avenue #106CA 91406 ,yNus Van Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 an Nu 024-147-23 024-147-34 152-06 Calvin Furman Oscar Taylor Charles Sarrabere 730 Highway,lll 220 Via San Remo c/o ABC Accts. Indio, CA 92201 New'Port Beach, CA 92660 201 5th Street 024-147-24 024-147-35 Beach, CA 92648 'Ro} ert Terry G-1riRs & Gloria Draper eS Redman 122 5th Street "Min Street sd46--N•. Cedar �I 3 yC�, N•C64W Huntington Beach, CA 92648 •Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ocaster, CA 93534 024-153-01,02,03, & 024-153-17, 18 034-162-20 024-153-16 Dorothy Terry Elsie Smith Paul Palmer 8877 Tulare Drive #E311 23571 El Cerrito 14325 E. �Flomar Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Whittier, CA 90603 024-153-04 024-162-01 024-162-21 Ronald Mase Harold Tomkins Carolin Resendez 852 Production Place 231 Lake Street P.O. Box 167 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-153-05 024-162-02,03, 024-162-22 lki John Ga n Gary Mulligan Jo John Parnakian 211 Main Street 101 Huntington Street 205 Lake Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-153-07 024-162-04 024-162-23 Homer Watkins Etta Mary Donley Genecieve Vanian 34832 Calle Fortuna 10067 Quain Ct. 2405 Kenilworth Avenue Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Los Angeles, CA 90039 024-153-08 024-162-05,02,07 024-162-24 City of Huntington Beach, Charles Cather Ray Hunnicutt P.O. Box 190 2292 Ling Beach Blvd. 4400 Romero Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Long Beach, CA 90806 Tarzana, CA 92356 024-153-10 024-162-08 &09 024-162-25 Eldon Bagstad Leonard Lindborg Susan Fabun 901 Catalina Avenue 17220 Newhope Street #127 826 E "D" Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Colton CA 92324 024-153-11 024-162-12 024-165-02 Jack Gosney Gwendolyn Wallace Julio Felli P.O. Box 23 502 California Street 215 2nd Street Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-153-12 024-162-13 024-165-03 Thomas Lindley , Carolin Resendez Russell Watkins P.O. Box 2328 222 2nd Street 1090 Buckingham Lane Oakhurst, CA 9 3644 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660 024-153-13 024-162-16 024-165-06 Carmel Ling Joyce Deri o 101a Main Street 5404 Mesagorve Ave. 211 Olive Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Whittier, CA 90601 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-153-14, 15, 19, & 20 024-162-17 024-165-07 Eleanor Draper Gor-son De Lapp Robert Allen 121 Main Street 320 Joliet Street P.O. Box 610 Huntington beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-153-17 024-1-62-19 024=1.65-08 Charles Derigo .—chard Hyman 222 3rd Street 2 11%d Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648• Huntington Beach, CA 92648 • 024-165-09 024-165-26 Richard Susaeta Marc Richonne. 60 Eseverr Lane 225 2nd Street 1 i Habra, 90631 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-165-10,11 024-165-27 i Anne Hockaday Huntington Beach Co. P.O. Box 1842 Property Tax Santa Ana, CA 92702 P.O. Box 7611 024-165-12 San Francisco, CA 94120 024-271-01,n2,04&024-281-04&05 Bernard Mason City of Huntington Beach 825 12th Street Huntington Beach, 48 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 024-2a _6 024-2 -01 2 024-165-13,14,16 0 281-03 Robert Boelme City of Huntington Beca 216 Walnut Street City Hall Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H on Beach, CA 92646 024-165-15 281-10 Dewey Davide I Huntington Beach Cc npany P.O. Box 342 225 Bush Street Huntington Beach, CA 92638 San Francisco, CA 94120 024-165-18 024-281-12 & 13 Daniel Hickman 211 2nd Street I Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . 024-165-19 Tony Paterno 213 2nd Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-165-20 Karen Kissel 219 2nd Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 '024-165-21 Robert Goodrich P.O. box 368 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-165-23 i Joseph & Janet Weiser New Owner j 024-165-25 State of California Dgt. of' General Services • • . Real Estate Division 650 Home Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Norman L. Worthy 801. - l3th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-152-01 Stanford Tharp 132) Riverside Burbank, CA 91506 024-152-02 Energy Development Corp. 400 S. Beverly Dr. , Ste. 315 Beverly Hills, CA 9021.2 024-152-03 John Conley 117 The Masters Circle Costa Mesa, CA 92627 024-152-04 Frank . Cracchiolo 19712 Quiet Bay Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-152-10 Calif.. Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Ste. 380 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, CA 90801-1450 Huntington Pacific Dev.Group 520 - B Pacific Coast Hwy Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach Tomorrow P.O. Box 208 419 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 -024-154-02 Margie J. Taylor Stephen F. Davis Charles Sarrabere 20 Via San Remo eilntington 1 Walnut Avenue • Blanche Wood ewport Beach, CA 92663 Beach, CA 92648 201 5th Street 024-154-04 024-154-06 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Clyde Ronald Gates Richard Edward Gardner Gwendolyn I. Wallace 823 Westbourne Drive 1.896 Pacific Apt. 502 502 California Street Los Angeles, CA 90069 San Francisco, CA 94109 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-1.54-07 02.4-163-11. -24-1.66-03 Assistance League of Allen L. Nelson Leo D. Marchand Huntington Beach 114 Ocean Ave. Apt. 3 4801 Curtis Circle 301 Walnut Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-1.63-12 024-166-04 024-154-08 . Jadoun M. Naber Allen L. Nelson Helen T. Madzoeff 126 Main Street Norma S. Nelson Edward Osepi.an Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P.O. Box 836 1714 Park Street 024-154-09 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-163-13 Adel M. Zeidan Ella Christensen Gwendolyn Tubach, et al John Naber 633 E. Hartford 33516 Couser Canyon Rd. 126 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Valley Center, CA 92082 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-166-11 024-154-10 Thomas Holwerda William J. Carden End Cafe 6736 Hillpark Drive 11852 Main Street P.O. Box 1.11 Los Angeles, CA 90068 Garden Grove, CA 92643 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-163-02 Norma A. Nelson Maxwell's Barbara Beal 114 Ocean Avenue 317 Pacific Coast Highway 2100 Old Quarry Rd.. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Riverside, CA 92506 024-163-03 024-146-01 Harvey D. Pease Ruby Scott William J. Tate.r @Jack-In-The-Box, Inc. 7821 Talbert Ave. 10062 Merrimac Drive P.O. Box 783 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 San Diego, CA 92112 024-166-02 024-146-03 024-163-14 Cynthia G. Taylor Cotton Artalee G. Miller James M. Briggs 1588 E. Ocean Blvd. ' 199 N. E1 Camino Real, St.143F 14312 Willow Ln. Balboa, CA 92661 Encinitas, CA 92024 Tustin, CA 92680 024-163-08 024-146-05 024-146-06 Norma S. Nelson Jerry C. Williams Blanche A. Wood P.O. Box 836 19902 Maritime Lane 201 - 5th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-163-09 024-146-07 024-146-10 Alice E. Spar John Teberg James .Lu 951. Hamilton Ave. P. 0. Box 270 6071 Manorfield Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-163-10 024-146-12 024-146-14 Publish - 10/20 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO THE PLANNING SSION S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE T NO. 86-27 Pierside Village NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Monday, October 13, 1986 TIME: 7:30 P. M. SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43/Coastal Development Permit No 86-27 - Appeal APPLICANT: The Huntington Pacifica Development Corp. and Bryant L. Morris Development in conjunction with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. APPEITAN'r: Huntington Beach Tomorrow ZONING: Downtown Specific Plan, District 10 PROPOSAL: To permit development of a 87,500+ square foot specialty commercial center, related support facilities and 696+ space parking structure on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street. Said development will generally be located within the existing parking lot just south of the pier. COASTAL, STATUS: The proposed project is within an appealable area of the Coastal Zone (see below) . ENVIFCNNENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered by previously approved Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2 and Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area Focused Environmental Impact Report (July, 1982) . ON FILE: A copy of the proposed project filed on September 3, 1986 is on file in the Department of Development Services. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PEA APPEAL PROCURE: 0 Approval of the-Coastal Development Permit is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to PRC S. 30603. A denial may be appealed (5.13319, Title 14, California Administrative Code) only if the City has approved the C.U.P. on the basis of local land use regulations but has denied the issuance of a coastal development permit because it cannot make the findings required by Section 13311, Title 14 of the California Administrative Code. Pursuant to PRC S. 30603, an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission's review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405 Dated 9/30/86 Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P. AN — �- .O.Box 190 .'.T,,,'�`•0 4 j �" S OCT-2'86 � Huntington Beach 48 CA 926 /ns���'^ 6318 2128(, emaii;�^slatP �'&` • �`fhrs ' j Calvin i 730 Highway11 f Indio,-.CA 2201. 024-147-24 �_ L _ J-j"fe FIRST CLASS - _ MAIL Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach µ�suaHEol�!� :� Office of the City Clerk ;p rdn — OCT-2'86 P.O.Box 190 5 °:o�R `c ` , ►{: : ; - 18 - Huntington Beach,CA 92648 .. `LIF' i'S eiifzs i' �R1iiARD WiRED Hen Trainer • 6772 Presidente Drive Huntington Bch, CA 92648 024-147-32 FIRST CLASS MAIL, r: v Legal Notice City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 !" i�a�F Huntington Beach,CA 92648 .r_�`�� G R°bex't_.Goodrich _ . -- P.O ::box 368 Huntingtoil Beach,. CA 92648 - - 024-165723 a FIRST CLASS- MAIL. Legal Notice \��A0ty 4,ad�.,ti=-Wm City of Huntington Beach G y ��•J��-J J ' �)r Office of 41ie City.Clerk _" s CT-2'86 P.O.Box 190 F " 8 is yam; Huntington Beach CA 92648 e* P.B b3z;z� --�. Ro ld Mase 852 roduction Place rt Beach, CA 92663 024- 3-05 :imiff Il , „ FIRST CLASS MAIL