Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File 2 of 7 - Downtown Specific Plan Update - Public Hearing
City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 m ® OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC ® JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION November 23, 2009 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 08-001, Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 08-004, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 08-007, and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 08-002 (Downtown Specific Plan No. 5) APPLICANT: City of Huntington, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: 336-acre Downtown Specific Plan area. DATE OF ACTION(S): November 2, 2009 and November 16, 2009 On Monday, November 2, 2009, the Huntington Beach City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Council Member Jill Hardy and David Rice of the Planning Commission's certification of EIR No. 08-001, and approval of related entitlements ZTA No. 08-004, GPA No. 08-007, and LCPA No. 08-002 (Downtown Specific Plan No. 5). The City Council voted to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to certify EIR No. 08- 001 by adopting Resolution No. 2009-60, adopted Resolution No. 2009-61 approving ZTA No. 08-004, adopted Resolution No. 2009-62 approving GPA No. 08-007, adopted Resolution No. 2009-63 adopting LCPA No. 08-002, and approved the CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations for EIR No. 08-001. Attached are the findings for approval for ZTA No. 08-004 and LCPA No. 08-002, copies of Resolution. Nos. 2009-61, 2009-62 and 2009-63, and a copy of pages 4-5 of the November 2, 2009 City Council Action Agenda. At their regular meeting of Monday, November 16, 2009, the Huntington Beach City Council responded to a request by Mayor Pro Tern Green to reconsider the November 2, 2009 decision, based on concerns related to density. Her motion to reconsider was seconded by Councilmember Coerper, and was approved by a roll call vote of 4-3 (Dwyer, Hansen, Bohr- No). The item has been scheduled for a second public hearing on Tuesday, January 19, 2009. Attached is a copy of page 3 of the November 16, 2009 City Council Action Agenda. Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan . Waitakere, New Zealand {Telephone:714-536-5227) Notice of Action—Page 2 Downtown Specific Plan No. 5 November 23,2009 If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner, at (714) 374-1661, or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, oan L. Flynn, CMC City Clerk JF:rI c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning Stanley Smalewitz, Director of Economic Development Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner Attachments: Findings for Approval for ZTA No. 08-004 Findings for Approval for LCPA No. 08-002 Copy of Resolution No. 2009-60 Copy of Resolution No. 2009-61 Copy of Resolution No. 2009-62 Copy of Resolution No. 2009-63 Pages 4-5 - November 2, 2009 City Council Action Agenda Pages 3- November 16, 2009 City Council Action Agenda ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 : 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 amends the HBZSO by amending Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan to reconfigure the existing 11 Specific Plan districts into 7 districts, modify development and parking standards, incorporate design guidelines and provide recommendations for street improvements, public amenities, circulation enhancements, infrastructure and public facility improvements and parking strategies. The proposed changes will be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City's General Plan because the land uses proposed in the DTSP Update will not substantially change from the permitted and specified land uses of the existing DTSP and thus, the General Plan. These changes would not alter the established land use pattern in that visitor-serving commercial and mixed use developments would continue to be permitted and the primarily developed uses in these areas. The proposed changes to the development standards would allow greater maximum building heights and densities, in certain areas, than are currently allowed in the DTSP area. However, compliance with development standards that call for upper story setbacks and residential buffers as well as the design guidelines will result in high quality, attractive projects that are compatible with existing surrounding developments that were developed under the current DTSP. 2. In the case of general land use provisions, the DTSP Update is consistent with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which they are proposed. The proposed land uses that would be developed with implementation of the DTSP Update would not significantly differ from the existing land uses that are permitted and developed in the DTSP area. The amended DTSP will enhance potential to create an urban village with high quality design and sustainable features in comparison with development that could occur under the current standards of the existing DTSP. The DTSP Update is also sensitive to existing residential uses and proposes development standards and subdistricts, which would afford these areas additional protection from potential impacts from future development. The DTSP Update would be consistent with the adopted Council goals, objectives and policies of the DTSP area and implement the vision for the downtown. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The proposed changes to the development standards such as increases in maximum allowable building heights and residential densities in certain areas, elimination of floor area ratio (FAR) requirements and reduced parking ratios are justified by compensating benefits of the Specific Plan. The changes proposed in the DTSP Update will facilitate development and redevelopment of properties so that the next phase of community investment and improvement will occur in the DTSP area. The DTSP Update will provide a healthy mix of land uses that will create an environment that promotes tourism to increase revenues to support community services. The development standards and design guidelines will ensure high quality projects with enough open space, air, light, ventilation, pedestrian connections, interesting architecture, parking, well designed circulation, and landscaping for an enjoyable environment for both residents and tourists. 4. The amended DTSP is consistent with good zoning practice and was prepared utilizing a comprehensive approach, which included involving the public in numerous public workshops and meetings and reviewing the proposed DTSP Update in terms of potential benefits to both residents and visitors in the larger context of directing future development. Smart growth and sustainable design principles were considered in the preparation of the DTSP Update. All projects would be required to provide sustainable building practices. The DTSP Update would be in conformity with general welfare in that adequate utilities and public facilities and services would be ensured through identified mitigation measures and code requirements for future projects. Although Fire services would need to be improved at some point during the 20-year planning period, future development projects would be required to be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure adequate service can be provided. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL— LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 08-002: 1. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 proposes to amend the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to reflect the changes to the Downtown Specific Plan and the General Plan Land Use Plan designations in the DTSP area. The amendments will continue to allow the existing permitted land uses but at a greater intensity than existing and provide for more flexible development standards that would incentivize development and redevelopment of mixed-use developments with ground floor visitor-serving commercial uses in an expanded downtown core. 2. The proposed changes to the Local Coastal Program are in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act that encourage that encourage coastal dependent uses and protect public access and public recreation. The changes proposed in the DTSP Update will continue to prioritize visitor-serving commercial uses in the downtown area and encourage mixed-use developments that would allow residential uses in conjunction with visitor-serving commercial uses. Additionally, public access to the shoreline and public recreational opportunities will continue to be provided while allowing for new development that would be compatible with the existing DTSP area and increase tourism in the DTSP area: 3. The project conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The Design Guidelines of Chapter 4 encourage preservation of existing view corridors to the beach and ocean, project designs that incorporate ocean themes and build upon the "Surf City" culture and pedestrian linkages to the beach and ocean. Chapters 5 & 6 recommend circulation and streetscape improvements that would enhance beach access for pedestrians and motorists and enhance the overall experience for visitors and residents by promoting wider sidewalks for pedestrians, more bicycle parking, shuttle service, and a trolley system. No existing coastal access will be impacted. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH112008011124) FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE PROJECT WHEREAS,Environmental Impact Report No. 09-001, State Clearinghouse 9 2008011124 ("EIR")was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach("City")to address the environmental implications of the proposed Downtown Specific Plan Update Project(the "Project"); and On November 6,2008, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse,other responsible agencies,trustee agencies and interested parties; and After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the public scoping meeting held on November 19, 2008, the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse on July 20, 2009; and The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from July 20, 2009 to September 2, 2009, and was available for review at several locations including City Hall, the Huntington Beach Main Street Branch Library,Rodgers Senior Center and the City's website; and Public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses.to those comments have been prepared and provided to the City Council as a section within a separately bound document entitled"Final Environmental Impact Report Downtown Specific Plan No. 5" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated September 2009; and Public Resources Code 21092.5(a) requires that the City of Huntington Beach provide a written proposed response to any public agency that commented on the Environmental Impact Report, and the Response to Comments included in the Final Environmental Impact Report satisfies this provision; and The City Council held a public meeting on the EIR on November 2, 2009, and received considered public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments (including a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies 09-2218.003/39869 1 commenting on the Draft EIR),the Text Changes to the Draft EIR(bound together with the Responses to Comments)and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission,including all minutes,transcripts, attachments and references. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648. SECTION 2. The City Council finds and certifies that the Final EIR is complete and adequate in that it has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 3. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist"(also referred to as the"Mitigation Monitoring Program")attached as Exhibit"A"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 5. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project(including the"No Project"Alternative),even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further,the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384)has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 7. The City Council finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5)has been added to the EIR after circulation of the Draft EIR. The City Council finds that the minor refinements that have been made in the Project as a result of clarifications in the mitigation measures and additional water supply analyses do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the City Council through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 8. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 2108.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation 09-2218.003/39869 2 measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation as defined in each mitigation measure. SECTION 9. The City Council finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach City Council,that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007,Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 09-002. SECTION 10. The City Council finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of November , 20 09 . Mayor REVIE APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 �.•�� io vz/o City P Lfator City Attorney iNITI ED AND APPROVED: Exhibit"A"—Mitigation Monitoring Program 09-2218.003/39869 3 EXHIBIT A `dh Cityof Huntington e c PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program H U NTI NGTON BEACH DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE SC N: 2008011124 Revised November, 2009 Lead Agency City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach Final Program Environmental Impact Report Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1 Contents 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .............1-1 ......................................................................... 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix...............................................................................1-2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page ii Downtown Specific Plan Update 1 e Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.1 Introduction The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update project(State Clearinghouse#2008011124) identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project in the areas of aesthetics,air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, recreation,transportation and parking, and utilities and service systems. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires that agencies adopting environmental impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. Specifically,the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction, or operation(Public Resource Code §21081.6). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) shall be used by the City of Huntington Beach staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update project.Monitoring shall consist of review of appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the party responsible for implementation or by field observation of the mitigation measure during implementation. The following table identifies the mitigation measures by resource area. The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation, monitoring activity,timing and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor,together with date of verification. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-1 Downtown Specific Ptan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pry .. x - �c, ei ASureaarf�Y►la6n 3 ii4brr� � ,g ': 7�. > 9 i« nrS - v, . ��HY �x'2 �"5 � r �r�t� uF�r t ��,��R�t MM 4.2.1: During construction,demolition and remodel activities, Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning the following Best Available Control Measure shall be notes on grading and contract prior to implemented where feasible: building plans specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit • Dust Control plans for inclusion • Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas, • Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times per day. • Cover all stock piles with tarps. • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. • Exhaust Emissions • Require 90-day low-NORxR tune-ups for off-road equipment. Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if available. • Utilize diesel particulate filter on heavy equipment where feasible. Utilize low emission mobile construction equipment. • Utilize existing power sources when available, Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-2 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigation Monitoring and •e a Prqgram midgaft "W1,08 Wisure M D G'�►t. r f`1i dlif ei i � minimizing the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators. • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Plan construction to minimize lane closures on existing streets. • A full listing of construction emission controls is included in the Air Quality Assessment for Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan dated April 13, 2009(Appendix B). • Painting and Coatings • Use low VOC coatings and high pressure-low volume sprayers. MM 4.2.2: The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning all diesel-powered equipment used would be retrofitted with notes on building plans contract prior to after-treatment products(e.g., engine catalysts and other specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit technologies available at the time construction commences)to plans for inclusion the extent that they are readily available and cost effective when construction activities commence. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.2.3:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning alternative fuel construction equipment(e.g., compressed natural notes on building plans contract prior to gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline)would be specifications, issuance of a utilized to the extent feasible at the time construction activities grading and building grading permit plans for inclusion commence. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach, MM 4.2.4: The City shall require that developers within the Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-3 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix R�7kkx`ld�project site use locally available building materials such as notes on building plans contract prior to concrete, stucco, and interior finishes for construction of the specifications and issuance of a project and associated infrastructure, building plans for building permit inclusion MM 4.2.5: The City shall require developers within the project Construction Review and approve Plan check Planning site to establish a construction management plan with Rainbow management plan construction prior to Disposal to divert a target of 50%of construction, demolition, and management plan issuance of a demolition, site clearingwaste. grading or building permit (whichever comes first MM 4.6.6: The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction equipment engines will be maintained in good notes on building plans contract prior to condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit the duration of construction. Contract specifications shall be plans for inclusion included in the proposed project construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4,2-7: The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, notes on building plans contract prior to motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when specifications, issuance of a not in use for more than five minutes. Diesel fueled commercial grading and building grading permitplans for inclusion motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes, Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach, MM 4.2-8: The City shall require that any new development Notes and details on Review and approve Plan check Planning within the Specific Plan area provide signs within loading dock building plans building plans prior to areas clearly visible to truck drivers. These signs shall state that Implementation - issuance of rior to issuance of building permit Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-4 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigatiqn!Monitormg d.°-oe a Program FIRM. N -'SaY iV 'i. ta N'1 k-Y+dY 3 R,� s trucks cannot idle in excess of five minutes per trip. Certificate of Occupancy MM 4,2.9:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning electrical outlets are included in the building design of future notes on building plans approved contract prior to Building& loading docks to allow use by refrigerated delivery trucks. Future specifications and issuance of a Safety building plans for building permit project-specific applicants shall require that all delivery,trucks do inclusion not idle for more than five minutes, If loading and/or unloading of perishable goods would occur for more than five minutes, and continual refrigeration is required, all refrigerated delivery trucks shall use the electrical outlets to continue powering the truck refrigeration units when the delivery truck engine is turned off. MM 4.2.10: The City shall require that any new development Notes and details on Review and approve Plan check Planning within the project site provide a bulletin board or a kiosk in the building plans notes and details on prior to lobby of each proposed structure that identifies the locations and building plans issuance of schedules of nearby transit opportunities. Implementation - building permit prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy MM 4.2.11: The property owner/developer of individual projects Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning within the DTSP will reduce operation-related emissions through notes on building plans approved contract prior to implementation of practices identified in SCAQMD's CEQA specifications and issuance of a building plans for building permit Handbook and the URBEMIS v9.2.4, some of which overlap. inclusion e Specific measures are delineated in the DTSP Air Quality Assessment(Volume ll,Appendix B), MM 4.2.12:The following measures, based on these sources, shall be implemented by the property applicant to reduce criteria pollutant emissions from projects associated with the DTSP Update.Additionally,support and compliance with the AQMP for the basin are the most important measures to achieve this goal. City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-5 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitiq.fiOft'Moft1f6(,1n, 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 , ��."' n A tJBIS The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally, energy conservation measures are included. • Transportation Demand Management(TDM) Measures 1. Provide adequate ingress and egress at all Site plan review Review and approval Prior to site Planning entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling of site plan plan approval at curbsides. Presumably, this measure would improve traffic flow into and out of the parking lot. The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required. 2, Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate and Improvement plans Review and approval Plan check Planning/ provide roadway improvements at heavily congested of improvement plans prior to roadways.Again, the areas where this measure issuance of a Public Works would be applicable are the intersections in and near building permit the project area. Presumably,these measures would improve traffic flow. Emissions would drop as a result of the higher traffic speeds, but to an unknown extent. 3. Synchronize traffic signals.The areas where this Capital Improvement Periodic CIP budget Plan check Planning/ measure would be applicable are roadway Program budget and review and review prior to Public Works intersections within the project area. This measure individual improvement and approval of issuance of a would be more effective if the roadways beyond the plans improvement plans building permit project limits are synchronized as well. The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required 4, Ensure that sidewalks and pedestrian paths are Project site plan Review of site plan Prior to site Planning/ installed throughout the project area. plan approval Public Works Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-6 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigatiori, e m e e ° o0 0 ° •e '• Z��� ����.,, #4 a� .��_cv,:., a'�.� n; ..�i �� I "yr'i,a�'iir 'Y�`�*s '� � 7 'a s��.�L�, - ��:j�"�s + a'c - ( • Energy Efficient Measures Building& Safety& 1. Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce Project building plans Review of building Plan check Planning thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant and specifications plans prior to sensors. Reducing the need to heat or cool issuance of a structures by improving thermal integrity will result in building permit a reduced expenditure of energy and a reduction in pollutant emissions.The air quality benefit is unknown. 2. Install energy efficient street lighting. 3. Capture waste heat and reemploy it in nonresidential buildings.This measure is applicable to the commercial buildings in the project. 4. Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planning programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. This measure reduces the need for cooling energy in the summer. 5. Introduce window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods. 6. Install low-emission water heaters, and use built-in, energy-efficient appliances. Biological RESoi�� "� a ; x�,�,, ����; �d;•���,a �. xr rr.�,a S s ��,:��a �� � � w �` Y � : � �x�e� MM 4.14.1: Prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities, the project developer shall implement the following mitigation measure which entails nesting surveys and avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and MBTA species, and appropriate agency consultation. City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1.7 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigati6n,Mbhitorihg d'Rep-ortingiPrograrif - - _:�e - - r rr �'•y �� T,r �',^� r;�. �'1+�'�;.. 1b ��.1 eh��y c��'�,. �.. fi� -Y�<S,t�'' v��� ..:. . . ,._ :... c.. .. . ,,,. ..•. _..r� .,,r ., .:f _ '.vain:„�;.. • Nesting habitat for protected or sensitive species: 1. Vegetation removal and construction shall occur Developer shall submit Review schedule and Plan check Planning between September 1 and January 31 whenever construction schedule field survey report, prior to feasible: (including grading and as necessary, issuance of a activities)as evidence review and approve grading permit of construction overlap plans indicating or demolition with breeding season. construction limits permit 2: Prior to any construction or vegetation removal If construction occurs Perform periodic field Prior to Planning between February 15 and August 31,a nesting during relevant check to ensure construction or survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of breeding,developer compliance site all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area. shall present a survey distrubance Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days report(prepared by a and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of consultant approved by construction activities and surveys will be conducted the City)to the City in accordance with California Department of Fish and prior to issuance of a Game(CDFG)protocol as applicable: If no active grading permit.If nest nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the are found,developer construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. shall submit plans A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be identifying nest locations and limits of submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. If an construction activities active nest of a MBTA protected species is identified onsite(per established thresholds), a 250-foot no- work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity. This buffer can be reduced in consultation with CDFG and/or U:S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist. ,,tt„ R C�Itaral'R�s6urce� •� ' M!y MM 4.3.1: If changes are proposed to properties or buildings Historic resources Review of site plan Prior to project Planning listed in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Historic and report prepared by and building plans approval Cultural Resources Element and/or on any state or national qualified architectural Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-8 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix o. e e • • e '-•• e Program A3Sa'�.--x y historic register, the City shall require preparation of a report historian 1 from a qualified architectural historian regarding the significance of the site/structure. Based on the results of the report,further mitigation,such as preservation, restoration,or salvaging of materials, shall be identified and implemented as recommended by a qualified architectural historian. MM 4,3.2: During construction activities, if archaeological and/or Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check Planning paleontological resources are encountered,the contractor shall grading plans for prior to be responsible for immediate notification and securing of the site inclusion issuance of a area immediately.A qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist grading permit approved by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Director shall be retained to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling,identification, and evaluation of cultural resource finds. If major archaeological and/or Research design and Review and approve Throughout Planning paleontological resources are discovered that require long-term recovery plan,if research design and ground- halting or redirecting of grading, a report shall be prepared required recovery plan disturbing activities identifying such findings to the City and the County of Orange. Discovered cultural resources shall be offered to the County of Orange or its designee on a first-refusal basis. MM 4.3.-3: During construction activities, if human remains are Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check Planning discovered, work shall be halted and the contractor shall contact grading plans for prior to inclusion issuance of a the City's designated representative on the project and the grading permit Orange County Coroner until a determination can be made as to the likelihood of additional human remains in the area. If the remains are thought to be Native American,the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who will ensure that proper treatment and disposition of the remains occurs. City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-9 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mifigifidn Vonitorirfg and Program tt zc.c MM 4.4.1: Future development in the DTSP area shall prepare a Notes on grading plan Review and approve Plan check Public Works/ grading plan, subject to review and approval by the City's and building plans grading and building prior to Building and plans for inclusion of issuance of a Safety development services departments,to contain the soils and grading permit recommendations of the required final soils and geotechnical geotechnical report. These recommendations shall be implemented in the recommendations design of the project, including but not limited to measures associated with site preparation, fill placement, temporary shoring and permanent dewatering, groundwater seismic design features,excavation stability,foundations, soils stabilization, establishment of deep foundations,concrete slabs and pavements, surface drainage, cement type and corrosion measures, erosion control, shoring and internal bracing, and plan review. a MM 4.5.1: The City of Huntington Beach shall require a Phase Phase One assessment Review and approve Plan check Fire One assessment on properties within the Downtown Specific grading and building prior to Plan area, including properties utilized for oil production plans for inclusion issuance of a for development to assure that an grading or activities, proposed P Y building permit hazardous materials/contaminated soils present on the property are identified and remediated in accordance with City specifications 422,429 and 431-92.All native and imported soils associated with a project shall meet the standards outlined in Haul route permit Review traffic Public Works City Specification No.431-92 prior to approval of grading and control/construction building plans by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. management plan Additionally, all work at a project site shall comply with the City's Public Works Department requirements (e.g., haul route permits). Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-10 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix 1M�tigatio.n,Monitoriffgiand Repprting�Program, M�aSUR• f�OCfRFIB/i�il � :,i r ,+a l.. �.. � ` �" ^ MM 4.5.2: In the event that previously unknown or unidentified Risk management plan Review and approve Plan check Fire soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat and site health and grading plans for prior to to human health or the environment is encountered during safety plan,if required inclusion issuance of a construction in the project area,construction activities in the grading permit immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that 1)identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post- development and 2)describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site,controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified(e.g., Huntington Beach Fire Department). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. 3. r . ..c. .., .. �FSk p eP" �i QU� zC ;HydrOfogy"andW` g" f/ : w� , v°. ,Mh',f,''k,"<, �3�ytr,::e ,•+'L'`�" 1 t r 4* =E,"=' a `..y: MM 4.6.1: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits Water Quality Review and approve Plan check Public Works and/or prior to recordation of any subdivision maps, the applicant Management Plan WQMP and prior to of any new development or significant redevelopment projects (WQMP) documentation issuance of shall submit to the Department of Public Works a Water Quality grading permit Management Plan (WQMP)emphasizing implementation of LID principles and addressing hydrologic conditions of concern. WQMPs shall be in compliance with the current California City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-11 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix ProgramMitigation Monito.riiq and Reporting 77777 11@ a v.�.qh�t. �' x ,si . '� W...Sri .♦gin.1x �Sv � .•`'�. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region,Waste Discharge Requirements permit, and all Federal, State and local regulations, MM 4,6.2: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, a Hydrology and Review and approve Plan check Public Works hydrology and hydraulic analysis shall be submitted to the hydraulic analysis analysis and prior to Department of Public Works for review and approval(10-, 25-, documentation issuance of and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms shall be grading permit analyzed). In addition,this study shall include 24-hour peak back-to-back 100-year storms for onsite detention analysis. The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100- year frequency. MM 4.6.3: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building Notice of Intent(NO1) Review Plan check Public Works permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance of one or and Waste Discharge documentation prior to more acres of land, the applicant shall demonstrate that Identification(WDID) issuance of a grading or coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit building permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with construction activity Storm Water Pollution by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI) submitted to the prevention Plan,if State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the required subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. SWPPPs shall be in Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-12 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix 'Mitigation No e6ortind Program -_ ;M c, k� +=- -ow . h n" r Z,4p 4,F dA;' "i P '77 °°7 �` :"� 5 � �� compliance with the current NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with construction activity. MM 4.6.4: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Landscape plans Review landscape Plan check Public Works/ developer or applicant shall submit detailed Landscape plans prior to Planning Architectural plans by a State Licensed Landscape Architect that issuance of a shall include a designed irrigation system that eliminates surface building permit runoff and meets the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MC-14.52)requirements and a detailed planting plan that specifies appropriate California Native and other water conserving plants materials. In addition, there shall be a maintenance program submitted that addresses the use of fertilizers and pesticides to meet the requirements of the City Integrated Pest Management, Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Guidelines, the Water Quality Management Plan, and the County Drainage Area Master Plan. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works and Planning Departments.The landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with the approved plan, the maintenance program and the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. MM 4.6.5: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Tsunami risk Review plan and Plan check Planning developer shall submit to the City Department of Planning for management plan documentation prior to approval a plan outlining specific planning measures to be taken issuance of a to minimize or reduce risks to property and human safety from building permit tsunami during operation. Planning measures could include but would not be limited to the following; a Provision of tsunami safety information to all project residents and businesses, in addition to posting in City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown_Specific Plan Update page 1.13 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix °'0 0 0 ° 0 0Arh r s n s h s 'a ,m twa7w .s fir-r cs1 a �^ u. }�q^'EF. ' iFJ/l IItUl7 a.:; x ,1YKAl1Afry': _ `lJata';. public locations on site; • Identification of the method for transmission of tsunami watch and warnings to residents, business owners and people on site in the event a watch or warning is issued: • Identification of an evacuation site for persons on-site in the event of a tsunami warning. in N �: y(, ...., i,,. MM 4.8.1: Noise attenuation devices shall be used on all Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction equipment, and construction staging areas shall be notes on grading and contract prior to located as far as possible from any residences or other noise building plans specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit sensitive receptors, plans for inclusion MM 4.8.2: Prior to issuance of building permits for residences Detailed noise Review noise Plan check Planning located within the 65 CNEL noise contour, a detailed noise assessment prepared assessment and prior to assessment with noise reduction measures specified shall be by a qualified acoustical ensure measures are issuance of a consultant incorporated into residential prepared to show that noise levels in those areas will not exceed submitted plans building permit the 65 CNEL outdoor noise criteria. Prior to issuance of permits, a detailed noise assessment with noise reduction measures specified shall be prepared to show that noise levels in the residences will not exceed the 45 CNEL indoor noise standard. The assessment will be based on the architectural plans for each specific project. The reports by a qualified acoustical consultant and shall document the sources of noise impacting the areas and describe any measures required to meet the standard. These measures will be incorporated into the project plans. The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-14 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Vitigatiorf Monitoring Ind „t . - .e . S ■ .,. ',,! 4 +�.���s��`.'n_.•y�.,�( 'A .«rL '".' ._. ,` IOIFIII 'V ,4 �3y.M`i�,•y .F r of . n..a::X't c .d 1�rKNNI1M .k 1 s 3 £ k',fJGIC MM 4.8.3: Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed noise Detailed noise Review noise Prior to project Planning assessment shall be prepared for mixed-use and commercial assessment prepared assessment and approval projects within 50 feet of any residence to ensure that these by a qualified acoustical ensure measures are sources do not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance limits.The consultant incorporated intosubmitted plans assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall document the noise generation characteristics of the proposed equipment and the projected noise levels at the nearest residential use. Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance shall be demonstrated and any measures required to comply with the Noise Ordinance and reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels shall be included in the project plans.The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of project approval. , PuBI c �rvrces �, A MM 4,10.1: New construction within the Downtown Specific Plan Building plans notes Review and approve Plan check Planning/ Area shall be designed to provide for safety measures(e.g,, and details building prior to Police alarm systems, security lighting,other on-site security measures issuance of a and crime prevention through environmental design policies)and building permit subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Department and Huntington Beach Police Department. MM 4.10.2: Subject to the City's annual budgetary process, Annual City budget Review budget and Annual City Police/Fire which considers available funding and the staffing levels needed staffing levels budget process to provide acceptable response time for fire and police services, needed for fire and the City shall provide sufficient funding to maintain the City's police services standard, average level of service through the use of General Fund monies. City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-15 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix o, • m e o o emofing, , 1' 1 wv a h, MM 4,12.2: Prior to Year 2030,one of the following mitigation measure options shall be implemented: • Implement right-turn overlap signal phasing for Capital Improvement CIP budget review Prior to Year Public Works southbound Goldenwest Street.This would bring the Program budget and implementation 2030 PM peak hour to LOS D.A right-turn overlap for Street Improvement southbound Goldenwest Street would require that u- plans turn movements on eastbound Pacific Coast Highway be prohibited. AND • Provide two eastbound and westbound through lanes Capital Improvement CIP budget review Prior to Year Public Works on Orange Avenue. This would achieve Level of Program budget and implementation 2030 Service D in the evening peak hour. This improvement Street Improvement would require the removal of street parking on both plans. sides of Orange Avenue on either side of Lake Street. AND/OR • Installation of a signal at this intersection would achieve acceptable Level of Service operation. .r.;;'. .. .�.. > ,. . L., Py, . -..> .o.:.. .. :..:., w..,,... ., .<,'. w,...'..,:t,. ..:,.. $+ ,Y .,r a > t� is x'Y' » l�tlifies and-Serviis Systems r. w ,� v ,„ , MM 4.13.1: To ensure that there are no adverse impacts Grading and building Review and approval Prior to start of Public Works associated with the future Downtown Specific Plan development plans notes and details of grading and construction projects during construction,Applicant/developer/ building plans builderlcontractor shall coordinate with utility and service Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-16 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring end Reporting Matrix Mitigation Monitoring3and '•eo a Program ��"ry ""e' ���T 'T� ,� - h�'t•'�s��� organizations prior to the commencement of construction. MM 4.13.2: Individual development projects within the Downtown Grading and building Review and approval Prior to start of Public Works Specific Plan Area will require connections to existing water, plans notes and details of grading and construction sewer, and utility lines in the City and may require construction of building plans new water pipeline facilities.All connections to existing water and wastewater infrastructure will be designed and constructed per the requirements and standards of the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. Connections to any OCSD sewer line shall be designed to OCSD standards. Such installation shall be coordinated, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate City departments and applicable agencies. MM 4.13.3: Each development project is required to implement Building plans and Review and approval Prior to Public Works separate water conservation measures that support major water landscape plans notes of landscape plans issuance of conservation efforts. The following water saving technologies can and details and building plans building be implemented on a project basis to comply with statewide permits water goals and water conservation measures that can further assist in meeting the 20% reduction goal. • Waterless urinals should be specified in all public areas, including restaurants and commercial bathrooms. • Low-flush toilets should be installed in all new residential units and encouraged through rebates or other incentives in existing homes. • Low-flow shower heads and water faucets should be required in all new residential and commercial spaces City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-17 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix mitigaOon • • o e •e a s• ,. -101 N, and encouraged in existing developed properties. • Water efficient kitchen and laundry room appliances should be encourage through rebates for both residential and commercial units. • Landscaping should be completed with drought tolerant plants and native species. • Irrigation plans should use smart controllers and have separated irrigation meters. MM 4.13.4:As individual development occurs within the Hydraulic study and Review and approval Prior to Public Works Downtown Specific Plan area, additional hydraulic studies shall sewer study of hydraulic study issuance of be performed to verify that water pipes will adequately support and sewer study building each specific project.A sewer study shall be prepared for Public permits Works Department review and approval.A fourteen (14)day or longer flow test data shall be included in the study. The location and number of monitoring test sites, not to exceed three, to be determined by the Public Works Department, MM 4.13.5:As individual development occurs within the Proof of payment of fair Review and approval Prior to Public Works Downtown Specific Plan Area,each development shall be share of electrical of building plans issuance of required to pay for the development's fair share of infrastructure systems infrastructure building improvements to electrical systems per Southern California improvements permits Edison requirements. MM 4.13-6: To ensure adequate water supply for future Project water supply Review and approval Prior to start of Public Works developments, and to be consistent with Senate Bill 610 and assessment of water supply construction assessment Senate Bill 221, a separate water supply assessment will be required for individual projects at the time the project is submitted to the City,for all projects that are subject under the Water Code Section 10912(a), which includes residential development of Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-18 Downtown Specific Ptan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mifigationi,Mo-h4oring and Reportipg PrQg,ra-M. 7Y." al� 011 1-1�11 W.- 3* more than 500 dwelling units,a commercial building greater than 250,000 sq. ft., a hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms, or a project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units. City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Ptan Update page 1.19 Res. No. 2009-60 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 02, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hardy, Hansen NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Cit Jerk and ex-officio Verk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 2009-61 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5-DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004) WHEREAS, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 has been prepared and analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 06 , 2009; and Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 is a request to amend Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan to establish new development requirements, design standards and land use controls within the existing 336-acre Downtown Specific Plan area. The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council on the amendment to the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65354; and The Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65353 on October 06 , 2009 to consider said Zoning Text Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds as follows: SECTION 1: The amended Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted Land Use Element of the General Plan, the certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and other applicable policies and is compatible with surrounding development. SECTION 2: The amended Specific Plan enhances the potential for superior urban design in comparison with the development under the base district provisions that would apply if the Plan were not approved. SECTION 3: The deviations from the base district provisions that otherwise would apply are justified by the compensating benefits of the Specific Plan; and SECTION 4: The amended Specific Plan includes adequate provisions for utilities, services, and emergency vehicle access; and public service demands will not exceed the capacity of existing and planned systems. SECTION 5: Specific Plan No. 5, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as thoroughly set forth herein, is hereby adopted and approved. 09-2218.001/37808 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of November, 2009. ,9z,o�-eel ayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: �jLZ6/,q Cit Jerk (.- City Attorney REVIE D APPROVED: INITI ED APPROVED: I/ City i strator l4 ng it c or ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Specific Plan No. 5- Downtown Specific Plan 09-2218.001/37808 2 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Not Attached Pending Final Local Action (City Council Reconsideration — Scheduled for January 2010) Res. No. 2009-61 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 02, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hansen NOES: Hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Clerk and ex-offici4berk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 2009-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.08-007 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to redesignate the land use designations of the existing 336- acre Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 5), as more particularly described as Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto, to be consistent with the modified district boundaries for the Downtown Specific Plan area. The amendment also includes modifying the Land Use Schedule (Table LU-2a) and the Community District and Subarea Map and Schedule (Figure LU-6; Table LU-4) of the General Plan Land Use Element to differentiate the reconfigured districts and permitted uses within the Specific Plan and allow increases in density and building heights in the newly reconfigured districts. The amendment also includes re-numbering subarea 3D, which is not within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries, to 3C on the Subarea Map (Figure LU-6) as a result of the modifications to the subareas of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Circulation Element (Figure CE-9) of the General Plan is amended to reflect changes in proposed bicycle paths that are included in the Downtown Specific Plan Update. Pursuant to California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 and recommended approval of said entitlement to the City Council; and Pursuant to California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-007; and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and is consistent with other elements of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located starting from the intersection of 09-2218/3781 l 1 Goldenwest Street with Pacific Coast Highway and curves along the coastline, including the Huntington Beach Pier, down to Beach Boulevard. The inland boundary of the Specific Plan Area follows the prolongation of Sunrise Drive from Beach Boulevard to Pacific View Avenue where the boundary curves along Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. From Atlanta Avenue, the boundary flows along Orange Avenue and continues up Lake Street to Palm Avenue where it connects over to Main Street and along Pacific View Avenue to link down along 6th Street. From 6th Street, following along Walnut Avenue to Goldenwest Street, parcels within the first block adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway are included in the Specific Plan Area, and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and `B", respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, which amends the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements for the subject area to reflect changes within the Downtown Specific Plan Update, is hereby approved. The Director of Planning is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended Land Use Map and Subarea Map and amended Land Use and Circulation Elements. A copy of said maps and the Land Use and Circulation Elements, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Planning Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of November , 2009. e Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 9044 4- Cit Jerk City Attorney REVIEW D APPROVED: lNlTlfiTED AND APPROVED: I- 4?� City Rdmi vstrator Kan14mg Director ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Specific Plan Map Exhibit C: General Plan Changes 09-2218/37811 2 Resolution No.2009-62 Resolution No.2009-62 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 22, of the Map of Huntington Beach Seventeenth Street Section, as recorded in Book 4, Page 10 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence northerly 50 feet approximately to a point, said point being the centerline intersection of Goldenwest Street (formally Twenty-third Street) and Walnut Avenue, said point also being the True Point of 'Beginning; thence southwesterly along said centerline of Goldenwest Street and its southwesterly prolongation 780 feet approximately to a point on the high tide line of the Pacific Ocean; thence southeasterly along said high tide line 6,100 feet approximately to a line parallel with. and 72.50 feet northwesterly, measured at right angles from the southwesterly prolongation of the centerline of Main Street; thence southwesterly along said parallel line 1,470 feet approximately to a line parallel with heretofore said high tide line; thence southeasterly along said parallel line 145 feet approximately to a line parallel with and 72.50 feet southeasterly, measured a right angles from said southwesterly prolongation of the centerline of Main Street; thence northeasterly along said parallel line 1,470 feet approximately to the heretofore said high tide line; thence southeasterly along said righ tide line 5,470 feet approximately to the southerly prolongation of the Survey Centerline of Beach Boulevard; thence northerly along said Survey Centerline of Beach Boulevard 2,800 feet approximately to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Tract No. 9580, as shown on a map recorded in Book 444, Pages 29 through 31 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and the southerly line of said Tract No. 9580 and said southerly lines westerly prolongation 1,800 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Pacific View Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Pacific View Avenue 220 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Huntington Street; thence northerly along said centerline of Huntington Street 1,240 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Atlanta Avenue; thence westerly along said centerline of Atlanta Avenue 750 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of First Street, said intersection is also the centerline intersection of Orange Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Orange Avenue 650 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Lake Street, thence northerly along said centerline of Lake Street 1,830 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Palm Avenue, thence westerly along said centerline of Palm Avenue 332 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Main Street; thence southerly along said centerline of Main Street 430 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Sixth Street; thence southwesterly along said centerline of Sixth Street 1,750 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Walnut Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Walnut Avenue 5,533 feet approximately to the True Point of Beginning. Resolution No.2009-62 a'. .6• 7 a abA _ � s s � p i a A. v , p: 'f P f S a ' _ it �� EXHIBIT C Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-2a(Cont.) Land Use Schedule(Cont.)' r7ixed Kate-o T , ical PerQniitfed uses E • Single uses containing Commercial Neighborhood(CN),or Commercial General (CG)or Residential uses as listed above. • Mixed use areas that may include Vertically Integrated Housing(MV)or Horizontally Integrated Housing(MH)uses,townhomes,garden apartments, live/work units and mid-/high-rise apartments,Commercial Neighborhood (CN),Commercial Visitor(CV)and Commercial General(CG)uses. o The exact density,location,and mix of uses in this category is intended to be governed by a Specific Plan("-sp")to allow greater design flexibility and to address the uniqueness of a particular area. Mixed Use-Vertically • Single use structures containing Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General Integrated Housing (CG)uses as listed above. (MV) Mixed use structures incorporating residential units on the second floor and/or rear of commercial uses;with restrictions on the types of commercial uses to ensure compatibility with the housing. Mixed Use-Horizontally . Single use structures containing Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General Integrated Housing (CG)uses as listed above. (MIFI) 0 Multi-family residential, including townhomes,garden apartments,and mid-/high-rise apartments. • (Note: each use is limited to a portion of the total designated site,as prescribed by policy in this element.) OPENSPACE Parks Public parks and recreational facilities. OS-P) Shoreline Publicly owned coastal beaches. Ancillary buildings may be permitted,such as food (OS-S) stands and recreation equipment rentals,as determined by City review and approval. Commercial Recreation Publicly or privately owned commercial recreation facilities such as golf courses. OS-CR) Conservation Properties to be retained for environmental resource conservation and management (OS-C) purposes(e.g.,wetlands protection). Ancillary buildings,such as maintenance equipment storage, may be permitted,as determined by City review and approval. Water Recreation Lakes and other water bodies used for recreational purposes,such as boating, (OS-W) swimming, and water skiing. 'See LU 7.1.1 and LU 7.1.2 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-26 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea aracterestic Standards.and P:rinci les, fl Area wide 1vlaintain the Citys.downtown as a principal.focal point of community, Downtown lauitetioiialRole identity, containing a mix of community-serving and Is (cumulative) commercial uses, housing, and cultural facilities. Development should achieve a pedestrian-oriented; "village-like"environment that physically and visually relates to the adjacent shoreline. lA Permitted Uses v .+ l r t f u r%IV>�tcc�») Category: Mixed iJs� .�.�-, Alm Uses permitted by the "CG" and "Cr' land use categories, shared parking ro,nur'�'"C_"re" facilities, cultural and civic uses and mixed-use structures Downtown vertically-integrating housing with commercial uses. Core Density/Intensity Category: "" F 12—">30" Height; th e (3) stories for build' �,^-�-vc^vuP• less than full bless; ® Height: minimum buildinj height is 25 feet; three stories maxin><um for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area;. four stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater Design and Categories: Specific Plan("-sp"), Special Design District("-d") and (Development Pedestrian District("-pd") ® Requires tµ a prep ratio a cr.e,-;fi,.nla o Development must be designed and sited to establish a pedestrian-oriented character. ® Maintain and expand streetscape amenities. o--Esti'svlz Dui:-�i[i ice.- v hin,vct ••-•mur c.hitia�ter ..,7 1.;..1,1.. .,rt;..,.l.,tn.7 facades m Require vertical setbacks of upper stories_ ® Emphasize design elements that maintain viewsheds of the shoreline and Pier. a Encourage the preservation of historical structures. ® Establish linkages(walkways)to adjacent streets;providing connectivity of public open spaces and plazas. I Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use Vertical Inte atioi^fo�44ousing Olive«re-e„ . Uses permitted in Commercial General Abutting ("CG"), Commercial Visitor ("CV") and Commercial Downtown Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories,cultural and civic Core uses, mixed use structures integrating housing and commercial uses and freestanding single- and multi-family housin . Density/Intensity Category: " '- 5' ">30" ® ivies c—tmtc!2l ..t., F.- L.,,;lc`liusb�-vvimP3`uis ie3sal"ma ci. fiiiilrvi^�,`,itl`. fouF(4)stories for full block structures THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN It-LU-48 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMEN?' Height: minimum building height is 25 feet; three stories maximum for residential only developments; three stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; four stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater Design and Categeries: Specific Plan and ned-est,::.,.. ,Dist,.:,., <«„&') Same as Development Subarea 1, Catezories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd")and Special Design District("-d") • Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian activity ® Require vertical setbacks above the second story a Require that the scale and massing.of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as a transition to adiacent residential neighborhoods © Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea lA THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN I I-LU-49 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea . . ;Characteristic Standards.and Princi les 1C Permitted Uses Cate o ' g �'� ing , DeivnteViit (, ....;..ea «r.9„ land, see te. .,,1�t;,,o l,, .v;.,g f cilit;es "Core" free standing multi famib, . Residential High("RH") Downtown Residential Density/Intensity Category: "FV3 " ">30" O Height: three(3)stories Design and Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp") and node_,,_^ DW Wt �'p&') Special Development Design District("-d") Buildings should be sited and designed to fmilitate pedestrian activity. €wades. • Require that the scale and massingof..amet"es be consistent with the do�,.,y�t.,.� ..ham ..to rid r.-ans t;., to adj ,.t residential neighborhoods. • ]D..,,.;;de l;.,l..ges y th the r,,iai Streetiarw "cores" (Subareas !A ..d -t- 7 4 Design multi-family units toconvey the visual character of single-family units and incorporate extensive mass and fagade modulation and articulation ID Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") "Main Stet,- Uses permitted in Commemial General—'CU')—an Commercial North e€ Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories, cultural and civic, mixed use ®range structures „.telly-integrating housing and commercial, and free-standing Downtown single- and multi-family housing. Uses that conflict with residential units Neighbor- should be excluded. hood Density/Intensity Category: " F1—�z 142-Sn- ">30" ® Height: three (3) stories f buildings.- gs offing less than a full hle v; Design and Same as Subarea It B Development Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd") and Special Design District("-d") © Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian activity ® Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-50 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT' a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea IA lE Permitted Uses Category: Public and Open Space main Uses permitted .in public land use categories, cultural and Street civic uses,open space Libra Design and • Require open space Iareas Development • Provide.for preservation of historical structures THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-5 I Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU4 (font.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Character-istic Standards and 1rinci les , 2 Functional Role lvtauitain:the Huntington'Beach Pier and:adjacent-properties for,beach-related Pier recreational purposes, emphasizing its identity as a coastal and cultural amenity. Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") Visitor-serving commercial (surf, bicycle and skate rentals, bait and tackle shops, etc.), restaurants/cafes, beach-related cultural facilities, and parking lots. Density/Intensity • Pier: limit development to be compatible with the recreational role of the Pier • Shoreline: limit development to the existing Maxwell's building «footprint" • Height: two(2)stories Design and Category:Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("-d") Development Design structures to reflect its beachfront location. • Establish an unifying architectural character for all structures. • Maintain public view of the ocean. • Emphasize the Huntington Beach Pier as a community landmark • Facilitate pedestrian access. • Link the Pier to the Main Street Downtown"Core"(Subarea IA). 3 Area wide Maintain the "Old Town"residential area as a distinct neighborhood of the. "Old Town" Functional Role City, incorporating local-serving commercial and community"focal" points to enhance its"village"character: The single family character of the small lot subdivisions shall be maintained. 3A Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") PCH Frontage Density Category: " ">30" Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("-d") Development Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 11-LU-52 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER-- LAND USE ELEMENT' TABLE LU4 (font.) Community District and Subarea Schedule $ubarea'. characteristic: ;.Standardsand-Princi les; 3D Permitted Uses Category: Residential Medium High("RMH") Town Lots Density Category: "-25" Design and • Incorporate front yard setbacks to maintain the existing residential Development neighborhood character. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. Category;13C Permitted Uses Mixed Use Veft ral I ta�.-,fie oFHousing!«TW') PCH Nodes Visitor se.. n. ..^. ial uses ornyitted by the C,.,.uner- ial V4s t..,•/«CW) —Weatiaql, and— mixed use structures vefti Densitylintensity Category: F8" Height: t wee(3)stories Design-and Category: Spesthc Plano' Development Design structums to achieve a consistent visualcharacter- d 1. compatible -idential units in scale and Requiie sawtares to be sited along the PCH hentag , with .,long to the rear,si es or itl,i.,structures. Site and designdevelopment t maintainpublic-Aewsof the coast fr PST 3D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Neighborhood("CN") 3C Density/Intensity Category: "-F1" O Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design District('-d") Development 0 Design structures to be visually consistent and compatible with adjacent residential units. • Design and site structures to achieve a"village"character. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN [I-LU-53 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea haracteY:stir 9tandards4nd Prrgct jes.: 4C Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") 1RC-HBirst Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, restaurants, (Lake)Str-eet entertainment, and other uses(as permitted by the"CV" and"CG" land use Pacific categories) Citv commercial Density/Intensity Category: "-FT' • Height: eight(8)-stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development • Establish a unified"village".character, using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses. • Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor. • Incorporate pedestrian walkways,plazas,and other common open spaces for public activity. • Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas. • Establish a well-defined entry from PCH_ • Maintain views of the shoreline and ocean. 4D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") Waterfront Hotels/motels and supporting visitor-serving commercial uses(in accordance commercial with Development Agreement) Density/Intensity Category: "-FT' • Hotel/motel rooms: 1,690 • Commercial: 75,000 square feet Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development As defined by the adopted Development Agreement_ 4E Permitted Uses Category: Open Space Conservation ("OS-C"), uses permitted by the PCHBeaeh Commercial Visitor("CV") land use category,and free-standing multi-family Northeast housing("RM")_ (Please refer to the Land Use Map for the exact boundaries of each land use desi nation. (Continued on Density/Intensity Category: next page). For RM designations, 15 units per acre • For CV designations, F2 • Height: three(3)stories THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 11-LU-56 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea characteristic .(at[�lards and Princl `.1es 4E Design and Category: PCH/Beach Development • Establish a major streetscape element to identify the Beach Northeast Boulevard-PCH intersection. (Cont.) • Site,design,and limit the scale and mass of development, as necessary, to protect wetlands. Maintain visual compatibility with the downtown. • Incorporate onsite recreational amenities for residents. • Minimize access to and from PCH, providing an internal roadway system. • Incorporate extensive landscape and streetscape. 4F Permitted Uses Category: Conservation("OS-.C") Wetlands • Wetlands conservation. 4G Permitted Uses Category: Public("P")and Conservation(`OS-C") Edison Plant Wetlands conservation. • Utility uses. Design and In accordance with Policy LU 13.1.8. Development 4H Permitted Uses Category: Conservation("OS-C") Brookhurst- Wetlands conservation. Magnolia 4I Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("Rlf') Atlanta-liif'st Multi-family residential, parks and other recreational amenities, schools, and (La"Street open spaces. Pacific City& Waterfront Residential Density/Intensity Category: "-30" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development • Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions"(Policies 9.3.1-9.3.4). • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two (2) to four(4) stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN lI-LU-57 Resolution No.2009-62 Extract of Figure LU-5 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations r. V- X T X Ad7i &Am 0 > Legend EDDowntown Specific Plan boundary Land Use Designation CV—Commercial Visitor OS-S—Open Space—Shore M—Mixed Use RH— Residential High Density P- Public Density Schedule Overlay Suffix -F7(3.0 Floor Area Ratio) -sp(specific plan overlay) ->30(greater than 30 dwelling units per acre) -pd (pedestrian overlay) -30(30 dwelling units per acre) -d(design overlay) eee%dn p✓� Jiir ri oAi °i� �'� AJ/Aop�ii N��✓�po m ' /p�pis��i/ ®��*pprpi sI�!®®,� •Jir !�, Ip�'pir Ij dooi pA ✓il�, ., rr/�i/�o ''A 'r/Aii oA' — :' — .. �:: ,\` � /,�j,^d�A,P!�'�jl! e'd,'rjA*.� !//\, •per/ �O .1jA// ��s,+\,� — d'AAff MR 011, r� oJi sIp/ ®pAp IIAI�O ��4 9 � Or /r/j/ /I 9I I/ Ipp ♦4' n�/ // /A r/U A p!//:®/ // sr s .A•v smvA ®.I °�s)� IB 111 —v. 11 Ilt; 44 .� � ^� �!_'�Ia �� - �111011111111111d111111 Iplllllllllllll Ilillllll1111 r!'II;IIIIPlI;IIIIIIII?IIIII�IIiil lllLiilt 1"! ,dllllll®IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBIillllililllllllllll IiIIIIII11:1111! MINIM 11111111 R.E � I = fill fill 11lu1 - nBlll�!11 i ailIIIII IIIIl11 Illlilt lillllll Illlla lillllll.Hill[ o�1u t 111111 IIt;S�I 1111�IIIIIIII IIIII!,Ii1111 1111111 119III ltnll lillllll�11l1 1111191 sill[[ •�— 111l1"" � it a1 ®®II 11111 11m1 Iilfllll Iilllil:.III(IIIIIIIII Illill 1111111�91111 0 11111:: llllll tllllnl 1111111 fill:/IItB IIlIIin1 111111111111111 I"I'll 11111 :o ( r%h lIIIIIL:IIIIiI: [milli[lull;111111 alllilll 111111 IHIIII 111111 f ,nt:,ji,� ,,,, IIIIt 1111111,IlIIIIIII IIBIII_°IIIIIII Illllilll IRtl11.^"-'"t�'=.""'�`G;�=Ilill 11lIIII 1111111 null _.n,um•---�_ Il lli IIIIIlIi 111111! lillllll QIIIII r �i -. Illlli .Illflll 11111 INII �, �r,._nql i' = �I j�I ®9ltll lull loe9�,ylnn�0 a :.� IIIII= anmu pc5 ie'= 1111111[Il1111111111111�= 0 {1ne,r m,un, �� II m1��n�_I 11llllllllllllilllilll i, Resolution No.2009-62 a El a 111310 0t C313 oafl000gal° oae70 s a O a n DO 1[ O a D, a O o a0000a`°"aoCU3aoo avn000 OoowaoQ. -- 3 i13 Q U O O D p n UO ti 000C10000 000 OC30053000 1004400000 ❑100#13 O Lf0 8 a Uup O a. Oao a O 4 a O m u a - �a 000=oaa� o aava oao � . ` a s TO O _ o a .O a ohoabnoao so ffi O a O Oa a O a O v O m 03 r 1' J? a a oaol&ioaa aaoot000r_ oan oc3 X O O O ■ Q O O t- >i a 00 oocomooQq�aaac�Zeloo oa0f b a '4 O 13 jj =0 ♦ - DO -sa so iffuluft sassiEsas• MV.1 ♦ O O O p ,d O O n j(3r3& a o O ALAM a O a p o OPQ a a 0o00 dOa0 'a o a O000g000=3030319 o O O p O 0 Q i O: o p o o; LEGENO o o ^.^�• - EXMMG CLASS i TPAR_ OFF ROAD 0000- EXISMIC CLASS 2 TP-gU ON ROAD STRIPED LANES @®am - PROPOSM CLASS I TRAIL- oFF RoAD Refer to following figure: ts.. _ PROPOSED CLASS 11 TRAIL- ON ROAD STRIPED `17 "Extract of Figure CE-9» for proposed changes Sam;oKSAssodazes.19% to Bicycle Plan BICYCLE PLAN z 2-ICE-9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN III-CE-23 Resolution No.2009-62 Proposed Bike Lanes (changes to Figure CE-9) P rqO a� 1 � / ,'-,/�k Lange f (PCH .9/Main.St.) _ eca Ax I y i Proposed Class II r 1 e ane L?rangeiAv to" t' i f. ♦` ♦ i ♦ i N f \ \ W E \ \ 5 Extract of Figure CE-9 Legend - - - - Existing Class I Bike Lane - - - - Existing Class II Bike Lane ® - proposed Class 11 Bike Lane Res. No. 2009-62 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 02, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hansen NOES: Hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None (Jvv� Clerk and ex-officivolerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 2009-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA, ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 TO AMEND TIME LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES TO AMEND ZONE 4 - LAND USE PLAN AND ACCOMPANYING TEXT OF THE CITY'S COASTAL. ELEMENT FOR THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5) AND TO REFLECT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 AND REQUESTING CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and Public Resources Code Section 30503 and 30510,the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002; and Such amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption; and The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by law, held at least one public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002, and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan, the Certified Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program(including the Land. Use Plan), and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act, 09-2218.002 1 NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution is located starting from the intersection of Goldenwest Street with Pacific Coast Highway and curves along the coastline, including the Huntington Beach Pier, down to Beach Boulevard. The inland boundary of the Specific Plan Area follows the prolongation of Sunrise Drive from Beach Boulevard to Pacific View Avenue where the boundary curves along Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. From Atlanta Avenue, the boundary flows along Orange Avenue and continues up Lake Street to Palm Avenue where it connects over to Main Street and along Pacific View Avenue to link down along 6th Street. From 6th Street, following along Walnut Avenue to Goldenwest Street, parcels within the first block adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway are included in the Specific Plan Area and consists of approximately 336 acres within the City of Huntington Beach(Exhibit A). 2. That the Local Coastal Program(Coastal Element) for the Subject Property is hereby changed to reflect modified district boundaries and circulation improvements for the Downtown Specific Plan area, associated changes to the land use and subarea designations and updated narrative (Exhibit B). 3. That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 also consists of Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 4. That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to consider, approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002. 5. That pursuant to Section 13551(b) of the Coastal Commission Regulations, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 will take effect 09-2218.002 2 s automatically upon Coastal Commission approval, as provided in Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513 and 30519. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting hereof held on the 2nd day of November 2009. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: p City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Jdministrator Director of Planning Exhibits: A. Specific Plan Map B. Changes in Land Use Plan(Coastal Element) C. Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 09-2218.002 3 Resolution No.2009-63 f, P- � f r � h r$" Resolution No.2009-63 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT the adopted conceptual master plan. Existing oil production facilities are permitted to continue. However,the Coastal Element Land Use Plan provides for an ultimate change in use on the site from oil production to mixed use, including residential,commercial,open space and civic/recreational uses. The Coastal Element Land Use Plan for the remainder of Zone 3 designates the vacant bluff at the eastern edge of the Bolsa Chica as open space. It is intended to accommodate the proposed Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park. The private golf course area and neighborhood park are also designated as open space. The residential.portion is designated as low,medium,medium high and high density residential,consistent with existing development. Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) The entire land area is designated as OS-S,Open Space-Shoreline. ZONE 3—LAND USE(DESIGNATIONS RESIDENTIAL RL-4,RL-7,RM-I5,RMH- 25,RH-30 MIXED USE MH-172/30(AVG.15)-s OPEN SPACE OS-P,OS-S,OS-CR ZONE 3—SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan ZONE 3—GENERAL PLAN OVERLAP'S 4B,4J See Table C-1 for land use category definitions. Zone 4—(Downtown This portion of the Coastal Zone extends from Goldenwest Street south to Beach Boulevard. (Figure C-8.) Existing Land Uses Inland(Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary.) Zone 4 is known as the City's "Downtown." Existing land uses include recreational beach amenities, single and multi-family residential uses,and a rich variety of visitor serving commercial facilities that serve to make the area the primary activity node for visitors to the Coastal Zone. Within the Downtown area, project areas, with their own distinctive character and purpose, have been developed. Significant commercial project areas include Main Street, the Waterfront Development and Pacific City, a site formerly known as"31 acres." Many of the commercial areas also integrate housing. However,the"Old Town"and "Town Lot" areas are the primary residential nodes in this area. Main Street Main Street runs north south from Pacific Coast Highway to Palm Avenue within the Coastal Zone. The Main Street"core area,"where development is most concentrated, lies between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Street. However, the expansion of the Main Street "core" area is envisioned to extend north on Main Street to Palm Avenue. With the head of Main Street leading directly into the Municipal Pier, Main Street itself serves as an extension of the Pier for Coastal Zone visitors. Main Street and its environs have been developed THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-13 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT as a mixed use,pedestrian oriented district,with visitor-serving commercial uses, integrated housing and upper story office uses. The Waterfront The Waterfront development area encompasses approximately 44 acres located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. The site presently includes a high rise hotel with ballroom and conference facilities,a luxury hotel with conference facilities, specialty retail uses and a spa and a multi-family residential component. Planned uses for the remaining undeveloped portion include additional luxury hotel accommodations; This area also includes a small wetlands which was restored and conserved in 2004. Existing eases north of the Waterfront development area to.Atlanta Avenue include multi-family residential and a residential mobile home park. zee--Pacific City The LM yes'Pacific City site is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway and Atlanta Street to the north,and Huntington and First Street to the east and west. This site is presently but is planned under construction for development with visitor serving commercial and high density residential uses. Oldtown The area inland from Lake Street and Atlanta Avenue is known as the Oldtown section of the City. This area is developed with a mix of single and multi-family residential uses. Townlot/PCH Frontage This area comprises approximately 17 blocks north o between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue,east of Goldenwest Street and west of Sixth Street and south of Palm Aevenue. Existing land uses in the area are primarily residential. Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) The seaward portion of this zone includes a high density residential development located northeast of the Pier on the sandy beach area. Also included in this sub-area are the Municipal Pier with restaurant uses and recreational fishing opportunities; the Pier Plaza located at the base of the Pier with public open space, an amphitheater and palm court;restaurant uses at the southwest base of the Pier, and Huntington Beach City Beach. The Municipal Pier The City's Municipal Pier is located at the intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway and serves as the focal point of the City's Coastal Zone. The Pier, which was re-built and opened in 1992, is 1,856 feet long, 30 feet wide and 38 feet above the mean low water level. It is constructed of reinforced concrete. It includes a variety of visitor serving and recreational amenities, including a restaurant,community access booth, lifeguard tower, restrooms and observation and recreational fishing platforms. Visitors can use the Pier to sight see,stroll, fish and/or dine. Proposed enhancements include a funicular/trolly system to transport pedestrians from the Plaza area to the end of the Pier and back. Coastal Element policy restricts the height of buildings on the pier to no more than 2 stories/35 feet and requires that the entire perimeter of the pier be retained for public access. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-14 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT Pier Plaza The Main Pier Plaza is located at the base of the Municipal Pier. It consists of more than eight acres of public space. The public plaza includes a palm court,a 230 seat amphitheater, a spectator area,accessways to the beach and lawn,restrooms and concessions,bicycle parking facilities and automobile parking. It also includes 18,000 square feet of visitor serving commercial uses(restaurants). Pier Plaza was designed as a community focal area where public speaking forums, surfing competitions,foot races,outdoor concerts and similar events are held. Coastal Element Land Use Plan Designations Inland(Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary.) Coastal Element land use designations for the inland portion of this sub-area include mixed use and medium and high density residential. The majority of the sub-area is covered by a specific plan overlay(The Downtown Specific Plan). The Main Street core is subject to the"pedestrian overlay"provisions in addition to the Downtown Specific Plan. Portions of the Community District and Sub-area Schedule apply to the area as well. (See Figure C-10 and Table C-2.) Coastal(Seaward of Pack Coast Highway) The shoreline area,including the site that currently houses residential development, is designated as open space. The Municipal Pier and the area southwest of its base are designated for visitor serving commercial uses. With the exception of the residential use,development in the area is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. ZONE 4—LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND GENERAL PLAN OVERLAYS OLDTOWN OS-P,RMH-25-d Design District 313 TOWNLOT/PCH RH->30-d-s^,*rtr EQ aSP FRONTAGE Design Districts 3A�—and D Downtown Specific Plan WATERFRONT CV-177-sp,RH-30-sp Design District 4dD and I RM-15 Downtown Specific Plan MAIN N414 F4 30 sp p nit STREET/ENVIRONS sp pd, p "4 F 1/25 sp pa M->30-d-pd-sp,P Design Districts 1 A,B,C,D,E Downtown Specific Plan 3' ACRES PACIFIC RH-30-sp,CV-F7-sp CITY Design District 4C,I Downtown Specific Plan PIER AND SHORELINE CV-d-sp, OS-S Design Districts 2, 4J Downtown Specific Plan See Table C-1 for land use category definitions. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-l5 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COASTAL.ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN LAND USE,DENSITY AND OVERLAY SCHEDULE TABLE C-1 (Continued) PUBLIC INSTITUI`IONAL Public(P) Governmental administrative and related facilities,such as public utilities, schools, libraries,museums,public parking lots, infrastructure, religious and similar uses. MIXED USE Mixed Use(M) Mixed use areas that may include Vertically Integrated Housing(MV) or Horizontally Integrated Housing(MH) uses,townhomes, garden apartments, liveAvork units and mid-/high-rise apartments, Commercial Visitor(CV),Commercial Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General(CG)uses. ® Mixed use development in the coastal zone will focus on providing visitor serving commercial opportunities along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and within the Downtown Specific Plan Area. ® The exact density, location and mix of uses in this category shall be governed by a Specific Plan("-sp")to allow greater design flexibility and to address the uniqueness of a particular area. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN I V-C-28 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COASTAL ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN LAND USE,DENSITY AND OVERLAY SCHEDULE TABLE C-1(continued) Residential Residentiardensities indicate the maximum density which may be permitted on a site. Tal development density may be reduced to account for site conditiconstraints. 4.0 Maximum of 4.0 dwelling units er net acre. 7.0 Maximum of 7.0 dwelling units per net acre. 15 Maximum of 15 dwelling units per net acre. 25 Maximum of 25 dwelling units per net acre. >30 Greater than 30 dwelling units per net acre. Commercial and Commercial and industrial intensities indicate the maximum floor area ratio Industrial (FAR)which may be permitted on a site. The actual development intensity may be reduced to account for site conditions and constraints. FAR represents the total building area(floor space,excluding basements, balconies, and stair bulkheads)on a lot divided by the total area of the lot. (Note: commercial FA-Rs exceeding 0.4 normally necessitate subterranean or semi-subterranean parking to provide adequate space to meet code required parking.) +1 Maximum floor area ratio of 0.35 +2 Maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 -F2A Maximum floor area ratio of 0.75 +3 Maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 +4 Maximum floor area ratio of 1.25 +5 Maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 +6 Maximum floor area ratio of2.0 +7 Maximum floor area ratio of 3.0 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-3 I Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 Subarea Characteristic. Standards and Prtner `les: ., 1 Area-Ode: . Maintain the City's d", ntown as a prutcipal focal point of.commuriaity Downtown Functional.Roie identity, containing a mix of community-serving and visitor-serving. !(eumuiat►ve) comiercial`uses, housing; and cultural facilities. Development sho-uld achieve a pedestrianriented,"village like'.'environmer►f that:physically and visually relates to the adjacent shoreline;. IA Permitted Uses veftio,i Integration o fHousing Category. Mixed Use- 1VI ) Main.StreetF Uses permitted by the "CG' and"CV" land use categories,.shared parking D!'ur�czc"zvrz'—' facilities, cultural and civic uses and mixed-use structures Downtown vertically integrating housing with commercial uses. Core Density/Intensity Category: " F 12"">30" Height: s for buildings occupying less than a Ul blo fbw(4)stories for-full • height: minimum building height is 25 feet; three. stories maidinnui for cleyelopments with less than 25,0:00 square feet net site area; four stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater Design and Categories: Specific Plan("-sp"), Special Design District("-d") and Development Pedestrian District("-pd") Requires the prepamtion of a Specific.Plan- • Development must be designed and sited to establish a pedestrian-oriented character. • Maintain and expand streetscape amenities. • Establish :aod .rehireetual character end ti—.z a ,,..,. aptit r i l faeaades. • Require vertical setbacks of upper stories. • Emphasize design elements that maintain viewsheds of the shoreline and Pier. • Encourage the preservation of historical structures. • Establish linkages (walkways) to adjacent streets; providing connectivity of public open spaces and plazas. 1B Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use Vertiral"egration of He `(`1V�") Wit; Olive"Core" Same Subar-e 1 ^ Uses permitted in Commercial Abutting General- -('`CG'Io- Commercial Visitor ("CV") and Downtown Commercial Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories, Core cultural and civic uses, mixed use structures integrating housing and commercial uses and freestanding single- and multi-family housing, Density/Intensity Category: "--F6,125" "( >30") • Height: t fee(3) staFies for buildings occupying less than a full blo four(4)stories for full blook struetffe-s THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-34 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT ® Height: minimum building. height is 25 feet; three stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square leetnet site area; four stories maximum for net site.area 25000 sgtaare feet or greater; three stories for residential only developments Design and Cawg0Fks`. spesi& Ph-% 0sp!q and Pedestrim District C' pa") e Development Subarea 1,except standard for shoreline Aewshed. Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), .Pedestrian District. ("- pd")and Special Design District("-d") • Buildings.should be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian activity • Require vertical setbacks above.the second story • Require that the scale and massnng.of structures be consistent with.the downtown character and serve as a transition.6 adjacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-35 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2(continued) _. subarea. Chara�ter>tstic. -:, Standards aiad,Princi, le§ 1C Permitted Uses Category: ' Abutting > > �eiv�tervn » > "Gore" free standing multi family .Residential High("RH") Downtown Residential Density/Intensity Category: " ">30" g �': o Height: three(3)stories Design and Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp") and Pedestrian is " t ' p&+S ecnal Development Design District("A") Buildings should be sited and designed to farilitate pedestrian aGtiN4t5-. facades. Require*eftioal setbacks above the second stoFy. a Require that the scale and massingof stmet..res be consistent with the de;mtown character—id- -as—a transition to—a jaeentt residetAial neighborhoods: - Provide 144mges with the Main StFee*/D H "cores" (Subarea- 1 A ...7 4B) • Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single-family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade.modulation and articulation 1D Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") Main Streets Uses permitted in Gofmner-dial General"z G-")—and Commercial North of Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories, cultural and civic, mixed use Orange structures vertioally integrating housing and commercial, and free-standing Downtown single- and multi-family housing. Uses that conflict with residential units Neighbor- should be excluded. hood Density/Intensity Category: " F11 >' ">30" • Height: three (3) stories f, buildings ecoupying less than^ full block four-(4)stories for full blooL stptet.,res - Design and Same as Subarea lEB Development Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- PC) and Special Design District("-d") • Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate Pedestrian activity • Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-36 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT a transition to adacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkaLyes with the Downtown Core (Subarea lA lE Permitted Uses Category: Public and Open Space Main Uses permitted in public land use categories, cultural and Street civic uses,open space Library Design and • Require open space areas Develonment • Provide for preservation of historical structures } THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-37 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2(continued) Sul�;atea _ �haeact�r�,stc Standards and Prauei des:; . 2 �u�hctional Mole lVlatttam the untuigton Beach Pier and adjacent properties for Pier lieaeh-relateii recreational purposes;emphasizing-its identify as a coastal and cultural amenity. Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") Visitor-serving commercial(surf, bicycle and skate rentals, bait and tackle shops, etc.), restaurants/cafes, beach-related cultural facilities, and parking lots. Density/Intensity • Pier: limit development to be compatible with the recreational role of the Pier • Shoreline: limit development to the existing Maxwell's building "footprint" • Height: two(2)stories;maximum 35 feet Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("A") Development • Design structures to reflect its beachfront location. • Establish a unifying architectural character for all structures. • Maintain public view of the ocean. • Maintain public access around the entire perimeter of the pier. • Emphasize the Huntington Beach Pier as a community landmark. • Facilitate pedestrian access. • Link the Pier to the Main Street Downtown"Core"(Subarea IA). 3 Area wide Maintain the "Old Town"residential area as a distinct neighborhood of the "Old Town" Ilunctionat Role City; incorporating local-serving;commercial and community"focal" points to enhance its"village."character. The single family character of the small lot subdivisions shall be maintained 3A Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") PCH Frontage Density Category: "30"( LWJ Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District ("-d") Development • Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 1V-C-38 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2(continued) SuUarea__ -� �har�ctef�stc, _ Sf�ud�rds_algd�.ru►ci _�e� , 3B Permitted Uses Category: Residential Medium High("RMH") Town Lots Density Category: "-25" Design and • Incorporate front yard setbacks to maintain the existing residential Development neighborhood character. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. 3G Permitted 11 Category! Mixed Use Vertical r. egratio of Housing i« pg) DrrCH Nodes Visitor-ser'vi k!—uses permitted—by the Conunersial Visite shmaeter s�—residential, and mixed struct; vedieally integrating housing with eowumffe DensityAEnten%ity Category: `-E82 • HeighLl three(3)stories Design-and Categery: Specific,Plan " Develop men _ Designsttnwtwes to wehie:'e a .,onsiste nt visual e"acter and be "ble with adjacent residential units in seale and mass. • De stmetwes to be sited .,long the PCH frontage, ..itt, parking to >sWes, or-within stmctui-zes, * Site :an design development to maintain public views of the coast 67-om public places: 3D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Neighborhood("CN") 3C Density/Intensity Category: "-FI" • Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design District("-d") Development • Design structures to be visually consistent and compatible with adjacent residential units. • Design and site structures to achieve a"village"character. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-39 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 (continued) Stiba�ea,, .. L�iaract�ir��c �t��tiar-ds:,and�'r�ci les: 4I Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") Atlanta First Multi-family residential,parks and other recreational amenities,schools, and open spaces. Pacific City& Waterfront Residential DensitylIntensity Category: "-30" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development • Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions"(Policies LU 9.3.1-9.3.4). • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two(2)to four(4)stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. 4J Permitted Uses Category: Shoreline("OS-S") Beach 0 Coastal and recreational uses. Design and In accordance with Policy LU 1411.3. Development 4K Permitted Uses Categories: Residential ("RL" or "RM") and Open Space-Conservation " (Cont.on next ("OS-C") page) Density/Intensity Residential • Maximum of fifteen(15)dwelling units per acre Design and See Figure C-6a Development A development plan for this area shall concentrate and cluster residential units in the eastern portion of the site and include, consistent with the land use designations and Coastal Element policies, the following required information (all required information must be prepared or updated no more than one year prior to submittal of a coastal development permit application): 1. A Public Access Plan,including,but not limited to the following features: • Class 1 Bikeway (paved off-road bikeway; for use by bicyclists, walkers, joggers, roller skaters, and strollers) along the north levee of the flood control channel. If a wall between residential development and the Bikeway is allowed it shall include design features such as THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-43 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT TABLE C-3 Public Parking Opp ortunities within Coastal Divisions Coastal Free Metered Total Zone Division Parking Parking Parking Parking .(Fig ure C-4 Location Spaces Spaces Spaces Comments Zone 1 PCH(on-street)* 300 300 Peter's Landing 630 630 HH Yacht Club 76 76 $1.00/hour Sunset Beach* 672 672 4 hr. maximum Zone 2 Bolsa Chica State Beach 2200 2200 $5.00/day PCH on-street) 324 324 $1.50/hour Zone 3 PCH(on-street) 260 266 $1.50/hour Surf Theatre Lot 39 39 Permit Only Zone 4 Pier Plaza 421 421 $1.50/hour Main Promenade 815 815 $-1:302.00/ Hour,($12.00 Mix niaxinium) PCH(on-street) 486 486 $1.50/hour Business Streets 206 206 $1.50/hour Residential Streets 218 218 $1.50/hour City Beach Lot 250 250 $1.50/hour ($12.00 daily maximum) City Beach Lot 1813 1813 $710.00/day Pierside Pavilion** 283 283 $3.75/hour ($11.25 daily maximum) Plaza Almeria** 171 171 $2.00/hour ($15.00 daily maximum) The Strand** 410 470 $2.00/hour includes ($12.00 daily valet spaces) maximum) Zone 5 HB State Beach 1200 1200 $5.00/day PCH/River(inland) 110 110 PCH/River(ocean) 75 75 Beach Blvd. (1600' 83 83 $1.50/hour inland) Newland to channel 75 75 Magnolia to channel 81 81 Brookhurst to 22 22 channel TOTAL 1,965 8,48-t 10,446 9 345 11370 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-56 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT Note: *Most or all located outside of the City's Coastal Zone boundary. **Privately operated parking structures available for public use. Rates for summer months and valet vary. Commercial Parking Much emphasis has been placed on providing adequate.parking for commercial facilities in the Coastal Zone to ensure that commercial parking demands do not negatively impact recreational beach user parking. This issue was especially significant when planning for the re-development of the City's Downtown area into a dense node of visitor serving commercial facilities. The unique parking issues of the Downtown area have had been resolved through the development and implementation of the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan(see Technical Appendix). The Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan.a component of the Downtown Specific Plan,was adopted in 1993 and providesd for shared parking facilities including on-street parking, lots and nearby municipal parking structures. Ann"reports and fnedifiee4ions of the Master-Plan-,if needed;will serve to enswe that adequate par-king f4eilities . In,2009,the Downtown Specific Plan was updated to accommodate for new development within the downtown area. Part of the update process was the elimination.of.the Downtown Parking Master Plan,which had reached,established development thresholds. Altliduab the Downto" Parldng Master Un was elitninated;the downtown still employs a shared parking Concept and;the D.ow-nto"Specific Plan has added other tools for managing the parkinu demand of existing and fixture downtown development such as a trolley,a shuttle to remote lots and a parking directional sign system. Other commercial areas within the City's Coastal Zone,but outside the downtown area,meet their parking needs through implementation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Adequate parking must be provided on,site at the time of development. Shared parking is permitted on a case by case basis, if justified. Residential Parking Residential uses within the Coastal Zone are required to provide parking facilities on-site. In some areas of the Coastal Zone, residents may purchase parking permits to exempt them from parking time limits and/or metered parking. Certain residents also have the opportunity to purchase parking stickers that permit them to park in areas where the general public is not permitted. However, Coastal Element policy prohibits the establishment of new preferential parking districts whenever public access to the coast would be adversely affected. Trails and Bikeways Bicycling provides both recreation and an alternative mode of transportation to access the City's coastal resources. The City's bikeway program is one of the most extensive in Orange County and includes both Class I and Class II. Bikeways are marked with signs and street painting. Existing and proposed bikeways in the City's Coastal Zone are depicted in Figure C-14. Figure C-14 also depicts riding and hiking trails, including a proposed equestrian trail that will be included in the planned Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park(The Huntington Beach Regional Riding and Hiking Trail). This trail will extend from the existing equestrian facilities and trails in Central Park to the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway at Seapoint Avenue. This trail will provide views of the Bolsa Chica wetlands and shoreline. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-57 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT Downtown The downtown area has been designed as the primary visitor serving node in the Coastal Zone. Development of the area is guided by the Downtown Specific Plan. Coastal Element policy promotes the continuation of the area as a visitor serving node. Significant project areas within the downtown area include the Main/Pier area,the Waterfront area and Pacific City,a site fomeacly known as"31 acres." The Main/Pier area includes the Municipal Pier,the public plaza at base of the Pier,adjacent restaurants,and commercial/retail development on Main Street and 5th Street. The Waterfront development area is located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. It is designated for uses such as hotels,specialty retail and residential uses. The 91 Armes'Pacific City site is located on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway at First Street,just south of the Municipal Pier. This site is pla coed approved to be developed as a mixed use project including visitor serving commercial,office and residential uses. Planned and existing projects within these development areas are summarized in Table C- 5. TABLE C-5 Existing Downtown Area Commercial Facilities Existing Visitor Serving Projects Within the Downtown Area Description The Waterfront Development The Waterfront Hilton Beach Resort 296 hotel rooms, 15,000 square feet of ballroom/meeting space, restaurant pool and fitness center. Hyatt Regency Resort and Spa 517 hotel rooms with a conference center, retail and restaurant uses and a spa and fatness center Main/Pier Pier Pavillion 19,100 square feet retail,restaurant and office uses. Oceanview Promenade 42,000 square feet of visitor serving retail Main Promenade 34,000 square feet of visitor serving retail, restaurant and office uses. Includes 830 space municipal parking structure. Adjacent to Municipal Pier 15,000 square feet of restaurant area. Currently houses Duke's and Chimayo's restaurants. Municipal Pier 8,000 square feet of visitor serving commercial at end of Pier_ Pier Plaza No commercial uses_ Plaza Almeria 301 Main Street. 30,000 square feet of commercial/retail with 10,000 square feet of office on upper stories. Also includes 42 townhomes. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-67 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT The Strand 157 room boutique hotel and 154,000 square feet of retail,restaurant and office uses Planned/Approved Projects Description The Waterfront Development acres along PG14, adjacent to exis� (Waterfront Development) , confer-enee center-, 12,000 square Pat of A third hotel. Pacific City 31-acre,mixed use proiect consisting of seven.commercial-buildings with retail, office,restaurant,cultural and entertainment uses and a residential component with 516 condo units and a 2-acre"Village Green"mark. The commercial portion of Pacific City is also planned to have carts,kiosks, outdoor dining,live entertainment indoors and outdoors and a boutique hotel. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN I V-C-68 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT C 2.3.3 Policies Encourage the Orange County C 2.4.1 Transportation.Authority to locate bus Maintain an adequate supply of parking that turnouts along Pacific Coast Highway and supports the.present.level of demand and other major arterial roads within the City, if allows for the expected increase in private feasible and appropriate. (I--C 9, I-C 22d) transportation use. (I-C 9) C 2.3.4 C 2.4.2 Continue to reserve the abandoned rail right Ensure that adequate parking is maintained of way, located parallel to Lake Street,for a and provided in all new development in the future transportation use such as a transit, Coastal Zone utilizing one or a.combination pedestrian and/or bicycle facility. (I-C 9, I- of the following: (I-C 9) C 22d) a. Apply the City's parking standards C 2-3.5 at a minimum. Encourage the development of a b. Implement the Downtown Par-king transportation center in the Coastal Zone in Masted a comprehensive or near the Downtown area. The parking strategy for the transportation center should be located to Downtown.area. ,serve both local and commuter traffic,to c. Consider developing new parking promote coastal access,and sited to standards specific to the coastal minimize adverse impacts from the use on zone, subject to Coastal adjacent land uses. (I-C 1, I-C 9, I-C 22d) Commission approval. d. Develop parking assessment C 2.3.6 districts to fund off-site parking New development, such as multi-unit structures, if necessary. housing and commercial centers,should e. Monitor parking programs to make maintain and enhance public access to the the most effective use of parking coast through provisions for enhancing or resources. encouraging ridership on public f. Replace any on-street parking lost in transportation. (I-C 7, I-C 9) the coastal zone on a 1:1 basis within the coastal zone prior to or C 2.3.7 concurrent with the loss of any Provide for future use of water borne parking spaces. passenger services along ocean frontages and harbor waterways. (I-C 1, I-C 9, I-C C 2.4.3 22d) Consider the cost effectiveness of new parking facilities and encourage those that Parking re-coup the cost of providing the land, structures, maintenance and management of Objective the facilities in order to minimize ongoing C 2.4 municipal costs. (I--C 9) Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. C 2.4.4 Develop parking areas outside the Coastal Zone for passenger cars and the development of alternate transportation THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-110 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/ Objective archeological resources. If found to be C 6.1 significant,the site(s)shall be tested and Promote measures to mitigate the adverse preserved until a recovery plan is completed impacts of human activities on marine to assure the protection of the organisms and the marine environment paleontologicallarcheological resources. through regulation of new development, (I-C 2, I-C 3, I-C 8) monitoring of existing development, and retrofitting necessary and feasible. C 5.1.6 Reinforce downtown as the City's historic Policies center and as a pedestrian-oriented C 6.1.1 commercial and entertainment/recreation Require that new development include district,as follows: (I-C 1, I-C 2, I-C 4) mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible;and,at a minimum, l. Preserve older and historic prevent the degradation of water quality of structures; groundwater basins,wetlands,and surface water. (I-C 2, I-C 8) 2. Require that new development be designed to reflect the Downtown's C 6.1.2 historical structures and Marine resources shall be maintained, Downtown design guidelines enhanced,and where feasible, restored. th Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or 3. Amend the Downtown Specific Plan economic significance. (I--C 6, I-C 8, I-C (as an LCP amendment subject to 12, I-C 15, I-C 22e) Commission certification)to: C 6.1.3 a. Coordinate with the Citywide Uses of the marine environment shall be Design Guidelines; and carried out in a manner that will sustain the b. Incorporate historic biological productivity of coastal waters and preservation standards and that will maintain healthy populations of all guidelines. species of marine organisms adequate for C. Coordinate Downtown long-term commercial,recreational, development and scientific, and educational purposes. (I--C 7, revitalization with polices and I-C 8) programs of the Historic and Cultural Resources Element. C 6.1.4 The biological productivity and the quality WATER AND MARINE RESOURCES of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain Goal organisms and for the protection of human C 6 health shall be maintained and,where Prevent the degradation of marine feasible,restored. (I-C 7, I-C 8, I-C 12) resources in the Coastal Zone from activities associated with an urban C 6.1.5 environment. Require containment curtains around waterfront construction projects on inland THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-124 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT the Downtown Master-Par-king Plan 3. The City's traffic model to the Specific Plan shall be processed as an extent it is consistent with the City's amendment to the City's Coastal Local Coastal Program; Program and shall not become effective until certified by the California Coastal 4. The City's Trail Master Plan to the Commission. extent it is consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program; j) Continue to implement the City's Zoning Ordinance to the extent it is not d) Coordinate with neighboring inconsistent with the City's Local jurisdictions regarding circulation for Coastal Program as it pertains to parking autos,pedestrians and cyclists to requirements. promote coastal access opportunities. k) Promote public parking opportunities e) Explore the use of water taxis in through the establishment of new or Huntington Harbour and ocean enlarged off-site parking facilities, frontages,especially those near creation of on-street public parking commercial land uses. opportunities,shared parking, and requiring that adequate on-site parking Parking Management be provided in relation to any f) Prohibit the implementation of development. preferential parking districts whenever it would adversely affect public access to 1) Enhance public transit to improve public the coast through a reduction in the access to the coast and to minimize availability of public parking spaces energy consumption and vehicle miles used by public visitors to the coast. traveled. g) Develop parking and traffic control Direct Access plans to promote public access to the m) Provide directional signage for cyclists, coast for those neighborhoods that are pedestrians and autos to guide beach adversely impacted by spill over parking bound traffic. and traffic. n) Annually assess existing access points h) Explore areas where park and ride for maintenance needs. Repair/maintain facilities can be implemented at existing as needed,or as prioritized per capital shopping center parking lots where the improvement program. Acquire new available parking is under utilized. access points where feasible and appropriate through the development i) Continue to ilmplement the Downtown review process. Master-Parking Plan a parking strategy for the Downtown area o) Evaluations for new access points within the Downtown Specific should focus on pedestrian safety. Plan. Monitor-the Plan on an aafmal basis, and update when neeessafy. Transit Evaluate the impact of downtown p) Coordinate with the Orange County parking on coastal access, public transit, Transportation Authority to develop a and vehicle miles traveled. Updates to transportation center within the Coastal Zone, if feasible. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-144 Resolution No.2009-63 7."e 3J. _ Ar At 4-LEGEND >s� RF�1oFt;lvv nat*,!>=v11 a�a�sln• C�. RESIDE.,71AL HIGH DENSITY _ fU.49¢1tCLi1'_ cV COVXIERCIMI \LTTOR AL!1FJ)liSF M 'UNEDUSE ME MOMI)USE HORIZO\iAi, MV JIIXM USE LERncm- Zone.5 O&P PARK OS_S SHO&L PCNIJt" P PUBLIC QFXZUA f" d DESIGN OyERL aT" - i PEDESTRLiv OVERLAY -sp SPECIFIC PL"°4'ER`-AF Refer to following figure: CUA2iQ:12L7.4!_INPI S:RI.4L,hlikFJ)L% DGVS%iY tiC1it3J(,J(E. CC Fe 1.2j Extract of Figure C-8" F6 20 for proposed changes to Land Use Plan Fe I: F11 2.0 F12 3.0 E �WASTAL ZONE ZONE 4 LAND USE PLAN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL. ELEM£ Ia. Z " W-C-24 Resolution No.2009-63 Extract of Figure C-8 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Li 2 - t - T-- 1 i .r t > Legend ® Downtown Specific Plan boundary Land Use Designation CV—Commercial Visitor OS-S—Open Space—Shore M—Mixed Use RH—Residential High Density P - Public Density Schedule Overlay Suffix -F7 (3.0 Floor Area Ratio) -sp(specific plan overlay) ->30(greater than 30 dwelling units per acre) -pd(pedestrian overlay) -30 (30 dwelling units ner acre) -d (decion nverinv) Resolution No.2009-63 Proposed DTSP Subarea designations Extract of Figure. C-10 .. C ' J + i Afla ' -' 1 �. `1- Resolution No.2009-63 N z_ a ;011. -' VESTMINSTER t aS SEAL , [ $ &Z 1 g•z � m a.. m m �j FnLUi;r Q o < 7 = .W_ t � am as ® � Q E9:?1GL8 ® i hANR FOUMAIN 1 a VALLEY e 1 m z a� law aa[ an a.iE= 4K O TALKRT S Q - 'yy 1. � Y - o a z a a 44' F m g 3 ®aa ?® am PACIFIC ® ` OCEAN 1 1-1Y z sac 11,. � d Iawaa,aamI aa'aaaml-.__. Legend e� 1� 11MLTON ® • • Existing Class I: (Paved Off-Road)Bikeway _fir 1 s 6Atirn�G Existing: Riding and Hiking Trail COSTA �•eea Proposed Class 1: Riding and Hiking Trail MESA .. m Existing Class If: (On Road Striped Lanes) Bikeway =: somas Proposed Class Il: Bikeway 00000 Existing/Proposed Riding and Hiking Trail Refer to following figure: "Extract of Figure C-14" Coastal Zone for proposed changes to `grails and,Bikeways plaits Saxe M Associates,1994;City of Huntington Beach Update,1995 - 'r.OW 6968 g ��s� TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS `' 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON COASTAL ELEMENT IV-C--% Resolution No.2009-63 Proposed Bake Lanes (Changes to Figure C-14) 14- Pr : , i 1 PEP Bike'La ih eCd A ' �PC H am St.) --Proposed- class II } t e_I.-One cQ f _L 184 / Qfafd�e;AY to; F X 611 % %� a ♦` S8 Extract of Figure C-14 Legend - - - - Existing Class I Bike Dane - - - - Existing Class II Bike Dane ® - proposed Class II Bike Lane Resolution No.2009-63 EXHIBIT C SPECIFIC PLAN NO, 5 - DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Not Attached Pending Final Local Action (City Council Reconsideration — Scheduled for January 2010) Res. No. 2009-63 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 02, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hansen NOES: Hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Cit Jerk and ex-officio blerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California PUBLIC HEARING 2. (City Council) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2009-60 certifying the final Environmental Impact Report(EIR) No. 08-001; Resolution No. 2009-61 approving Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004; Resolution No. 2009-62 approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007; and, Resolution No. 2009-63 approving Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 to update Specific Plan No. 5 - Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). Staff Recommended Action: a} the Canal Cnyerenmental impart Reneef (SGH •tt200801 1 1 24) fer The Downtown SpeGifir. Plan .n ��`` , , b) Approve Zoning Te)d Amendment No. 08 004 with medifieatiens as lasted in (Attachment Nos. 7- and 8 Staff ReGOMmended Changes) the City GeunGil of the Gity of Huntington BeaGh app amendment to SpeGific; Plan No. 6 Downtown Specifie .n , c-) AppFeve GeneFal Plan Amendment No. 08 007 and adept Resolution . n A Resolution of the Gity of Huntington Beaeh ApPFGViRg GeneFal Plan Amendment No. 08 .n , appFoval and adept Resolution No. 2009 63,4) ApPFGve Local Goastal Pmgram Amendment No. 08 002 with findings fe Huntington Beach, CA Adepting Leeal Coastal PFOgram Amendment A Resolution of the City of ,Implementing OFd„inane esto Amend Zone 4 Land Use Plan nnr! Annmmpnnyinn Tevt of the Gifv'c reectal Clement fer the Real PreneFty .n , Council/Agency Action Agenda—Monday, November 02, 2009 Planning Commission Recommended Action: a) Certify EIR No. 08-001 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 2009-60, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008011124) for The Downtown Specific Plan Update;" and, (a) approved as amended by Late Communication Approved 7-0 b) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 with modifications as listed in (Attachment No. 7 - PC Straw Vote Modifications) with findings for approval and adopt Resolution No. 2009-61, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving an amendment to Specific Plan No. 5 - Downtown Specific Plan;" and, See vote below c) Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 and adopt Resolution No. 2009-62, "A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007;" (Exhibit C modified) and, See vote below d) Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for approval and adopt Resolution No. 2009-63, "A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach, CA Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 to Amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to Amend Zone 4 - Land Use Plan and Accompanying Text of the City's Coastal Element for the Real Property Generally Described as the Downtown Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan No. 5) and to Reflect Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 and Requesting Certification by the California Coastal Commission;" (Exhibit B modified) and, See vote below e) Approve CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations - EIR No. 08-001. See vote below (b) through (e) approved as amended by straw votes and Late Communication Approved 6-1 (Hardy no) City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced Late Communications (39) 32 Speakers Council/Agency Action Agenda—Monday, November 02, 2009 ROLL CALL Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hardy, Hansen All Present PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - To be announced by Mayor Bohr INVOCATION -To be announced by Mayor Bohr In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize or advance any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation. ANNOUNCEMENT OF LATE COMMUNICATION City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced Late Communications, #3 (4), #5 Mayor Pro Tem Green announced she would like to reconsider her vote, with regards to density, on the 1112109 City Council agenda item approving Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 with modifications as listed in (Attachment No. 7- PC Straw Vote Modifications) with findings for approval and adopt Resolution No. 2009-61, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving an amendment to Specific Plan No. 5- Downtown Specific Plan;"and, Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 and adopt Resolution No. 2009-62, "A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007;"(Exhibit C modified) and, Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for approval and adopt Resolution No. 2009-63, "A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach, CA Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 to Amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to Amend Zone 4- Land Use Plan and Accompanying Text of the City's Coastal Element for the Real Property Generally Described as the Downtown Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan No. 5) and to Reflect Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 and Requesting Certification by the California Coastal Commission;"(Exhibit B modified) and, Approve CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations- EIR No. 08-001, as amended by straw vote recommendations and late communication, to a date uncertain. Approved 4-3 (Dwyer, Bohr, Hansen no) AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS ANNOUNCEMENT: Mayor Bohr will announce November as National Native American Heritage Month as part of the city's Human Relations Task Force Federal Heritage Month program. The first President to set aside a month to commemorate the indigenous people of our country was President George H. W. Bush in 1990. Since that time, the month has been proclaimed by each of our Presidents. In support of the Federal Heritage program, the City Council would like to recognize the contributions and Council/Agency Action Agenda—Monday, November 16, 2009 S °A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication Planning Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Fred Wilson, City Administrator FROM: Scott Hess, AICP,Director of Plannin DATE: November 2, 2009 SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR NO. 08-001: SUPPLEMENTAL. ERRATA PAGES & REVISED SECTION DTSP Revised Section 3.2.24.3 Page 3-22 Delete provision #8 on Page 3-22, which reads, "Alcoholic beverages shall only be served in glass or hard plastic containers. Each glass or hard plastic container shall be permanently printed with a number identifying the establishment serving alcohol." (Trot consistent with adopted outdoor dining policy) EIR—Supplemental Errata Pages Please find attached seven supplemental errata pages to EIR No. 08-001 for the Downtown Specific Plan. The errata pages include corrections and minor edits to the draft EIR and Final EIR. It should be noted that the supplemental pages do not change any of the conclusions or impacts identified in the EIR. SH:MBB.jv xc: Bob Hall, Deputy City Administrator Stanley Smalewitz, Director of Economic Development Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Kellee Fritzal, Deputy Director of Economic Development Cathy Fikes, Administrative Assistant Linda Wine, Administrative Assistant GAAdmLtr\2009\1102jv1 (DTSP).doc Downtown Specific Plan Update t Final EIR Supplemental Errata 11-2-09 Page 3-6, Section 3.1 (Project Description) The existing zoning for the DTSP area is Specific Plan 5-Downtown Specific Plan-Coastal Zone. The Downtown Specific Plan boundaries have not changed since its initial adoption in 1983. Within the existing DTSP are 11 districts, each with separate development standards and permitted uses. The existing districts of the DTSP are listed below and illustrated on Exhibit-3-1-3 3.3-1 Existing Downtown Specific Plan Districts (page 3-16 above): Page 4-23, Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) All impacts to aesthetics resources associated with implementation of the proposed DTSP Update would be less than significant with mitiga No significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics resources would occur. Page 4-47, Section 4.2 (Air Quality) Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in the air quality study prepared by Mestre Greve Associates,there will be fie significant short-term construction and long-term operational impacts due to the project based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Emissions generated during construction will fiet be in excess of SCAQMD's threshold criteria, specifically for NOx.and to efef;qr-e,However,-it is unlikely that short-term construction activities will increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations due to required compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations. The proposed project will increase regional emissions by an amount greater than the SCAQMD thresholds., specifically for ROG and PMIo.However,the consistency criteria pertains to local air quality impacts rather than regional emissions, as defined by the SCAQMD.The SCAQMD has identified CO as the best indicator pollutant for determining whether air quality violations would occur, as a CO hot-spot is most directly related to increased traffic.Nevertheless,the air basin is now in attainment for the CO standards. Exceedances of the CO standards are not expected, and local air quality impact modeling is no longer performed. Local air pollutant concentrations would not be expected to exceed the ambient air quality concentration standards due to local traffic,with or without the project.Because the project is not projected to impact the local air quality,the project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. Page 4-52, Section 4.2 (Air Quality) Analysis demonstrates that NOx emissions during construction will exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, even after mitigation is applied. Analysis demonstrates that ROG and PMIo emissions relating to long-germ project operations will exceed SCAQMD thresholds even after mitigation is applied . Therefore, short-term and long-term air quality impacts will be significant. 1 o Downtown Specific Plan Update Final EIR Supplemental Errata 11-2-09 Page 4-99, Section 4.6 (Hydrology and Water Quality) Element of the City's general Plan identifies flood zene aFeas based on the FEMA Fleed lasufanee Rate Maps.P&Aioas of the Speeifie Plan A&ea lie w4hin the FELMA 100 year-fleed betindar-y. Aeeer-ding te Flood lasufanee Rate Maps (Map Panel 026314, Febftwy 18, 2004), dur4ng a The FEMA Flood lasufanee Rate Maps (F4RA49) deliaea4e flood zones. The Owiremnefital 149,z ehanee stefm,the area east of Htin4ingten Stfeet te Beaeh Boalevafd would beeeme inundated up to nine��deep in some afeas. The maps indieate that a majefity of the pr-ejee4 site is sit+iated outside fnest flood hazard zones,with the exreption of the area east of Hunting4ea Stfeet te BeaGh RefAi zg*to Stfeet t Beaet, geuloyar-a ;s larmed within pr-eposed DTSP Dist iets 3 and&As of March 30, 2009,the DTSP area(except for areas seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) is in Zone X, an area determined to be outside the 2%annual chance floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.-No changes to the development regulations for this area are proposed by the DTSP Update. Therefore,the implementation of the proposed DTSP Update is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts relative to placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. Page 4-101, Section 4.6 (Hydrology and Water Quality) In accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the current State General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit.For projects under one acre, which could be a significant number of future projects within the DTSP area,the City will need to condition projects with water quality,requirements and BMPs to reduce or eliminate storm water pollution. To obtain authorization for proposed storm water discharges pursuant to this permit,the landowner(discharger) is required to submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB),prepare a SWPPP and receive a WDID number,and implement best management practices (BMPs)during construction activities. Therefore,with implementation of MM 4.6-3 and regulations pursuant to national and state requirements,the project will have a less than significant impact on storm water runoff for construction activities. Page 4-116, Section 4.7 (Land Use and Planning) As discussed in detail within Section 4.13,Utilities and Service Systems, infrastructure improvements for water,wastewater, storm drains, on-site roadways, etc. that would be necessary to serve the proposed development would be constructed prior to development. The future on-site utilities would connect to existing facilities and some improvements to existing infrastructure may also be required. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.10, Public Services, e�dsting public services, with the exception of Fire, would be adequate to serve the proposed project. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.12, Transportation and Parking, appropriate traffic mitigation measures would be required to ensure that future development under the proposed project would not result in significant traffic impacts. Consequently,the proposed project and associated increases in development densities would not conflict with the applicable policies. 2 Downtown Specific Plan Update Final EIR Supplemental Errata 11-2-09 Page 4-152, Section 4.8 (Noise) All impacts relating to long-term noise associated with the proposed project would be less than significant or mitigated to less than significant levels. Therefore,no significant and unavoidable impacts related to longland use and lanning -term erm noise would occur. Related development projects in the vicinity of the proposed project include projects that are already approved as identified in Table 4.12.3, Summary of Cumulative Projects(page 4-196)and that have been anticipated by the existing DTSP and the Huntington Beach General Plan. In one area(along the east side of I't Street),cumulative traffic noise impacts will be significant,but the project will not contribute significantly to this increase,therefore,no mitigation is required. Cumulative long-term noise impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Construction activities associated with pile driving would be considered significant and unavoidable. Page 4-161, Section 4.10(Public Services) The General Plan sets forth a standard of 5 acres of parkland/park space for every 1,000 persons. The City's current estimated population is 202,250 people. The City currently has 1,001.1-6 1007.05 acres of parkland/park space. When measured against its population,the City is approximately 10 acres short of providing the established standard for parkland/park space. Page 4-165, Section 4.10 (Public Services) Notwithstanding the proposed DTSP Update development,the City is currently deficient 4-0 4_2 acres of parkland to meet its General Plan objective of providing at least 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The proposed DTSP Update project requires 7.8 acres of additional parkland/park space to be added to the overall city parkland inventory. Page 4-172, Section 4.11 (Recreation) The proposed project in conjunction with related development projects (refer to Chapter 3, Project Description)would potentially have a significant adverse cumulative impact related to recreational facilities. The proposed DTSP (as well as related development projects)will introduce additional new population into Huntington Beach that will increase usage of recreational facilities. However, all development projects are required to pay fees and/or provide dedication of land,which would provide the project's fair share (in fees or dedication of land)towards meeting the established City park standard. Citywide, however,the park standard may not be met, leading to a cumulatively significant impact citywide. By following the Code requirements for park or land dedication or in- lieu fees, impacts will be offset to less than significant within the DTSP area. Page 4-186, Section 4.12 (Transportation and Parking) • Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (e.g., result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections 3 Downtown Specific Plan Update Final EIR Supplemental Errata 11-2-09 uivivusv the use of existing neighbor-hood and regional paf-ks or other-reefeatienal f eilities s,e tl,.,t substafAi,l v hysie l deterier tier of the f..:lit... „ld aeour- «be iuvaaacavo uu aeeelefaW • Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways • Result in inadequate parking capacity ® Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(ems. .,bus turnouts, bicycle racks) The following CEQA significance criteria were concluded to have "no impact"or"less than significant impact' in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and therefore required no further analysis in the EIR. • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses • Result in inadequate emergency access , bieyele raek-sj Page 4-192, Section 4.12 (Transportation and Parking) • Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (e.g., result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ® Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? • Would the project conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.Q., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Page 4-207, Section 4.12 (Transportation and Parking) The DTSP Update does not propose changes to the public transit service offered by OCTA.The area. The tfalley would eifeula4e between the Water-ftent Development(a!Oflg Paeifie GE)aSt Highway,west of Beaeh Bottlevar-d),the ffitufe Paeifie City development,the dew-fitown eer-e, and DTSP Update does propose a dewntwA%tr-elley system to enhanee tfansit ser-viee in the dewfAawn Downtown Specific Plan Update Final EIR Supplemental Errata 11-2-09 to eafiveniendy eifeula4e between develepment afeas within the downtown,witheut the need to dfive ffem plaee te plaee, and to also allew near-by residents to get to and kem downtown withetA dr-iviag-. Page 4-226, Section 4.12 (Transportation and Parking) The rates(fees)currently charged to park downtown do not reflect the variable demand. Rate modification will help the City manage the demand by influencing where people park and for how long and improve parking conditions for all users. ReAe ehanges will likely also ; ••This will allow the City to better manage the parking assets by providing for long-term maintenance and increase parking supply.The rate study will eempare rates ehafges in similaff-, >validation, Page 4-236, Section 4.13 (Utilities and Services Systems) A complete discussion of hydrology/drainage is provided in Section 4.6 (beginning on page 4-89)of this EIR. 100 year-flood boundafy,-A to Fleed lasur-anee Rate Maps (FIRM), dufing a 0 storm, the afea east of Huiiting4en Stfeet to Bea-e-h Rnulp;vArd would beeeme inundmed up te nine deep in some^re^^.As of March 30, 2009,the DTSP area(except for areas seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) is in Zone X, an area determined to be outside the 2%annual chance floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Page 10-4, Section 10.2 (Text Changes) Page 2-17, Section 2.5 (Executive Summary Matrix) Utilities and Service Systems MM 4.13-1 To ensure that there are no adverse impacts associated with the future Downtown Specific Plan development Water and Sewer Services projects during construction,Applicant/developer/ Individual projects that may be developed within the DTSP builder/contractor shall coordinate with utility and service area could require extension of existing water and sewer organizations prior to the commencement of Therefore,potential significant impacts relative to this topic construction. could occur as result of the implementation of individual be FeoumFed+^F Ondo,;a,,,'^.^.^^+^at the firne the^F^;^^ projects per the proposed DTSP Update.Each project will need to be reviewed by the City to ensure that associated project impacts are reduced.Water usage will increase as a t*Fne the vrelerA is submitted omitted to the r,+ result of implementation of the development allowed under MM 4.13-6 To ensure adequate water supply for future the proposed DTSP Update. developments,and to be consistent with Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221,a separate water supply assessment will be required for individual projects at the time the project is submitted to the City,for all projects that are subject under the Water Code Section 10912 (a),which includes residential development of more than 500 dwelling units,a commercial building greater than 250,000 sq.ft,a hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms,or a project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units. 5 C Downtown Specific Plan Update Final EIR Supplemental Errata 11-2-09 Page 10-5, Section 10.2 (Text Changes) Page 2-18, Section 2.5 (Executive Summary Matrix) BigAftant knpa*relative to this tepiG Gould GGGUF as Fesult of the shall GOOFdonate YAth utility and se i implementation of the develepFnent allowed undeF the proposed be Fequ'Fed fQF individual Dmie�att t-h-Ae I e. time the voiert is 6 bFAi Duplicative language is deleted Page 10-16, Section 10.2 (Text Changes) Page 4-246, Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems) Ii4M 4.13-1 To ensure that there are no adverse impacts associated with the future Downtown Specific Plan development projects during construction, Applicant/developer/builder/contractor shall coordinate with utility and service organizations prior to the commencement of construction. To Senate Bill 221, - A separ-a4e water- supply assessment will be required fef individual prejeets at th time the prejeet is submi4ed to the Gi1y, for- all or-pieets that are subjeet under- the Watef-40ede l„ae side„t:.,l 7e.,el .,+ of mefe than 500 dwerlin nits will be a ed f«individual p ets .,t the t:,f,e the t: „1.miaed to the City. •rasa vV 1V�N11 Vll 1Vl llllil YlllUUl rJl V1e e 1V M 4.13-6 To ensure adequate water supply for future developments, and to be consistent with Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221, a separate water supply assessment will be required for individual projects at the time the project is submitted to the City, for all projects that are subject under the Water Code Section 10912 (a), which includes residential development of more than 500 dwelling units, a commercial building greater than 250,000 sq.ft, a hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms, or a project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units . Page 10-5, Section 10.2 (Text Changes) Other major changes to the DTSP occur in the General Provisions section of Chapter 3. The General Provisions section includes development standards that are applicable to all districts. Major changes 6 Downtown Specific Plan Update Final EIR Supplemental Errata 11-2-09 in this section include requirements for all development projects to incorporate sustainable/green building practices,provisions specific to mixed use projects,residential buffer requirements for projects adjacent to single-family residential uses and revised parking requirements including the elimination of the Downtown Parking Master Plan concept and modified parking ratios for commercial uses in the expanded downtown core (District 1). Other-ehan"s to the Dewntown DSD T7,,..,o..o, ,. isiens for. ntinue.7 oil rveevef-�remain;.��se TITSP Page 10-10, Section 10.2 (Text Changes) Rrojec�Tnp Generation � �` Page 10-12, Section 10.2 (Text Changes) Page 4-201-206, Section 4.12 (Transportation and Parking) Downtown"Roadway Coiis�stency WIT" 7 !co ,J46 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: Ap rove )0 Condition Iy�A ro ad aenig�/ y CI k's Si ature Council"Meeting Date: 11/2/2009 Depart t ID Number: PL09-23 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CO C L MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: FRED A. WILSON, CITY ADMINIST R PREPARED BY: SCOTT HESS, DIRECTOR OF PLAN I G & { _ STANLEY SMALEWITZ, DIRECTOR F ECONOMIC. DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 08-001 (Appeal of the Planning Commission's Certification), ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08- 007 AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 (DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004, General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 to update Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Update with modifications on October 12, 2009. The request also consists of an appeal by Council Member Jill Hardy and David Rice, a member of the public, of the Planning Commission's certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001, which analyzes the environmental impacts of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Update. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Certify EIR No. 08-001 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No?009-60A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008011124) for The Downtown Specific Plan Update (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." 2. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 with modifications as listed in (ATTACHMENT NOS. 7 and 8 - Staff Recommended Changes) with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) and adopt Resolution No.2009-61 , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving an amendment to Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 3)." 3. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 and adopt Resolution No. 2009-62 A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 (ATTACHMENT NO. 4)." 4. "Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 5) and adopt Resolution N02009-63, A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach, CA, adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to amend Zone 4 — Land Use Plan and accompanying text of the City's Coastal Element for the real property generally described as the Downtown Specific Plan area (Specific Plan No. 5) and to reflect Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 and requesting certification by the California Coastal Commission (ATTACHMENT NO. 6)." 5. "Approve CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations - EIR No. 08-001 (ATTACHMENT NO. 9)." B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Certify EIR No. 08-001 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No?009-6Qa Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008011124) for The Downtown Specific Plan Update (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." 2. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 with modifications as listed in (ATTACHMENT NO. 7 — PC Straw Vote Modifications) with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 10) and adopt Resolution No2009-61 , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving an amendment to Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 3)." 3. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 and adopt Resolution No. 2009-62 A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 (EXHIBIT C MODIFIED) (ATTACHMENT NO. 11)." 4. "Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 5) and adopt Resolution No. 2009-6,3 A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach, CA, adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to amend Zone 4 — Land Use Plan and accompanying text of the City's Coastal Element for the real property generally described as the Downtown Specific Plan area (Specific Plan No. 5) and to reflect Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 and requesting certification by the California Coastal Commission (EXHIBIT B MODIFIED) (ATTACHMENT NO. 12)." 5. "Approve CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations - EIR No. 08-001 (ATTACHMENT NO. 9)." -2- REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 Planning Commission Action on October 6, 2009: THE MOTION MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 08-001 BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1635 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DELGLEIZE, LIVENGOOD, MANTINI, SCANDURA NOES: FARLEY ABSENT: SHIER BURNETT, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planninq Commission Action on October 12, 2009: THE MOTION MADE BY FARLEY, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 WITH MODIFICATIONS AND FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL AND FORWARD THE DRAFT RESOLUTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DELGLEIZE, FARLEY, LIVENGOOD, MANTINI, SCANDURA NOES: NONE ABSENT: SHIER BURNETT, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE THE MOTION MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-007 WITH MODIFICATIONS BY APPROVING THE DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DELGLEIZE, FARLEY, LIVENGOOD, MANTINI, SCANDURA NOES: NONE ABSENT: SHIER BURNETT, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE THE MOTION MADE BY DELGLEIZE, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 WITH MODIFICATIONS AND FINDINGS BY APPROVING THE DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DELGLEIZE, FARLEY, LIVENGOOD, MANTINI, SCANDURA NOES: NONE ABSENT: SHIER BURNETT, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -3- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 THE MOTION MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO APPROVE MODIFIED CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACT WITH A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DELGLEIZE, LIVENGOOD, MANTINI, SCANDURA NOES: FARLEY ABSENT: SHIER BURNETT, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTIONS PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motions: 1. "Continue Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08- 004, General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 and direct staff accordingly." 2. "Deny Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004, General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08- 002 with findings for denial." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Location: 336-acre Downtown Specific Plan area. No changes to the existing Downtown Specific Plan boundaries are proposed. Project Overview The Downtown Specific Plan Update is a joint effort by the Economic Development and Planning Departments to update Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The project proposes to reconfigure the existing 11 Specific Plan districts into 7 districts, modify development and parking standards, incorporate design guidelines and provide recommendations for street improvements, public amenities, circulation enhancements, infrastructure and public facility improvements and parking strategies. The project also proposes revised parking requirements and modified parking ratios, the elimination of the Downtown Parking Master Plan, a Main Street Library Subdistrict in the northern portion of the DTSP area on the site of the existing Main Street Branch library, and a Neighborhood Subdistrict on 1st and 2nd Street between Walnut Avenue and Orange Avenue. G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -4- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 Document Organization The document is organized into two books: Book I: Downtown Specific Plan and Book 11: Downtown Specific Plan Guidelines and Strategies. The first book contains the Introduction, Administration, and Land Use and Development Standards chapters. This book outlines the required elements of the Downtown Specific Plan and provides the regulatory framework for development in the DTSP area. The chapters of Book I are described below. Book I • Chapter 1. Introduction provides an introduction to the Specific Plan effort and contains a summary of existing conditions, community outreach, and a vision for the future. • Chapter 2. Administration gives detailed direction for the proper administration of the Specific Plan regulations and developments and provides definitions for terms used within the Specific Plan. ■ Chapter 3. Land Uses and Development Standards sets forth general provisions for development within the Specific Plan Area and details the permitted land uses and development standards for each district within the Specific Plan Area. Book II includes the Design Guidelines, Circulation and Parking, Streetscapes and Public Amenities, Infrastructure and Public Facilities and Implementation chapters as well as the Appendices. Book II provides guidelines and strategies to facilitate development and successful growth in the DTSP area, but does not include requirements for any particular guideline or strategy to be implemented. The chapters of Book II are described below. Book 11 • Chapter 4. Design Guidelines gives design guidelines for development within the Specific Plan on topics such as site planning and design, landscaping, building design, utilities, signs, and special design considerations. ■ Chapter 5. Circulation and Parking details current circulation and parking conditions within the downtown. Enhancements for all modes of transportation, including vehicles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians, are addressed. Parking strategies for improved parking opportunities are presented. ■ Chapter 6. Streetscapes and Public Amenities discusses streetscape improvements for all portions of the Specific Plan Area. Street and sidewalk design, paving patterns, streetscape furnishings, and landscaping materials are detailed. ■ Chapter 7. Infrastructure and Public Facilities addresses essential infrastructure upgrades and improvements for future development within the Specific Plan Area. ■ Chapter 8. Implementation provides implementation strategies and direction for achieving the goals set forth within this Specific Plan. ■ Appendix. Contains supplemental documentation and technical studies. A more detailed description of the proposed changes and analysis of the project are provided in the October 6, 2009 Planning Commission staff report (ATTACHMENT NO.14). G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc _5_ 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMIBER:PL09-23 Environmental Impact Report No. 07-004 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Downtown Specific Plan Update. General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 represents a request to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements to reflect the various changes in land use and development standards, including increases in allowable building heights (up to a maximum of 55 feet/5 stories) and densities (up to a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre) and elimination of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements proposed in the DTSP Update, as well as the reconfiguration of the districts. Changes to the General Plan include revisions to the Land Use Map and modifications to the Land Use Schedule and Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map in the Land Use Element. These changes consist of revisions to the subarea map and schedule as a result of deleting, creating and re-numbering subareas. Due to these revisions, subarea 3D, located outside of the DTSP area, is also proposed to be revised. This subarea would be re-numbered only and does not propose substantive changes in terms of standards, principles or permitted uses. The amendment to the Circulation Element includes a revision to Figure CE-9: Trails and Bikeways as a result of recommendations proposed in the DTSP Update and traffic study for the project. Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 represents a request to amend the existing text of the Downtown Specific Plan. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 represents a request to amend the Implementation Program (IP), specifically the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Land Use Plan/Coastal Element of the City's certified Local Coastal Program. Amendments to the Coastal Element will involve changes that are consistent with the changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements in addition to several policies that are proposed to be updated based on proposed changes to the DTSP. The LCPA also includes some clean-up revisions to the text of the Coastal Element to include approved projects or changes that have occurred in the Coastal Zone but have not been updated in the Coastal Element. The proposed LCPA is also subject to certification by the California Coastal Commission. B. BACKGROUND The DTSP was originally adopted on November 16, 1983 to encourage revitalization of the downtown area by promoting a mix of commercial, residential and recreational uses that would be able to take advantage of the area's proximity to the ocean. At the time, the goal of the DTSP was to change the image of the downtown area and establish the framework for both public and private improvements to create a vibrant and viable downtown. The document has been amended several times over the past two and a half decades, most recently in 2007. The last comprehensive update of the DTSP was in 1995, which introduced the "Village Concept" for downtown development. The 1995 "Village Concept" amended development standards and regulations to scale back the intensity of development in the DTSP area and encourage more pedestrian-scale development. The 1995 "Village Concept" also encouraged a balance between serving the residential uses within and surrounding the downtown while allowing for the expansion of visitor activities. The 1995 update of the DTSP adopted the Downtown Parking Master Plan (Section 4.2.14 of the G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23 (DTSP Update).doc -6- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 existing DTSP) that established shared parking regulations and identified development thresholds based on parking supply for the downtown core area. Initially, the DPMP identified an overall development threshold of 500,000 square feet. In 2000, the Downtown Parking Master Plan of the DTSP was revised to establish the development thresholds (maximum - 715,000 square feet) for the downtown core area that are currently identified in the DTSP today. Presently, the established thresholds have been reached. In 2006, the City Council, in accordance with adopted Strategic Plan goals and objectives (Attachment No. 15), directed staff to initiate an update to the DTSP because current development in the DTSP has reached the established thresholds constraining development and redevelopment in the DTSP area. In July 2007, the Redevelopment Agency approved a contract with RRM Design Group to provide consulting services for the preparation of the DTSP Update. In addition, Kimley-Horn was contracted as the City's parking and traffic consultant on the project. The resulting DTSP Update was prepared by RRM and includes the recommendations of RRM and Kimley-Horn for future development and redevelopment in the DTSP area to meet the goals and objectives of the Council. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: The DTSP Update process kicked-off with a series of key stakeholder interviews as well as four noticed community workshops were that were held prior to the drafting of the proposed DTSP Update. The Draft Specific Plan was then made public on December 4, 2008, which commenced a 50-day public review/comment period from December 5, 2008 to January 23, 2009. During and subsequent to the public comment period, staff from the Planning and Economic Development Departments continued to meet with various Downtown stakeholders and groups including members from the Chamber of Commerce and the Marketing and Visitors Bureau (MVB) in refining the draft Downtown Specific Plan Update. In addition to the key stakeholder and smaller group meetings, staff members from the Planning and Economic Development Departments have met with various members of the public and downtown groups to discuss the proposed DTSP Update throughout the process. Finally, the Planning Commission conducted six study session meetings on the project prior to the public hearing. On October 6, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the DTSP Update entitlements. Approximately 40 members of the public spoke regarding various aspects of the project. The majority of the speakers raised concerns regarding a proposal for a Cultural Arts Subdistrict, which included the Main Street Library site, in District 1 of the DTSP Update. Other issues that were raised by the public included a proposal to allow tiered parking structures on the existing beach parking lot north of the pier, restaurants and alcohol permits, parking, density, and building heights. The Planning Commission certified the EIR as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements and made several straw vote motions on the proposed Cultural Arts Subdistrict 1A. The Planning Commission was provided with an alternative action for the Cultural Arts Subdistrict 1A, which is renamed "Main Street Library Subdistrict 1A." The Main Street Library Subdistrict 1A is generally more restrictive in permitted uses and maximum allowable building area. The Planning G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc _7_ 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 Commission utilized this alternative in making straw vote motions for this subdistrict. A summary of the Main Street Library Subdistrict 1A straw vote motions (modifications) is included in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 — MAIN STREET LIBRARY SUBDISTRICT— PC MODIFICATIONS Staff recommendation for Oct. 6, 2009 PC modification on Oct. 6, 2009 PC meeting 1 0.60 Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.30 Maximum Floor Area Ratio (equivalent to (equivalent to approx. 24,600 s.f.) approx. 12,300 s.f.) 2 Parking required to be underground Eliminated requirement for parking to be underground; option to provide parking underground or at grade 3 Accessory uses include gift shop and Added "small cafe" to list of accessory uses retail uses 4 List of permitted uses did not explicitly Added "park" as a permitted use by right allow a "park" use 5 Text of Chapter 1, Introduction, Revised language to eliminate reference to referenced a Cultural Arts Subdistrict as Cultural Arts Subdistrict and inserted language a destination area to anchor the referencing a "community-oriented cultural downtown at the north end of Main Street activity area" that encourages preservation and enhancement of the Main Street Library 6 General Plan land use designation Retained the existing Public P General Plan proposed to be Mixed Use consistent land use designation on the Main Street Library with the rest of District 1 site Although staff agrees with the majority of the modifications made by the Planning Commission, an analysis and comparison of staff's final recommendation where they differ from the action taken by the Planning Commission is provided in Section E. of this report. The Planning Commission continued action on the remaining DTSP Update entitlements to a special meeting on October 12, 2009 with the public hearing closed. On October 12, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the remaining entitlements, which included the zoning text amendment, general plan amendment, and local coastal program amendment as well as the CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Four members of the public spoke during oral communications. After lengthy discussions and a series of straw votes on various sections of the DTSP Update, the Planning Commission approved the ZTA, GPA, and LCPA with modifications. A summary of all of the straw vote motions (modifications) is provided in Attachment No. 7. Table 2 includes a summary of the most significant modifications that the Planning Commission made to the staff recommended action. Section E. of this report includes a comparison and analysis of staff's final recommendation where they differ from the action taken by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2009. G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -8- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 TABLE 2 - DTSP UPDATE — PC MODIFICATIONS Staff recommendation for Oct. 12, 2009 PC modification on Oct. 12, 2009 PC meeting 1 Continue to allow a provision for City Deleted this provision entirely Council to close all or portions of Main Street between PCH and Orange Avenue for use as a pedestrian mall 2 Allow Eating and Drinking Establishments Allow Eating and Drinking Establishments with with Alcohol (District 1 & 2) — Conditional Alcohol — CUP from PC Use Permit (CUP) from Zoning Administrator (ZA) 3 Maximum Density for District 1 - 50 du/ac Maximum Density for District 1: 35 du/ac for for >_25,000 square feet (site area) >:25,000 square feet (site area) 4 Maximum Building Height for District 1 — Maximum Building Height for District 1 — <25,000 sf(site area): 4574 stories <25,000 sf(site area): 35'/3 stories >_25,000 sf(site area): 5575 stories 2:25,000 sf (site area): 4574 stories 5 Tandem Parking for commercial uses in Tandem parking for commercial uses in District 1 — maximum 40% with an attendant District 1 — up to 20% requires CUP from ZA; 21 —40% requires CUP from PC (with an attendant) 6 Tandem Parking for multi-family residential Tandem Parking for multi-family residential uses — maximum of 100% of required uses— maximum of 20% of required parking parking may be tandem configuration may be tandem configuration 7 Maximum Density for District 4 - parcels Maximum Density for District 4 - parcels ranging from 26 —50 feet in width: 4 ranging from 26—50 feet in width: 2 dwelling dwelling units units 8 District 7, Beach -Allow tiered parking Deleted any allowance for or reference to structures on existing beach lots on north tiered parking structures in District 7, Beach side of pier with a CUP from PC and with certain development standards 9 Allow removal of parking on Main Street to Allow removal of parking on Main Street to implement recommended streetscape that implement recommended streetscape that calls for wider sidewalks (to 26 feet) subject calls for wider sidewalks (to 26 feet) subject to to replacement of on-street parking at a 1:1 replacement of on-street parking at a 1:1 ratio ratio within walking distance of 350 feet prior to removal D. APPEAL: On October 15, 2009, Councilmember Jill Hardy filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's certification of EIR No. 08-001 (ATTACHMENT NO. 16). The appeal letter cites traffic circulation and parking as the basis of the appeal. On October 16, 2009, David Rice also appealed the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR (ATTACHMENT NO. 17). The appeal letter cites insufficient notification procedures, insufficient time to review the documents, potential conflicts of interest, insufficient staff reports, poor document management, and insufficient analysis in the EIR of the following: parking, traffic, land use, population, air quality, noise, utilities, public services, flooding, net new development potential, cultural resources, historical resources, park/green space requirements, sea level G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -9- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 rise, light pollution, increased crime, liquor license concentration, aesthetics, project alternatives, inconsistencies with the Huntington Beach General Plan, piecemealing, public safety, recreation, CEQA Guidelines, and City helicopter use. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Environmental Impact Report A complete overview of EIR No. 08-001 is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (ATTACHMENT NO. 13). The analysis below focuses on the appeal filed by Council Member Hardy and David Rice, a member of the public. A brief summary of the appeal issues are presented. Traffic/Circulation (Council Member Hardy Appeal) As required by CEQA, the EIR examines the potential impacts related to traffic generation, circulation and parking demand from the proposed project . A traffic study was completed by Kimley-Horn and Associates that includes an analysis of existing traffic conditions, cumulative conditions with and without the project in Year 2020 and cumulative conditions with and without the project in Year 2030 to assess potential impacts at project buildout and the long-term effect of the project in conjunction with other growth. The traffic study also analyzed impacts from the implementation of pedestrian improvements identified in Chapter 5 — Circulation and Parking of the DTSP Update, which includes pedestrian-only phases for signal operation at the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway and 1st Street and Pacific Coast Highway and 6t" Street. Finally, the traffic study analyzed four network alternatives: • Alternative 1 — Main Street closure from Pacific Coast Highway to Orange, with no cross traffic on Olive and Walnut Avenues • Alternative 2 — Main Street closure from Pacific Coast Highway to Orange, with cross traffic on Olive and Walnut Avenues • Alternative 3 — Main Street closure from Walnut Avenue to Olive Avenue only • Alternative 4 — 6th Street realignment between Orange Avenue and Main Street Alternatives 1 — 3 are not proposed in the DTSP Update but were analyzed in the traffic study to address alternative configurations for Main Street that have been discussed as potential options in the past. Only Alternative 4 was included in Chapter 5 — Circulation and Parking and the DTSP Update as a possible future option. However, the Planning Commission opted to delete Alternative 4 (the 6t" Street realignment concept) from the DTSP Update as part of their approval of the project. Staff is in agreement with the Planning Commission's recommendation. It should be noted that the deletion of the 6t" Street realignment concept does not preclude it in the future outside of the umbrella of the Downtown Specific Plan nor does it change any of the conclusions of the EIR as no significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures were associated with this alternative. G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -10-- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL.09-23 As defined by the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element, an acceptable level of service (LOS) for intersections is "D". Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS E or F is considered deficient and/or unsatisfactory. In addition, an intersection is considered impacted if the LOS is E or F and the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value changes by 0.01 or more. Out of 24 intersections evaluated in the vicinity of the project area, the EIR documents that Year 2020 Project conditions would result in significant impacts at two intersections (Pacific Coast Highway/1st Street and Pacific Coast Highway/6th street) in the PM peak hour if the pedestrian-only phases are implemented. The EIR discusses several mitigation options that would be required for implementation of these improvements to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. However, the Planning Commission's action on the project included deleting the concept for additional pedestrian-only phases on Pacific Coast Highway and, as such, impacts would no longer be significant and the mitigation measures no longer required. Staff is in agreement with the Planning Commission's action regarding the pedestrian-only phases because the mitigation measures would be difficult to implement. Again, it should be noted that deleting the additional pedestrian-only phases on Pacific Coast Highway from the DTSP Update does not preclude the City from considering this concept in the future. Year 2030 Project conditions result in significant impacts at the same intersections as Year 2020 conditions in addition to the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway/Goldenwest Street and Orange Avenue/Lake Street in the PM peak hour. The EIR identifies a mitigation measure that would require a right-turn overlap signal phasing for southbound Goldenwest Street. Implementation of this measure would reduce impacts at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway to a less than significant level. The EIR also identifies two mitigation options for reducing significant impacts to a less than significant level at the intersection of Lake Street and Orange Avenue including installing a signal at this intersection and providing additional eastbound and westbound through lanes, which would require the removal of parking on both sides of Orange Avenue. Either option would be required to be implemented by 2030 and would mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. Parking (Council Member Hardy Appeal) The EIR addresses parking impacts from the potential net new development within the DTSP area. Although, the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) is proposed to be eliminated, the DTSP Update incorporates parking requirements in Chapter 3 — Land Use and Development Standards. The recommended parking requirements would continue to allow reduced parking ratios for retail, restaurant and office uses as well as the continuation of the parking in-lieu fee program. Parking for residential and hotel uses would be required to provide all parking on-site. The EIR indicates that parking in the downtown is adequate with the exception of approximately 35 days per year, when it is difficult to find parking including 15 days per year when a parking deficiency is experienced. However, the parking deficiency occurs during special events and summer/holiday weekends when the number of visitors to the beach increases. To this end, recommendations for parking strategies to address this issue are provided in the DTSP Update. However, the EIR concludes that development G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23 (DTSP Update).doc _11_ 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 projects would be required to provide parking in accordance with the parking requirements in Chapter 3 of the DTSP Update, which are substantiated by the Downtown Parking Study prepared by Kimley-Horn and associates, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant. EIR Notification & Disclosure (David Rice Appeal) The appeal letter by David Rice states that the notification area did not adequately cover the actual impacted area as shown in the EIR and supporting materials and that the notification summaries do not adequately explain the plan or its supporting documents. The letter also cites that the project documents and materials are unorganized, fragmented, and "beyond a reasonable person's ability to navigate and assimilate." The letter goes on to say that "poor document management has significantly impeded the public's right to fair review in violation of CEQA guidelines...." Finally the letter indicates that there was "insufficient time to review the final plan and final EIR given the frequent and last minute changes." The notification for all EIR-related documents was done in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082, 15085, 15087, and 15088. It should be noted that the City exceeded the minimum notification requirements of CEQA during both the Notice of Preparation/Scoping process as well as the Notice of Completion/Draft EIR process. The notices included all required information by CEQA and the CEQA guidelines. All EIR-related documents were made available at the Planning and Zoning Counter, the City Clerk's office, the Main Street Branch Library, the Rodger's Senior Center, and on the City's website. The Final EIR was made available ten days prior to certification of the EIR as required by CEQA. The information in the Final EIR as well as the final changes to the Specific Plan did not consist of significant new information necessitating recirculation of the EIR. All information in the Final EIR responded to comments on the EIR or served to clarify or amplify the analysis of the EIR. The final changes to the Specific Plan were a direct result of the six Planning Commission study sessions that were conducted prior to the public hearing on the project. The first three study sessions that were scheduled were noticed to all property owners/occupants within the DTSP area and a 1,000-foot radius in addition to notification in the newspaper. Other study sessions that were added by the Planning Commission were noticed in the,City Administrator's newsletter. It should be noted that there is no legal requirement to notice study sessions nor it is a standard practice to provide notification of study session meetings. During the course of the EIR process, the City exceeded the minimum notification requirements of CEQA in order to provide the greatest opportunity for public review. Finally, the City has made every effort to fully disclose and make all documents related to the EIR and the DTSP Update available to the public. With respect to the assertion that the documents are "beyond a reasonable person's ability to navigate and assimilate", the City received 21 comment letters on the EIR, numerous public comments letters and emails on the DTSP Update, phone calls and counter inquiries regarding the project and related materials. The public was able to navigate and assimilate the information as evidenced by the volume of public input received on the project. Staff G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -12- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 members from the Planning and Economic Development Departments were available to meet with interested persons to discuss the project and EIR and answer questions. Adequacy of the EIR (David Rice Appeal) The appeal letter from David Rice lists 25 categories, which were identified in Section D of this report. Each of the listed issues is analyzed or addressed in the Final EIR, which incorporates the draft EIR by reference. Staff is recommending certification of the EIR as approved by the Planning Commission, on the basis that the EIR was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and adequately analyzes the potential impacts associated with the proposed project. It is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified through the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR discusses potential adverse impacts in 14 issue areas. The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. Mitigation measures and standard code requirements, incorporated in EIR No. 08-001, ensure that impacts as a result of the project will be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. Other statements in the appeal letter from David Rice do not address specific issues with the EIR. For instance, the letter indicates that "some elements of the supporting Staff Reports and recommendations are out of date, unfeasible, biased and/or fictional." Although the letter does not indicate the specific elements of the staff reports and recommendations the appellant is referring to, all of the staff reports were based on the most recent factual information available at the time they were drafted. As a matter of standard practice, Planning Commission study session reports do not include in-depth analyses of projects and provide only general introductory information regarding the project and/or discussion topics for the study session. While the Planning Commission public hearing staff reports do include analysis of the proposed project, the analysis is based on facts, history, expertise of the consultant, and other evidence to substantiate the certification of the EIR and recommendations of the DTSP Update. The appeal letter cites that the study sessions and meetings do not support an "increase in developable square footage and a tourists oriented cultural arts center". Although this statement does not take issue with the EIR, it should be noted that a large aspect of the project approval process is the collection of public input during the entire course of the project. All of the public input is then forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. Finally, the appeal letter cites "potential conflicts of interest between City officials, property owners and developers that need to be further explored." The letter does not elaborate on this issue and staff cannot presume what "potential conflicts of interest" the appellant is referring to. In addition, this statement does not raise any environmental concerns or issues with the EIR. G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23 (DTSP Update).doc -13- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 Planning Commission Modifications Staff is in agreement with the majority of the modifications made by the Planning Commission on October 6th and October 12th. A complete list of all the modifications (with DTSP page and section number references) made by the Planning Commission is provided as Attachment No. 7 (Summary of PC Straw Vote Motions) and reflected in the final version of the DTSP Update (Attachment No. 18). However, there are several substantive modifications that are highlighted in this section. It should be noted that staff is in agreement with all modifications made by the Planning Commission that are included in Attachment No. 7, but not specifically discussed in this section. This section only highlights the most pertinent modifications that the Planning Commission made and staff's final recommendations based on those modifications. In all but eight instances, staff agrees with the Planning Commission's modifications. In the remaining eight instances, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the original staff recommendation as presented to the Planning Commission or approve a compromise between the original staff recommendation and the Planning Commission's action. Table 3 summarizes the final staff recommendation with an analysis following the table. TABLE 3 — SUMMARY OF DTSP UPDATE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS Issue Original Staff PC modification Final Staff Recommendation to PC Recommendation Main St. 0.60 Maximum Floor Area 0.30 Maximum Floor Area Approve original staff Library Ratio (equivalent to Ratio (equivalent to approx. recommendation Subdistrict approx. 24,600 s.f.) 12,300 s.f.) Main St. Parking required to be Eliminated requirement for Staff agrees Library underground parking to be underground; Subdistrict option to provide parking underground or at grade Main St. Accessory uses include gift Added "small cafe" to list of Staff agrees Library shop and retail uses accessory uses Subdistrict Main St. List of permitted uses did Added "park" as a Staff agrees Library not explicitly allow a "park" permitted use by right Subdistrict use Main St. Text of Chapter 1, Revised language to Staff agrees Library Introduction, referenced a eliminate reference to Subdistrict Cultural Arts Subdistrict as Cultural Arts Subdistrict and a destination area to inserted language anchor the downtown at referencing a "community- the north end of Main oriented cultural activity Street area" that encourages preservation and enhancement of the Main Street Library Main St. General Plan land use Retained the existing Staff agrees Library designation proposed to be Public (P) General Plan Subdistrict Mixed Use consistent with land use designation on the the rest of District 1 Main Street Library site G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -14- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 Issue Original Staff PC modification Final Staff Recommendation to PC Recommendation Street Continue to allow a Deleted this provision Retain this provision and Vacations provision for City Council to entirely re-word to include that close all or portions of Main this provision is in Street between PCH and accordance with State Orange Avenue for use as law a pedestrian mall District 1 - Maximum Density for Maximum Density for Approve original staff Density District 1 - 50 du/ac for District 1: 35 du/ac for recommendation >_25,000 square feet (site 2:25,000 square feet (site area) area) District 1- Maximum Building Height Maximum Building Height Approve original staff Building for District 1 — for District 1 — recommendation Heights <25,000 sf(site area): <25,000 sf(site area): 4574 stories 3573 stories 2:25,000 sf(site area): >!25,000 sf(site area): 55/5 stories 4574 stories District 1 — Tandem Parking for Tandem parking for Staff agrees Parking commercial uses in District commercial uses in District 1 — maximum 40% with an 1 — up to 20% requires attendant CUP from ZA; 21 —40% requires CUP from PC with an attendant Districts 1&2 Allow Eating and Drinking Allow Eating and Drinking Approve original staff — Permitted Establishments with Establishments with Alcohol recommendation Uses Alcohol — Conditional Use — CUP from PC Permit (CUP) from Zoning Administrator (ZA) All Districts - Tandem Parking for multi- Tandem Parking for multi- Approve original staff Parking family residential uses— family residential uses— recommendation maximum of 100% of maximum of 20% of required parking may be required parking may be tandem configuration tandem configuration District 4 — Maximum Density for Maximum Density for Approve original staff Density District 4 - parcels ranging District 4 - parcels ranging recommendation from 26— 50 feet in width: from 26— 50 feet in width: 2 4 dwelling units dwelling units District 7 — District 7, Beach -Allow Deleted any allowance for Staff agrees Permitted tiered parking structures on or reference to tiered Uses existing beach lots on north parking structures in District side of pier with a CUP 7, Beach from PC and with certain development standards G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc _15_ 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 Issue Original Staff PC modification Final Staff Recommendation to PC Recommendation Main Street - Allow removal of parking Allow removal of parking on Allow removal of parking Streetscape on Main Street to Main Street to implement on Main Street to implement recommended recommended streetscape implement streetscape that calls for that calls for wider recommended wider sidewalks (to 26 feet) sidewalks (to 26 feet) streetscape that calls for subject to replacement of subject to replacement of wider sidewalks (to 26 on-street parking at a 1:1 on-street parking at a 1:1 feet) subject to ratio ratio within walking distance replacement of on-street of 350 feet prior to removal parking at a 1:1 ratio within walking distance prior to removal (reference HBZSO requirement Issues Below is an analysis of each issue where the final staff recommendation and Planning Commission recommendation differs. A more detailed analysis of the project entitlements and major changes, including an analysis of the project's consistency with the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan as well as the adopted City Council goals and objectives for the DTSP Update, is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (ATTACHMENT NO. 14) Main Street Library Subdistrict 1A (Section 3.3.1.20 of the DTSP Update) Staff is in agreement with most of the changes made by the Planning Commission with the exception of maximum floor area ratio (FAR). The proposed Planning Commission Alternative for the Main Street Library Subdistrict 1A included a maximum FAR of 0.60, which is equivalent to approximately 24,600 square feet of total floor area on the approximately 41,000 square foot library site. This would allow approximately 14,700 square feet of net new development on the site. The Planning Commission action was to reduce the maximum FAR to 0.30, which is equivalent to approximately 12,300 square feet of total floor area. This would allow for approximately 2,400 square feet of net new development on the site. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the original staff recommendation of a maximum 0.60 FAR. It should be noted that the current maximum FAR under the existing DTSP is 2.0, which is equivalent to approximately 82,000 square feet of total floor area on the site. Staff believes that the restriction of 0.30 FAR would limit the potential for future improvements on the Main Street Library site. Other recommended development standards and use restrictions would ensure that no existing green space would be lost and that new uses would be appropriate for the area and consistent with the existing library use. In addition, the Planning Commission adopted a new General Plan subarea designation for the site that requires open space and encourages preservation of the existing building. This would need to be considered for any project that is proposed at the site in the future. A G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -16- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 maximum FAR of 0.60 would still limit development on the site, but provide more flexibility in terms of improvements that could be proposed on the site in the future. General Provisions - Street Vacations (Section 3.2.5 of the DTSP Update) The existing DTSP includes a provision in Section 4.2.16 — Street Vacations, that provides City Council discretion to close all or portions of Main Street for use as a pedestrian mall, subject to a public hearing. The original staff recommendation for the DTSP Update was to retain this existing provision. The Planning Commission opted to delete this provision from the General Provisions section of Chapter 3 of the DTSP Update. Staff is recommending that this provision be included in the final DTSP Update with additional language referencing existing State law that affords this provision. District 1 — Maximum Residential Density (Section 3.3.1.7 of the DTSP Update) The existing permitted density for the districts that make up the reconfigured District 1 ranges from 25 — 30 dwelling units per net acre. The staff recommendation proposed to allow a density of up to 50 units per net acre for projects with 25,000 square feet or greater of net site area. Projects with less than 25,000 square feet of net site area would be permitted to develop at a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per net acre. In addition, projects within Subdistrict 1 B - Neighborhood Subdistrict and projects that are proposed with only residential uses would be limited to a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per net acre. The Planning Commission approved a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per net acre for projects with 25,000 square feet or greater of net site area. It should be noted that the initial recommendation of RRM, the City's consultant for the project, was a maximum of 60 dwelling units per net acre regardless of site area. TABLE 4— COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM DENSITY UNIT POTENTIAL IN DISTRICT 1 Lot Unit Potential: Unit Potential: Unit Potential: Unit Potential: consolidation (current DTSP) (PC approved (Staff rec. based on (RRM original (average lot density) PC study sessions) rec.) is 25' X 115') 30 du/ac 35 du/ac 50 du/ac 60 du/ac 2 lots 3 units 4 units 6 units 7 units (5,750 s.f.) 3 lots 5 units 6 units 9 units 11 units (8,625 s.f.) 4 lots 7 units 9 units 13 units 15 units (11,500 s.f. 10 lots 19 units 23 units 33 units 39 units (28,750 s.f.) The proposed increase in allowable density of up to 50 dwelling units per net acre on lots with 25,000 square feet or greater of net site area in District 1 would facilitate development in the downtown core and incentivize lot consolidation. Project applicants would be able to G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23 (DTSP Update).doc -17- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 take advantage of the increased density to maximize development opportunities on their sites, which would create an incentive to redevelop or improve their properties. The increased maximum densities would also encourage development of mixed-use projects to further the objective for the downtown to become an "urban village". In addition, an increase in housing units, as a result of increased allowable densities, in the downtown core would provide a larger population base that would utilize the attractions and services in the downtown on a year-round basis. The increased density would also contribute to the pedestrian environment of the downtown core since residents of future residential units would be able to walk to shops, restaurants, cultural facilities, services, the beach, and possibly work. The increase in density is also consistent with the design concepts that were utilized in preparation of the DTSP Update such as smart growth and sustainable design. Therefore, staffs final recommendation is to allow up to 50 units per acre for projects with 25,000 square feet or greater of net site area. District 1 — Maximum Allowable Building Height (Section 3.3.1.8 of the DTSP Update) The DTSP Update proposed an increase in allowable building height to a maximum of 55 feet and five stories in District 1. This building height would be permitted for sites that have 25,000 square feet or more (equivalent to approximately ten 25-foot wide lots). Current maximum building heights would permit 35 feet and three stories or 45 feet and four stories depending on street frontage and whether the project consists of a full or half block. The Planning Commission approved a maximum building height of 45 feet and four stories for projects with 25,000 square feet or greater of net site area. Projects with less than 25,000 square feet of net site area would be permitted a maximum building height of 35 feet and three stories. The proposed increase in allowable building height up to 55 feet and five stories is one of the most important revisions to the DTSP that would facilitate development in the DTSP area and incentivize lot consolidation to get larger more cohesive development projects. Conversely, projects with site areas less than 25,000 square feet would be permitted at a maximum building height of 45 feet and four stories, which would facilitate development for potential projects that are unable to consolidate many parcels. The increased building height would allow projects to maximize development opportunities on the site. The increased building height would also encourage mixed-use development since project applicants could design projects to achieve the maximum residential densities permitted. In terms of compatibility, the proposed increase in building height would be consistent with other large-scale developments in the DTSP area. Examples of existing projects that were granted special permits for building height include: Plaza Almeria Second Block Parkinq Structure - 54 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 35 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 64 feet to the peak of the highest tower - 60 feet to the peak of the highest towers G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -18- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 Pierside Pavilion Oceanview Promenade (Abdelmuti Project) - 71 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 67 feet to the peak of the fourth floor - 84.5 feet to the top of the tower - 85 feet to the top of the clock tower The Strand - 49.5 feet for hotel - 70 feet to the top of the architectural tower The proposed maximum building height of 55 feet would be within the range of existing building heights listed above. To ensure that the proposed building height increase would not impact adjacent residential uses, or existing one-, two-, and three-story buildings, projects would be required to provide upper-story setbacks on the fourth and fifth floors and comply with the design guidelines of Chapter 4, Book II. The design guidelines encourage preservation of view corridors, variation in wall planes and rooflines, articulation and architectural treatments at building facades, and design details that would make structures appear to have a more pedestrian scale. Therefore, staff's final recommendation is to allow the proposed maximum building height of 55 feet and five stories for sites that have 25,000 square feet or more of net site area and 45 feet and four stories for sites with less than 25,000 square feet of net site area consistent with the original staff recommendation presented to the Planning Commission. Districts 1 & 2 — Permitted Uses (Sections 3.3.1.3 & 3.3.2.3 of the DTSP Update) The original staff recommendation in Chapter 3 of the DTSP Update proposed to allow eating and drinking establishments with alcohol in District 1 — Downtown Core and District 2 — Visitor-Serving Mixed Use (Pacific City commercial component), subject to a CUP from the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission voted to require a CUP from the Planning Commission for eating and drinking establishments with alcohol in these districts. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the original staff recommendation to allow eating and drinking establishments with alcohol subject to approval of a CUP from the Zoning Administrator. This is consistent with the adopted changes of the 2005 Citywide permit streamlining effort, which was certified by the Coastal Commission earlier this year. In addition, the Downtown Image Committee recommended that standard conditions of approval be established to address issues related to alcohol and live entertainment related uses in the downtown core area, which is being addressed by staff. District 4 — Residential Density (Section 3.3.4.7 of the DTSP Update) The proposed DTSP Update provisions of District 4 would allow a slight increase in density for lots ranging from 26 — 50 feet in frontage. Currently, a maximum of one to four units is permitted on lots within this range of frontages in the existing DTSP. The proposed DTSP Update would allow up to four units to be developed on properties within a range of 26 to 50 feet of frontage. This would allow more opportunity for residential infill development on G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc _19_ 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 smaller lots and create turnover of older housing units. The Planning Commission approved a maximum of two units on lots ranging from 26 — 50 feet in frontage. Staff reviewed the lots widths within District 4 and, in general, lots are either 25 feet wide or 50 feet wide and greater. Therefore, the increase in density of up to four units would likely only occur on 50-foot wide lots. Given that lots within District 4 have an average depth of 115 feet, the resulting density on a 50-foot wide lot with four units would be approximately one unit for every 1,437 square feet of lot area, which equates to approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. The allowable density per the existing and proposed DTSP for District 4 on lots greater than 50 feet wide is 30 dwelling units per acre. If a lot were less than 50 feet wide, the density would incrementally increase as lot width decreases. However, based on a review of existing lot widths, it is unrealistic that this condition would occur. Also, it is unlikely that a project would be able to get four units on a less than 50-foot wide lot and meet all of the development standards and parking requirements without design measures that may be cost prohibitive. According to RRM, the consultant that prepared the DTSP Update, the proposed increase in allowable density in District 4 would provide an incentive for property owners to consolidate 25-foot wide lots to take advantage of the increase in the number of units that could be constructed on 50-foot wide lots from two units to a maximum of four units. Therefore, the final staff recommendation is to allow up to four units on lots with 26 — 50 feet of frontage in District 4. Tandem Parking— Multi-Family Residential (Section 3.2.26.7 of the DTSP Update) The staff recommendation for multi-family residential uses in Chapter 3 of the DTSP Update proposed to allow up to 100 percent of the required parking in a tandem configuration. The Planning Commission voted to allow up to 20 percent of the required parking in a tandem configuration. Staff believes that the option to provide 100 percent of the required parking for multi-family uses in a tandem configuration would provide flexibility in project design and site layout and would enable property owners and developers to maximize development potential of their properties. Main Street— Streetscape (Section 5.3.1.1 of the DTSP Update) The recommended streetscapes for Main Street from Pacific Coast Highway to Orange Avenue would increase the existing sidewalk width to 26 feet to provide increased pedestrian movement as well as area for expanded dining and plaza areas to facilitate a more pedestrian-oriented environment on Main Street. Implementation of the recommended streetscape would necessitate the removal of existing on-street parking. The DTSP Update references that any removal of on-street parking would be required to be replaced at a one to one ratio. In addition, Section 231.28 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) requires that removal of on-street parking in the Coastal Zone be replaced at a one to one ratio within walking distance of the existing site prior to removal. The Planning Commission approved the recommended streetscape for Main Street with the additional provision that the removal of on-street parking is replaced at a one to one ratio within walking distance of 350 feet of the existing site. The final staff recommendation is to G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -20- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 modify the language to be consistent with current HBZSO requirements that the removal of on-street parking be replaced at a one to one ratio within walking distance of the existing site and include a reference to Section 231.28 of the HBZSO. Staff is recommending deletion of the 350-foot limitation since walking distance is somewhat subjective and should be evaluated on a project specific basis. F. SUMMARY Staff recommends approval of EIR No. 08-001 and the DTSP Update (General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002, and Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004) with the final staff recommended changes (ATTACHMENT NO. 8) because it would encourage and facilitate development in the downtown and carry out the goals, policies and objectives recommended by City Council. With its implementation, the concept of a DTSP area that is a pedestrian-oriented urban village for both residents and visitors with a strong link to the ocean can be achieved. Projects facilitated by the DTSP Update would be high quality, aesthetically appealing projects with sustainable design features that are compatible with existing uses and structures. The proposed amendments will ensure the continued success of DTSP area as a destination place for residents and visitors. Strategic Plan Goal: The project is consistent with the following Strategic Plan goal: Enhance Economic Development. The DTSP Update is identified as a specific objective of this Strategic Plan goal. Environmental Status: The project's potential environmental impacts are analyzed and discussed in Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001. Although the project results in adverse cumulative impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, the City Council may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is approved. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff and the Planning Commission concluded that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, and public services. The adverse impacts are unavoidable because it has been determined that no feasible mitigation is available or mitigation that could be required for future unknown development. Currently, development in the DTSP Update area is primarily constrained by the development cap of the nine-block area along the Main Street core governed by the DPMP. Approval of the project would provide additional opportunities for development and redevelopment in the DTSP area. In addition, the project would have the following benefits: G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -21- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 1. The project would create a healthy mix of land uses that are geared toward creating an urban village that serves as a destination to both residents and visitors. 2. The project would involve the implementation of development standards and design guidelines necessary to develop of underused parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture. 3. The project would involve the incorporation of environmentally sustainable development practices into new development proposals, including those recommended by the US Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program Certification, or Build it Green's Guidelines and Rating Systems. 4. The project provides for a diversity of transportation opportunities, such as walking, bicycling and expanded transit use. 5. The project would result in the incorporation of more public open space areas in key locations and in conjunction with new development. 6. The project will maintain and enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development consistent with the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan 7. The project will provide the equivalent of 10 — 15 percent of new residential units as affordable housing, consistent with City requirements and California Redevelopment Law. Prior to any action on Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004, General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001. Staff is recommending that Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001 be certified as adequate and complete with Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Attachment(s): City ClerWs, Page . - . D ptiofi 1 Draft EIR Resolution N02009-60, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008011124) for The Downtown Specific Plan Update (Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation) 2 Suggested Findings of Approval Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -22- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 (Staff Recommendation) 3 Draft Resolution No 2009-61, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving an amendment to Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan (Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation) 4 Draft Resolution No2009-6 A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 (Staff Recommendation) 5. Suggested Findings of Approval Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 (Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation) g Draft Resolution No2009-6�A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach, CA, adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to amend Zone 4 — Land Use Plan and accompanying text of the City's Coastal Element for the real property generally described as the Downtown Specific Plan area (Specific Plan No. 5) and to reflect Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 and requesting certification by the California Coastal Commission (Staff Recommendation) 7 Planning Commission Summary of Straw Vote Modifications to the DTSP Update g Final Staff Recommendations to the Planning Commission Approved DTSP Update g CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 10. Suggested Findings of Approval Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 (Planning Commission Recommendation) 11. Draft Resolution N02009-62A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 (Planning Commission Recommendation) (Exhibit C Modified) 12 Draft Resolution No2009-6 3A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach, CA, adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to amend Zone 4 — Land Use Plan and accompanying text of the City's Coastal Element for the real propierty generally described as the Downtown Specific Plan area (Specific.Plan No. 5) and to reflect Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 and req 6 esting certification by the California Coastal Commission (Planning Commission Recommendation) (Exhibit B Modified) 13. Planning Commission Staff Report— Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001, dated October 6, 2009 14. Planning Commission Staff Report—Zoning Text Amendment No. 08- 004, General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 (DTSP Update), dated October 6, 2009 15. City Council Goals and Objectives, dated August 15, 2007 16. EIR Appeal Letter from Council Member Jill Hardy, dated October 15, 2009 G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -23- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-23 17 EIR Appeal Letter from David Rice, dated October 16, 2009 18. Legislative Draft: Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan, dated October 23, 2009 (Planning Commission Recommendation)— not attached, provided as a separate packet and available for review at the Planning Department, City Clerk's office and on the City's website 19 Final Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001, including Draft EIR No. 08-001, Text Changes, and Response to Comments, dated September 25, 2009— not attached, previously provided under separate cover and available for review at the Planning Department, City Clerk's office and on the City's website 20. Powerpoint Presentation 21 Public comments on the DTSP Update— not attached, provided as a Separate Packet and available for review at the Planning Department, City Clerk's Office and on the City's website G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-23(DTSP Update).doc -24- 10/26/2009 8:16 AM 7BLIC HEARING 2. (City Council) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No. 2009-60 certifying the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 08-001; Resolution No. 2009-61 approving Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004; Resolution No. 2009-62 approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007; and, Resolution No. 2009-63 approving Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 to update Specific Plan No. 5 - Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). Staff Recommended Action: a7 Certify CID No 09 001 as adequate ani•d aemnlete in aaaarrdanae with GEQA Fequirements Resolut'tttn No. 2009 60 n4 Resolution the Cinal Cnyimnrnental Imnant Report (SCH dt200801 11L4 fo r nr rrTThhe Downtown SpeGift Plan .n , b) AppFeve Zoning Text Amendment No (lit 004 with Fne difinatinnc a listed an�aahment A� 7 and g Staff ReGOMmTTepded Changes) cn.������c�-rc-r Tanu- fiRdings foF approval and adept Resolution No. 2009 61, n A Resolution e amendment to SpeGmfhG Plan No. 5 Downtown SpeGifiG .n , c-) Approve GeneFal Plan ArnendmeRt No. 08 007 and adopt Resolution . 2009 62� "A Resolution of the City of Huntington BeaGh ApproviRg General Plan Amendment ;" 47 Approve 1 anal Coastal Program Amendment No. (lit 002 with findings fnappFeval and adopt Resolution No. 2009 63, r n A Resolution of the City of 08_002 to Amend the d goal Coastal Program Land Use Plan and rImplementing QFdrinunoec to Amend ZORe 4 Land Use Plan a Anoomnanying nd Text of the Gity's Geactal Clement fnr the Real Pmper y Generally Decarihed as the IlnANintE)WR Cnenifin Plan Area (Snenlft Plan No 5) and to Reflent Zoning Text Amendment Ada nit 004 and Requesting GeFtiftatien by the Galik)Fnia Coastal .n p) Approve GF=QA F=Mingc of Caat with a Statement of Overriding Council/Agenc Action Agenda—Monday, November 02, 2009 Planning Commission Recommended Action: a) Certify EIR No. 08-001 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 2009-60, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008011124) for The Downtown Specific Plan Update;" and, (a) approved as amended by Late Communication Approved 7-0 b) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 with modifications as listed in (Attachment No. 7 - PC Straw Vote Modifications) with findings for approval and adopt Resolution No. 2009-61, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving an amendment to Specific Plan No. 5 - Downtown Specific Plan;":and, See vote below c) Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 and adopt Resolution No. 2009-62, A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007;" (Exhibit C modified) and, See vote below d) Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for approval and adopt Resolution No. 2009-63, "A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach, CA Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 to Amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to Amend Zone 4 - Land Use Plan and Accompanying Text of the City's Coastal Element for the Real Property Generally Described as the Downtown Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan No. 5) and to Reflect Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 and Requesting Certification by the California Coastal Commission;" (Exhibit B modified) and, See vote below e) Approve CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations - EIR No. 08-001. See vote below (b) through (e) approved as amended by straw votes and Late Communication Approved 6-1 (Tardy no) City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced Late Communications (39) 32 Speakers Council/Agency Action Agenda—Monday, November 02, 2009 ATTACHMENT # 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(SCH#2008011124) FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE PROJECT WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 09-001, State Clearinghouse# 2008011124 ("EIR")was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach("City") to address the environmental implications of the proposed Downtown Specific Plan Update Project(the "Project"); and On November 6, 2008, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties; and After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of.Preparation, and comments received at the public scoping meeting held on November 19, 2008, the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse on July 20, 2009; and The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from July 20, 2009 to September 2, 2009, and was available for review at several locations including City Hall, the Huntington Beach Main Street Branch Library, Rodgers Senior Center and the City's website; and Public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the City Council as a section within a separately bound document entitled"Final Environmental Impact Report Downtown Specific Plan No. 5" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated September 2009; and Public Resources Code 21092.5(a) requires that the City of Huntington Beach provide a written proposed response to any public agency that commented on the Environmental Impact Report, and the Response to Comments included in the Final Environmental Impact Report satisfies this provision; and The City Council held a public meeting on the EIR on November 2, 2009, and received considered public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices,the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments (including a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies 09-2218.003/39869 1 commenting on the Draft EIR),the Text Changes to the Draft EIR(bound together with the Responses to Comments)and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments and references. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648. SECTION 2. The City Council finds and certifies that the Final EIR is complete and adequate in that it has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 3. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the"Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit"A"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 5. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project(including the "No Project"Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384)has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 7. The City Council finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5)has been added to the EIR after circulation of the Draft EIR. The City Council finds that the minor refinements that have been made in the Project as a result of clarifications in the mitigation measures and additional water supply analyses do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the City Council through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 8. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 2108.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation 09-2218.003/39869 2 measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation as defined in each mitigation measure. SECTION 9. The City Council finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach City Council, that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 09-002. SECTION 10. The City Council finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 n d day of November , 20 09 . Mayor REVIEt APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: N TI-P-1p City In if ator City Attorney INITI ED AND APPROVED: Exhibit"A"—Mitigation Monitoring Program 09-2218.003/39869 3 EXHIBIT A City of Huntington Beach PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ®raft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program H U NTI NGTON BEACH DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE SCN: 2008011124 Revised November, 2009 Lead Agency City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach Final Program Environmental Impact Report Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1 Contents 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program......................................................................................1-1 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix...............................................................................1-2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page ii Downtown Specific Plan Update 1 . Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.1 Introduction The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update project(State Clearinghouse#2008011124)identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project in the areas o£ aesthetics,air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, recreation,transportation and parking, and utilities and service systems. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires that agencies adopting environmental impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. Specifically,the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring prograrrn for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction, or operation(Public Resource Code §21081.6). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) shall be used by the City of Huntington Beach staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update project. Monitoring shall consist of review of appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the party responsible for implementation or by field observation of the mitigation measure during implementation. The following table identifies the mitigation measures by resource area. The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation,monitoring activity,timing and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor,together with date of verification. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-1 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix '7 a , t `va4s.' _ • $ y ,e ° .,thy •� = �"•r�` ''�''s-,"- 'a .a'S SIC U�il m. 5 . Q. `+. ab aSi MM 4.2.1: During construction,demolition and remodel activities, Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning the following Best Available Control Measure shall be notes on grading and contract prior to implemented where feasible: building plans specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit • Dust Control plans for inclusion • Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas. • Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed, • Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times per day. • Cover all stock piles with tarps. • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible, • Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. • Exhaust Emissions • Require 90-day low-NORxR tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if available. • Utilize diesel particulate filter on heavy equipment where feasible. • Utilize low emission mobile construction equipment. • Utilize existing power sources when available, Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-2 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1'2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix minimizing the use of higher polluting gas or diesel Configure construction parking to minimize traffic Plan construction to minimize lane closures on existing streets. A full listing of construction emission controls is included in the Air Quality Assessment for Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan dated Painting and Coatings Use low VOC coatings and high pressure-low volume sprayers. MM 4.2-2:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning all diesel-powered equipment used would be retrofitted with notes on building plans contract prior to after-treatment products(e.g.,engine catalysts and other specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit technologies available at the time construction commences)to plans for inclusion the extent that they are readily available and cost effective when construction activities commence. Contract specifications-- ll be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.2-3: The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning alternative fuel construction equipment(e.g.,compressed natural notes on building plans contract prior to gas, liquid petroleum gas,and unleaded gasoline)would be specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit utilized to the extent feasible at the time construction activities plans for inclusion commence, Contract specifications shall be included in the mposed project construction documents,which shalloe approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.2-4:The City shall require that developers within the Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page1'] 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Viti, itoringfanOe ee 'e oo , ;= / CVaGarl x.. Aastxe bo� i Wlbrt �`" Indbr: r s DaAe� _ project site use locally available building materials such as ' notes on building plans contract prior to specifications issuance concrete, stucco, and interior finishes for construction of the s pe and sua ce of a project and associated infrastructure. building plans for building permit inclusion MM 4.2.5: The City shall require developers within the project Construction Review and approve Plan check Planning site to establish a construction management plan with Rainbow management plan construction prior to Disposal to divert a target of 50%of construction,demolition,and management plan issuance of a site clearin waste. demolition, 9 grading or building permit (whichever comes first MM 4.6-6:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction equipment engines will be maintained in good notes on building plans contract prior to condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit the duration of construction. Contract specifications shall be plans for inclusion included in the proposed project construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.2.7:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, notes on building plans contract prior to motor vehicles, and portable equipment,shall be turned off when specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit not in use for more than five minutes. Diesel-fueled commercial plans for inclusion motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.2.8:The City shall require that any new development Notes and details on Review and approve Plan check Planning within the Specific Plan area provide signs within loading dock building plans building plans prior to areas clearly visible to truck drivers.These signs shall state that Implementation - issuance of prior to issuance of building permit Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-4 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Rit".On,�,%c!piitprt'n,-- -d�JRN'q R01rolor trucks cannot idle in excess of five minutes per trip. Certificate of Occupancy MM 4.2-9:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning electrical outlets are included in the building design of future notes on building plans approved contract prior to Building& loading docks to allow use by refrigerated delivery trucks. Future specifications and issuance of a Safety building plans for building permit project-specific applicants shall require that all delivery trucks do inclusion not idle for more than five minutes. If loading and/or unloading of perishable goods would occur for more than five minutes,and continual refrigeration is required, all refrigerated delivery trucks shall use the electrical outlets to continue powering the truck refrigeration units when the delivery truck engine is turned off. MM 4.2-10:The City shall require that any new development Notes and details on Review and approve Plan check Planning within the project site provide a bulletin board or a kiosk in the building plans notes and details on prior to lobby of each proposed structure that identifies the locations and building plans issuance of schedules of nearby transit opportunities, Implementation - building permit prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy MM 4.2-11: The property owner/developer of individual projects Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning within the DTSP will reduce operation-related emissions through notes on building plans approved contract prior to implementation of practices identified in SCAQMD's CEQA specifications and issuance of a building plans for building permit Handbook and the URBEMIS v9.2.4, some of which overlap. inclusion Specific measures are delineated in the DTSP Air Quality Assessment(Volume 11,Appendix B). MM 4.2-12:The following measures,based on these sources, shall be implemented by the property applicant to reduce criteria pollutant emissions from projects associated with the DTSP Update.Additionally,support and compliance with the AQMP for the basin are the most important measures to achieve this goal. City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-5 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix -77 7777777 Imes"hagaw The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally,energy conservation measures are included. Transportation Demand Management(TDM)Measures 1. Provide adequate ingress and egress at all Site plan review Review and approval Prior to site Planning entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling of site plan plan approval at curbsides. Presumably,this measure would improve traffic flow into and out of the parking lot. The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required. 2. Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate and Improvement plans Review and approval Plan check Planning/ provide roadway improvements at heavily congested of improvement plans prior to Public Works roadways.Again, the areas where this measure issuance of a would be applicable are the intersections in and near building permit the project area. Presumably,these measures would improve traffic flow. Emissions would drop as a result of the higher traffic speeds, but to an unknown extent. 3. Synchronize traffic signals.The areas where this Capital Improvement Periodic CIP budget Plan check Planning/ measure would be applicable are roadway Program budget and review and review prior to Public Works intersections within the project area. This measure individual improvement and approval of issuance of a would be more effective if the roadways beyond the plans improvement plans building permit project limits are synchronized as well.The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required 4. Ensure that sidewalks and pedestrian paths are Project site plan Review of site plan Prior to site Planning/ installed throughout the project area. plan approval Public Works Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1,1 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1'2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Aft jair Energy Efficient Measures Building& Safety& 1 Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce Project building plans Review of building Plan check Planning thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant and specifications plans prior to sensors. Reducing the need to heat or cool issuance of a structures by improving thermal integrity will result in building permit a reduced expenditure of energy and a reduction in pollutant emissions.The air quality benefit is 2, Install energy efficient street lighting. 3. Capture waste heat and reemploy it in nonresidential buildings. This measure is applicable to the commercial buildings in the project. 4. Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planning programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure,This measure reduces the need for cooling energy in the 5. Introduce window glazing,wall insulation,and efficient ventilation methods. 6. Install low-emission water heaters,and use built-in, energy-efficient appliances. Ur MM 4.14-1: Prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities, the project developer shall implement the following mitigation measure which entails nesting surveys and avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and MBTA species, and appropriate agency City ofHuntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1'% Mitigation Monitoring and Reportingkxdthx � Nesting habitat for protected or sensitive species: 1 Vegetation removal and construction shall occur Developer shall submit Review schedule and Plan check Planning between September 1 and January 31 whenever construction schedule field survey report, prior to feasible. (including grading and as necessary, issuance of a activities)as evidence review and approve grading permit of construction overlap plans indicating or demolition with breeding season. construction limits permit 2. Prior to any construction or vegetation removal If construction occurs Perform periodic field Prior to Planning between February 15 and August 31,a nesting during relevant check to ensure construction or survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of breeding,developer compliance site all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area. shall present a survey distrubance Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days report(prepared by a and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of consultant approved by construction activities and surveys will be conducted the City)to the City in accordance with California Department of Fish and prior to issuance of a Game(CDFG)protocol as applicable. If no active grading permit.If nest nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the are found,developer construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. shall submit plans A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be identifying nest locations and limits of submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. If an construction activities active nest of a IVIBTA protected species is identified onsite(per established thresholds),a 250-foot no- work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity.This buffer can be reduced in consultation with CDFG and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist. MM 4.3-1: If changes are proposed to properties or buildings Historic resources Review of site plan Prior to project Planning listed in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Historic and report prepared by and building plans approval Cultural Resources Element and/or on any state or national qualified architectural Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1'8 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix o, • • a • • ° o0 0 ° •o , A9eas�ue ' QOix�nt�oit "Wbri '� �1flbr' Da@a historic register, the City shall require preparation of a report historian from a qualified architectural historian regarding the significance of the site/structure. Based on the results of the report,further mitigation, such as preservation, restoration,or salvaging of materials,shall be identified and implemented as recommended by a qualified architectural historian. MM 4.3.2: During construction activities, if archaeological and/or Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check Planning paleontological resources are encountered, the contractor shall grading plans for prior to be responsible for immediate notification and securing of the site inclusion issuance of a area immediately.A qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist grading permit approved by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Director shall be retained to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification,and evaluation of cultural resource finds. If major archaeological and/or Research design and Review and approve Throughout Planning paleontological resources are discovered that require long-term recovery plan,if research design and ground- halting or redirecting of grading,a report shall be prepared required recovery plan disturbing activities identifying such findings to the City and the County of Orange. Discovered cultural resources shall be offered to the County of Orange or its designee on a first-refusal basis. MM 4.3.-3:During construction activities,if human remains are Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check Planning discovered,work shall be halted and the contractor shall contact grading plans for prior to inclusion issuance of a the City's designated representative on the project and the grading permit Orange County Coroner until a determination can be made as to the likelihood of additional human remains in the area. If the remains are thought to be Native American,the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who will ensure that proper treatment and disposition of the remains occurs. City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-9 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix gati,on'Monitoring and Rqp rtin 9 Program 7 �'W I Y" # so, gy"end I MM 4.4-1: Future development in the DTSP area shall prepare a Notes on grading plan Review and approve Plan check Public Works/ grading plan, subject to review and approval by the City's and building plans grading and building prior to Building and plans for inclusion of issuance of a Safety development services departments,to contain the soils and grading permit recommendations of the required final soils and geotechnical geotechnical report. These recommendations shall be implemented in the recommendations design of the project,including but not limited to measures associated with site preparation,fill placement, temporary shoring and permanent clewatering,groundwater seismic design features,excavation stability,foundations, soils stabilization, establishment of deep foundations,concrete slabs and pavements,surface drainage,cement type and corrosion measures,erosion control, shoring and internal bracing, and plan review. 0 Ps'M#terla`liriF 0 MM 4.5-1:The City of Huntington Beach shall require a Phase Phase One assessment Review and approve Plan check Fire One assessment on properties within the Downtown Specific grading and building prior to Plan area, including properties utilized for oil production plans for inclusion issuance of a grading or activities, proposed for development to assure that any building permit hazardous materials/contaminated soils present on the property are identified and remediated in accordance with City specifications 422,429 and 431-92.All native and imported soils associated with a project shall meet the standards outlined in Haul route permit Review traffic Public Works City Specification No.431-92 prior to approval of grading and control/construction building plans by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. management plan Additionally, all work at a project site shall comply with the City's Public Works Department requirements(e.g., haul route permits). Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-10 Downtown,Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigjafion:Monifodhg d Rep e o oe , MM 4.5-2: In the event that previously unknown or unidentified Risk management plan Review and approve Plan check Fire soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat and site health and grading plans for prior to to human health or the environment is encountered during safety plan, if required inclusion issuance of a construction in the project area,construction activities in the grading permit immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that 1)identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post- development and 2)describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including,but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations,or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any,appropriate agencies shall be notified(e,g., Huntington Beach Fire Department). If needed,a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. YSy'' N h3•a ='i''r i,f5i:. x'K t K 10 ty Hydrol I MM 4.6-1: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits .Water Quality Review and approve Plan check Public Works and/or prior to recordation of any subdivision maps,the applicant Management Plan WQMP and prior to of any new development or significant redevelopment projects (WQMP) documentation issuance of shall submit to the Department of Public Works a Water Quality grading permit Management Plan(WQMP)emphasizing implementation of LID principles and addressing hydrologic conditions of concern. WQMPs shall be in compliance with the current California City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-11 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingN�atrix sh Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) Santa Ana Region,Waste Discharge Requirements permit, and all Federal, State and local regulations. IVIM 4.6-2: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, a Hydrology and Review and approve Plan check Public Works hydrology and hydraulic analysis shall be submitted to the hydraulic analysis analysis and prior to Department of Public Works for review and approval(10-,25-, documentation issuance of and 1 00-year storms and back-to-back storms shall be grading permit analyzed). In addition,this study shall include 24-hour peak back-to-back 1 00-year storms for onsite detention analysis.The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development,or deficient,downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100- year frequency. MM 4.6-3: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building Notice of Intent(NOI) Review Plan check Public Works permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance of one or and Waste Discharge documentation prior to more acres of land, the applicant shall demonstrate that Identification(WDID) issuance of a grading or coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit building permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with construction activity Storm Water Pollution by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI)submitted to the Prevention Plan,if State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the required subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification(WDID)Number. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) requirements,which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. SWPPPs shall be in Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Matrix 'Mitigation Monitoring,aftd Reporting Program. 60" WD : 31 w- ACM ng compliance with the current NPIDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with construction activity. MM 4.6-4: Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the Landscape plans Review landscape Plan check Public Works/ developer or applicant shall submit detailed Landscape plans prior to Planning Architectural plans by a State Licensed Landscape Architect that issuance of a shall include a designed irrigation system that eliminates surface building permit runoff and meets the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MC-14.52)requirements and a detailed planting plan that specifies appropriate California Native and other water conserving plants materials. In addition,there shall be a maintenance program submitted that addresses the use of fertilizers and pesticides to meet the requirements of the City Integrated Pest Management, Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Guidelines,the Water Quality Management Plan, and the County Drainage Area Master Plan.These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works and Planning Departments.The landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with the approved plan, the maintenance program and the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. MM 4.6-5: Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the Tsunami risk Review plan and Plan check Planning developer shall submit to the City Department of Planning for management plan documentation prior to approval a plan outlining specific planning measures to be taken issuance of a building permit to minimize or reduce risks to property and human safety from tsunami during operation. Planning measures could include but would not be limited to the following: • Provision of tsunami safety information to all project residents and businesses,in addition to posting in City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-13 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix g6tion'Moftitbirilng,and Relportfing,Program N A4`;`0 AOWJY_ public locations on site; • Identification of the method for transmission of tsunami watch and warnings to residents, business owners and people on site in the event a watch or warning is issued; • Identification of an evacuation site for persons on-site in the event of a tsunami warning. o-:,p '44"t ,�Z","Jz, MM 4.8-1: Noise attenuation devices shall be used on all Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction equipment, and construction staging areas shall be notes on grading and contract prior to located as far as possible from any residences or other noise building plans specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit sensitive receptors. plans for inclusion MM 4.8-2: Prior to issuance of building permits for residences Detailed noise Review noise Plan check Planning located within the 65 CNEL noise contour, a detailed noise assessment prepared assessment and prior to assessment with noise reduction measures specified shall be by a qualified acoustical ensure measures are issuance of a consultant incorporated into residential prepared to show that noise levels in those areas will not exceed submitted plans building permit the 65 CNEL outdoor noise criteria. Prior to issuance of permits, a detailed noise assessment with noise reduction measures specified shall be prepared to show that noise levels in the residences will not exceed the 45 CNEL indoor noise standard. The assessment will be based on the architectural plans for each specific project. The reports by a qualified acoustical consultant and shall document the sources of noise impacting the areas and describe any measures required to meet the standard.These measures will be incorporated into the project plans.The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-14 Downtowni Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix MW ®. . �Eioi► arVe6ar► ry►a rre, Dodni>erii Uurt AftIbftAcfi MM 4.8.3: Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed noise Detailed noise Review noise Prior to project Planning assessment shall be prepared for mixed-use and commercial assessment prepared assessment and approval projects within 50 feet of any residence to ensure that these by a qualified acoustical ensure measures are - consultant incorporated into sources do not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance limits.The submitted plans assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall document the noise generation characteristics of the proposed equipment and the projected noise levels at the nearest residential use. Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance shall be demonstrated and any measures required to comply with the Noise Ordinance and reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels shall be included in the project plans.The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of project approval. MM 4.10.1: New construction within the Downtown Specific Plan Building plans notes Review and approve Plan check Planning/ Area shall be designed to provide for safety measures(e.g., and details building prior to Police alarm systems,security lighting,other on-site security measures issuance of a and crime prevention through environmental design policies)and building permit subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Department and Huntington Beach Police Department. MM 4.10-2: Subject to the City's annual budgetary process, Annual City budget Review budget and Annual City Police/Fire which considers available funding and the staffing levels needed staffing levels budget process to provide acceptable response time for fire and police services, needed for fire and police services the City shall provide sufficient funding to maintain the City's standard, average level of service through the use of General Fund monies. City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-15 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingNxatrix 77 ta IVIM 4.12-2: Prior to Year 2030,one of the following mitigation measure options shall be implemented: * Implement right-turn overlap signal phasing for Capital Improvement CIP budget review Prior to Year Public Works southbound Goldenwest Street.This would bring the Program budget and implementation 2030 PIVI peak hour to LOS D.A right-turn overlap for Street Improvement southbound Goldenwest Street would require that u- plans turn movements on eastbound Pacific Coast Highway be prohibited. AND * Provide two eastbound and westbound through lanes Capital Improvement CIP budget review Prior to Year Public Works on Orange Avenue. This would achieve Level of Program budget and implementation 2030 Service D in the evening peak hour.This improvement Street Improvement would require the removal of street parking on both plans sides of Orange Avenue on either side of Lake Street. * Installation of a signal at this intersection would achieve acceptable Level of Service operation. IVIM 4.13-1: To ensure that there are no adverse impacts Grading and building Review and approval Prior to start of Public Works associated with the future Downtown Specific Plan development plans notes and details of grading and construction projects during construction,ApplicanYdeveloper/ building plans builder/contractor shall coordinate with utility and service Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Milt-igation'Roniboring and Rep-qrting Program organizations prior to the commencement of construction. MM 4.13-2: Individual development projects within the Downtown Grading and building Review and approval Prior to start of Public Works Specific Plan Area will require connections to existing water, plans notes and details of grading and construction sewer,and utility lines in the City and may require construction of building plans new water pipeline facilities.All connections to existing water and wastewater infrastructure will be designed and constructed per the requirements and standards of the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. Connections to any OCSID sewer line shall be designed to OCSID standards. Such installation shall be coordinated, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate City departments and applicable agencies. IVIM 4.13-3: Each development project is required to implement Building plans and Review and approval Prior to Public Works separate water conservation measures that support major water landscape plans notes of landscape plans issuance of and details and building plans building conservation efforts.The following water saving technologies can permits be implemented on a project basis to comply with statewide water goals and water conservation measures that can further assist in meeting the 20%reduction goal. • Waterless urinals should be specified in all public areas, including restaurants and commercial • Low-flush toilets should be installed in all new residential units and encouraged through rebates or other incentives in existing homes. • Low-flow shower heads and water faucets should be required in all new residential and commercial spaces City nf Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigation:Mon-itoring and Relpqrting Program, and encouraged in existing developed properties. • Water efficient kitchen and laundry room appliances should be encourage through rebates for both residential and commercial units. • Landscaping should be completed with drought tolerant plants and native species. • Irrigation plans should use smart controllers and have separated irrigation meters. MM 4.13-4:As individual development occurs within the Hydraulic study and Review and approval Prior to Public Works Downtown Specific Plan area,additional hydraulic studies shall sewer study of hydraulic study issuance of be performed to verify that water pipes will adequately support and sewer study building each specific project.A sewer study shall be prepared for Public permits Works Department review and approval.A fourteen(14)day or longer flow test data shall be included in the study,The location and number of monitoring test sites, not to exceed three, to be determined by the Public Works Department. MM 4.13-5:As individual development occurs within the Proof of payment of fair Review and approval Prior to Public Works Downtown Specific Plan Area,each development shall be share of electrical of building plans issuance of required to pay for the development's fair share of infrastructure systems infrastructure building improvements to electrical systems per Southern California improvements permits Edison requirements. MM 4.13-6: To ensure adequate water supply for future Project water supply Review and approval Prior to start of Public Works developments, and to be consistent with Senate Bill 610 and assessment of water supply construction assessment Senate Bill 221, a separate water supply assessment will be required for individual projects at the time the project is submitted to the City,for all projects that are subject under the Water Code Section 10912(a),which includes residential development of Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-18 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring arid ReportingWkatrix vocinnenow more than 500 dwelling units,a commercial building greater than 250,000 sq.ft,, a hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms,or a project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units. Mitigation Monito(ing"gjpd Reporting Program ` City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Res. No. 2009-60 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 02, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hardy, Hansen NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None cif,lerk and ex-officio derk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #2 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 : 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 amends the HBZSO by amending Specific Plan No. 5 —Downtown Specific Plan to reconfigure the existing 11 Specific Plan districts into 7 districts, modify development and parking standards, incorporate design guidelines and provide recommendations for street improvements, public amenities, circulation enhancements, infrastructure and public facility improvements and parking strategies. The proposed changes will be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City's General Plan because the land uses proposed in the DTSP Update will not substantially change from the permitted and specified land uses of the existing DTSP and thus, the General Plan. These changes would not alter the established land use pattern in that visitor-serving commercial and mixed use developments would continue to be permitted and the primarily developed uses in these areas. The proposed changes to the development standards would allow greater maximum building heights and densities than are currently allowed in the DTSP area. However, compliance with development standards that call for upper story setbacks and residential buffers as well as the design guidelines will result in high quality, attractive projects that are compatible with existing surrounding developments that were developed under the current DTSP. 2. In the case of general land use provisions, the DTSP Update is consistent with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which they are proposed. The proposed land uses that would be developed with implementation of the DTSP Update would not significantly differ from the existing land uses that are permitted and developed in the DTSP area. The amended DTSP will enhance potential to create an urban village with high quality design and sustainable features in comparison with development that could occur under the current standards of the existing DTSP. The DTSP Update is also sensitive to existing residential uses and proposes development standards and subdistricts, which would afford these areas additional protection from potential impacts from future development. The DTSP Update would be consistent with the adopted Council goals, objectives and policies of the DTSP area and implement the vision for the downtown. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The proposed changes to the development standards such as increases in maximum allowable building heights and residential densities, elimination of floor area ratio (FAR) requirements and reduced parking ratios are justified by compensating benefits of the Specific Plan. The changes proposed in the DTSP Update will facilitate development and redevelopment of properties so that the next phase of community investment and improvement will occur in the DTSP area. The DTSP Update will provide a healthy mix of land uses that will create an environment that promotes tourism to increase revenues to support community services. The development standards and design guidelines will ensure high quality projects with enough open space, air, light, ventilation, pedestrian connections, interesting architecture, parking, well designed circulation, and landscaping for an enjoyable environment for both residents and tourists. 4. The amended DTSP is consistent with good zoning practice and was prepared utilizing a comprehensive approach, which included involving the public in numerous public workshops and meetings and reviewing the proposed DTSP Update in terms of potential benefits to both residents and visitors in the larger context of directing future development. Smart growth and sustainable design principles were considered in the preparation of the DTSP Update. All projects would be required to provide sustainable building practices. The DTSP Update would be in conformity with general welfare in that adequate utilities and public facilities and services would be ensured through identified mitigation measures and code requirements for future projects. Although Fire services would need to be improved at some point during the 20-year planning period, future development projects would be required to be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure adequate service can be provided. I� ATTACHMENT #3 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-61 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5—DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004) WHEREAS, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 has been prepared and analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 06 , 2009; and Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 is a request to amend Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan to establish new development requirements, design standards and land use controls within the existing 336-acre Downtown Specific Plan area. The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council on the amendment to the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65354; and The Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65353 on October 06 , 2009 to consider said Zoning Text Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds as follows: SECTION 1: The amended Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted Land Use Element of the General Plan, the certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and other applicable policies and is compatible with surrounding development. SECTION 2: The amended Specific Plan enhances the potential for superior urban design in comparison with the development under the base district provisions that would apply if the Plan were not approved. SECTION 3: The deviations from the base district provisions that otherwise would apply are justified by the compensating benefits of the Specific Plan; and SECTION 4: The amended Specific Plan includes adequate provisions for utilities, services, and emergency vehicle access; and public service demands will not exceed the capacity of existing and planned systems. SECTION 5: Specific Plan No. 5, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as thoroughly set forth herein, is hereby adopted and approved. 09-2218.001/37808 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of November, 2009. '94�e-�-eel �s ayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: /49 Cit Jerk (.—City Attorney REVIE D APPROVED: INITI E"PROVED: City fA Y strator Plangng fKrk or ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Specific Plan No. 5- Downtown Specific Plan 09-2218.001/3 7808 2 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Not Attached Pending Final Local Action (City Council Reconsideration — Scheduled for January 2010) Res. No. 2009-61 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 02, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hansen NOES: Hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Clerk and ex-offici Jerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #4 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-007 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to redesignate the land use designations of the existing 336- acre Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 5), as more particularly described as Exhibits "A" and `B" attached hereto, to be consistent with the modified district boundaries for the Downtown Specific Plan area. The amendment also includes modifying the Land Use Schedule (Table LU-2a) and the Community District and Subarea Map and Schedule (Figure LU-6; Table LU-4) of the General Plan Land Use Element to differentiate the reconfigured districts and permitted uses within the Specific Plan and allow increases in density and building heights in the newly reconfigured districts. The amendment also includes re-numbering subarea 3D, which is not within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries, to 3C on the Subarea Map (Figure LU-6) as a result of the modifications to the subareas of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Circulation Element (Figure CE-9) of the General Plan is amended to reflect changes in proposed bicycle paths that are included in the Downtown Specific Plan Update. Pursuant to California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 and recommended approval of said entitlement to the City Council; and Pursuant to California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-007; and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and is consistent with other elements of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT. RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located starting from the intersection of 09-2218/37811 1 Goldenwest Street with Pacific Coast Highway and curves along the coastline, including the Huntington Beach Pier, down to Beach Boulevard. The inland boundary of the Specific Plan Area follows the prolongation of Sunrise Drive from Beach Boulevard to Pacific View Avenue where the boundary curves along Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. From Atlanta Avenue, the boundary flows along Orange Avenue and continues up Lake Street to Palm Avenue where it connects over to Main Street and along Pacific View Avenue to link down along 6th Street. From 6th Street, following along Walnut Avenue to Goldenwest Street, parcels within the first block adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway are included in the Specific Plan Area, and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, which amends the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements for the subject area to reflect changes within the Downtown Specific Plan Update, is hereby approved. The Director of Planning is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended Land Use Map and Subarea Map and amended Land Use and Circulation Elements. A copy of said maps and the Land Use and Circulation Elements, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Planning Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of November , 2009. /"5'�" Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Z6 O Citi Plerk G City Attorney REVIEW D APPROVED: INITIfiTED AND APPROVED: 4*E&]� City mi strator anWing Director ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Specific Plan Map Exhibit C: General Plan Changes 09-2218/37811 2 Resolution No.2009-62 Resolution No.2009-62 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 22, of the Map of Huntington Beach Seventeenth Street Section, as recorded in Book 4, Page 10 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence northerly 50 feet approximately to a point, said point being the centerline intersection of Goldenwest Street (formally Twenty-third Street) and Walnut Avenue, said point also being the True Point of Beginning; thence southwesterly along said centerline of Goldenwest Street and its southwesterly prolongation 780 feet approximately to a point on the high tide line of the Pacific Ocean; thence southeasterly along said high tide line 6,100 feet approximately to a line parallel with and 72.50 feet northwesterly, measured at right angles from the southwesterly prolongation of the centerline of Main Street; thence southwesterly along = said parallel line 1,470 feet approximately to a line parallel with heretofore said high tide line; thence southeasterly along said parallel line 145 feet approximately to a line parallel with and 72.50 feet southeasterly, measured a right angles from said southwesterly prolongation of the centerline of Main Street; thence northeasterly along said parallel line 1,470 feet approximately to the heretofore said high tide line; thence southeasterly along said high tide line 5,470 feet approximately to the southerly prolongation of the Survey Centerline of Beach Boulevard; thence northerly along said Survey Centerline of Beach Boulevard 2,800 feet approximately to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Tract No. 9580, as shown on a map recorded in Book 444, Pages 29 through 31 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and the southerly line of said Tract No. 9580 and said southerly lines westerly prolongation 1,800 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Pacific View Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Pacific View Avenue 220 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Huntington Street; thence northerly along said centerline of Huntington Street 1,240 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Atlanta Avenue; thence westerly along said centerline of Atlanta Avenue 750 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of First Street, said intersection is also the centerline intersection of Orange Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Orange Avenue 650 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Lake Street, thence northerly along said centerline of Lake Street 1,830 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Palm Avenue, thence westerly along said centerline of Palm Avenue 332 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Main Street; thence southerly along said centerline of Main Street 430 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Sixth Street; thence southwesterly along said centerline of Sixth Street 1,750 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Walnut Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Walnut Avenue 5,533 feet approximately to the True Point of Beginning. Resolution No.2009-62 i ,Ls Y "f ✓ \ K � 5 ( 1 r Su { EXHIBIT Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-2a (Cont.) Land Use Schedule(Cont.)' Land Use Category Typical Permitted Uses MIXED USE Mixed Use ® Single uses containing Commercial Neighborhood(CN),or Commercial General (M) (CG)or Residential uses as listed above. • Mixed use areas that may include Vertically Integrated Housing(MV)or Horizontally Integrated Housing(MH)uses,townhomes,garden apartments, live/work units and mid-/high-rise apartments,Commercial Neighborhood (CN),Commercial Visitor(CV)and Commercial General(CG)uses. ® The exact density, location,and mix of uses in this category is intended to be governed by a Specific Plan("-sp")to allow greater design flexibility and to address the uniqueness of a particular area. Mixed Use-Vertically a Single use structures containing Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General Integrated Housing (CG)uses as listed above. (MV) o Mixed use structures incorporating residential units on the second floor and/or rear of commercial uses;with restrictions on the types of commercial uses to ensure compatibility with the housing. Mixed Use-Horizontally ® Single use structures containing Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General Integrated Housing (CG)uses as listed above. (MH) O Multi-family residential,including townhomes,garden apartments,and mid-/high-rise apartments. a (Note: each use is limited to a portion of the total designated site,as prescribed by policy in this element.) OPEN SPACE Parks Public parks and recreational facilities. OS-P) Shoreline Publicly owned coastal beaches. Ancillary buildings may be permitted,such as food OS-S) stands and recreation equipment rentals,as determined by City review and approval. Commercial Recreation Publicly or privately owned commercial recreation facilities such as golf courses. (OS-CR) Conservation Properties to be retained for environmental resource conservation and management (OS-C) purposes(e.g., wetlands protection). Ancillary buildings, such as maintenance equipment storage, may be permitted, as determined by City review and approval. Water Recreation Lakes and other water bodies used for recreational purposes,such as boating, (OS-W) swimming,and water skiing. 'See LU 7.1.1 and LU 7.1.2 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 11-LU-26 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNrFY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 1 Area wide Maintain the City's downtown as a principal focal point of community Downtown Functional Role identity, containing a mix of community-serving and visitor-serving (cumulative) commercial uses, housing, and cultural facilities. Development should achieve a pedestrian-oriented, "village-like" environment that physically and visually relates to the adjacent shoreline. 1A Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use-Vertical Integration of Housing('% :') "1VI") Main Street f Uses permitted by the "CG" and "CV" land use categories, shared parking PCH rixr"Core" facilities, cultural and civic uses and mixed-use structures Downtown vertically integrating housing with commercial uses. Core Density/Intensity Category: `1212"">30" • height. three(3) stories for buildings occupying less t-himin a full block, few(4)stories for-fill block stnwtt.res • Height: minimum building height is 25 feet; three stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; four stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater Design and Categories: Specific Plan("-sp"), Special Design District ("-d") and Development Pedestrian District("-pd") 0. Do the., o Development must be designed and sited to establish a pedestrian-oriented character. • Maintain and expand streetscape amenities. • Establishan unified h;tectuFal character and highl., artic.^,lµ*oµ facades. • Require vertical setbacks of upper stories_ • Emphasize design elements that maintain viewsheds of the shoreline and Pier. • Encourage the preservation of historical structures. • Establish linkages(walkways)to adjacent streets-, providing connectivity of public open spaces and plazas. 1B Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use "-.o;�l Wegr ion of Ho si^b "1VVf" Main Street/ Sameuses as Subarea !A. Uses permitted in Commercial General Olive"Core" Abutting ("CG"), Commercial Visitor ("CV") and Commercial Downtown Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories, cultural and civic Core uses, mixed use structures integrating housing and commercial uses and freestanding single- and multi-family housing. Density/Intensity Category: " °-��'�g ry: a Height: three /31�) stories for buildings occupying less than a -J]Mock' THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-48 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT Height: minimum building height is 25 feet; three stories maximum for residential only developments; three stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; four stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater Design and rate . Sp riff. nit O« sp") and Pedestrian District �'„a„) Same as Development Subarea 1, Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd") and Special Design District("-d") • Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian activity • Require vertical setbacks above the second story • Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as a transition to adpacent residential neighborhoods ® Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea LA THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-49 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic IStandards and Principles 1C Permitted Uses Cate go " g YY Abutting offices, supporting retail commereial, restaurants, cultural, an Downtown "CO" land use categoi�q shwed parking facilities, and "Core" free standing multi family .residential High("rW") Downtown Residential Density/Intensity Category: " " ">30" ® Height: three(3)stories Design and Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp") and Pedestrian District ("^aL'ySpecial Development Design District("-d") • Requires the preparationof a SpecificTIQ<T o Build wgs-should be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian activity. ® Establish Rained-architectural oharac4er and bight), •s lated facades. • Require veftioal sethaeks above the second story. ® Require that the scale ..,,4 massingof stFuettwes b istetA with to dowpAovir eharaeter and as a trmsitien- te adjacent-residentia neighborhood-s. m Provide linkages with the MainetreetWK "cores" (Subareas !A ,1 443) Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single-family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation ID Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") Main Street, Uses permitted in Commercial General C'CG") an Commercial N«hl Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories, cultural and civic, mixed use Orange structures vertically-integrating housing and commercial, and free-standing Downtown Single- and multi-family housing. Uses that conflict with residential units Neighbor- should be excluded. hood Density/Intensity Category: " Fl-rl1425L— "( >30„) ® Height: three(3) stories f buildings occupying less than a full blee^ , four(4)stories for full blook stmetues Design and Same as Subarea lEB Development Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd") and Special Design District("-d") ® Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian activity ® require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-50 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNrry DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT a transition to adiacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea LA 1E Permitted Uses Category: Public and®pen Space Main Uses permitted in public land use categories, cultural and Street civic uses,open space Library Design and ® Require open space areas Development • Provide for preservation of historical structures THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-51 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (font.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princi Ies 2 Functional.Role Maintain the Huntington Beach Pier and adjacent properties for beach-related Pier recreational purposes, emphasizing its identity as a coastal and cultural amenity. Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") Visitor-serving commercial (surf, bicycle and skate rentals, bait and tackle shops, etc.), restaurants/cafes, beach-related cultural facilities, and parking lots. Density/Intensity ® Pier: limit development to be compatible with the recreational role of the Pier o Shoreline: limit development to the existing Maxwell's building "footprint" ® Height: two(2)stories Design and Category:Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("-d") Development ® Design structures to reflect its beachfront location. • Establish an unifying architectural character for all structures. ® Maintain public view of the ocean. e Emphasize the Huntington Beach Pier as a community landmark. e Facilitate pedestrian access. o Link the Pier to the Main Street Downtown"Core"(Subarea IA). 3 Area wide Maintain the "OId Town" residential area as a distinct neighborhood of the "Old Town" Functional Role City, incorporating local-serving commercial and community "focal" points to enhance its"village"character. The single family character of the small lot subdivisions shall be maintained. 3A Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") PCH Frontage Density Category: "-3 ">( 3Q") Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("-d") Development . Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-52 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont) Community.District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 311 Permitted Uses Category: Residential Medium High("RMH") Town Lots Density Category: "-25" Design and • Incorporate front yard setbacks to maintain the existing residential Development neighborhood character. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. 3C- Permitted Use-s Categoty: Mixed Use Vertioal Integration of Hour C'NW') Pry zNodes Visitor e,,.. ..............a!use emiit ea h ,the Co..u.er-raial:Visitor('CNn') u.g�^^� s t'� �� � � � land use .-ate...,.-y, excluding uses that may ...l.ersel.. iqVac4 character- o rrounding residential, and mixed use—structwes vertically-integrating Dew Categel3,2"F8'-' ® Height: thFee(3)st..r;e Design andEategoty: Speck"�Plans(sp") Development ® Design structures to achieve a consistent visualh t d h compatible with adjaeent residential units in scale and mass. • l?eyuke s Qetllres to be sited along the PC frontage, v,4h parking t the. sides or- .;th;n str.,..t..res o Site and design deyel...,...e„t to.,, „te;,, public views f the roast ff om public 3D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Neighborhood("CN") 3C Density/Intensity Category: "-FI" a Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design District("-d") Development • Design structures to be visually consistent and compatible with adjacent residential units. • Design and site structures to achieve a"village"character. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-53 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 Wont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea_ Characteristic Standards and Principles 4C Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") 7D" -ir-t Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, restaurants, (Lake)Street entertainment, and other uses (as permitted by the"CV" and"CG"land use Pacific categories) Citv commercial Density/Intensity Category: "-FT' • Height: eight(8)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development • Establish a unified"village" character, using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses. • Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor. • Incorporate pedestrian walkways,plazas,and other common open spaces for public activity. • Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas. • Establish a well-defined entry from PCH. • Maintain views of the shoreline and ocean. 4D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") Waterfront Hotels/motels and supporting visitor-serving commercial uses(in accordance commercial with Development Agreement) Density/Intensity Category: "-FT' • Hotel/motel rooms: 1,690 • Commercial: 75,000 square feet Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development As defined by the adopted Development Agreement. 4E Permitted Uses Category: Open Space Conservation ("OS-C"), uses permitted by the PCH/Deach Commercial Visitor("CV")land use category, and free-standing multi-family Northeast housing("RM"). (Please refer to the Land Use Map for the exact boundaries of each land use designation.) (Continued on Density/Intensity Category: next page) • For RM designations, 15 units per acre • For CV designations,F2 • Height: three(3)stories THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-56 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (font.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea I Characteristic Standardsand Principles 4E Design and Category: PCHBeach Development • Establish a major streetscape element to identify the Beach Northeast Boulevard-PCH intersection. (Cont.) • Site, design,and limit the scale and mass of development, as necessary, to protect wetlands. • Maintain visual compatibility with the downtown. • Incorporate onsite recreational amenities for residents. • Minimize access to and from PCH, providing an internal roadway system. • Incorporate extensive landscape and streetscape. 4F Permitted Uses Category: Conservation("OS-C") Wetlands • Wetlands conservation. 4G Permitted Uses Category: Public("P")and Conservation("OS-C") Edison Plant • Wetlands conservation. • Utility uses. Design and In accordance with Policy LU 13.1.8. Development 4H Permitted Uses Category: Conservation("OS-C") Brookhurst- Wetlands conservation. Magnolia 4I Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") Atlanta-First Multi-family residential, parks and other recreational amenities, schools, and (Lake)Street open spaces. Pacific City& Waterfront Residential Density/Intensity Category: "-30" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development 0 Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions"(Policies 9.3.1-9.3.4). • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two (2) to four(4) stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-57 Resolution No.2009-62 Extract of Figure LU-5 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations ------------ C-7, V X\ X, X N ------------ Ad !-Ave'. Cd MMMMdM- IDDowntown Specific Plan boundary Land Use Designation CV—Commercial Visitor OS-S —Open Space—Shore M—Mixed Use RH— Residential High Density P - Public Density Schedule Overlay Suffix -F7 (3.0 Floor Area Ratio) -sp(specific plan overlay) ->30 (greater than 30 dwelling units per acre) -pd(pedestrian overlay) -30(30 dwelling units per acre) -d(design overlay) � g s 1�x y •-r 6 r�' i �` r r t'. , ' p /Ii��/i ��/i�0��, °,� A c � _.�tad �`o-, •x s e '1 �r` � ..� '�f� ///�,%//��/�%!J/%�,J/%/S//J IN r i i r^,. d Y{ 4 �i `"" J�/%%;�//J/f•//,�/%//J I��/I♦,�.Jlp�j /J �I, IOVJ I/� 1NINON/' p 14 '.-5En i � ti � �:' � r a �? 's� �� ,#j{�`' k � _ � ,� ,•IJ�'j♦O'I♦♦���I J���`/�♦�/`���♦♦Ir/I%�J/////i�`I��` - av I//�/.�I�♦♦ ♦JjII�♦♦�s II,I%r�♦♦I♦S�♦I♦ ` /// .a � is s:- _. % �///r� �♦// � ..i 1 � ♦ z i % j O/ Ip // IJ� J� //�I♦,r��,I/ %,� �. �� s r � � `o a� % I/I�%O I♦'.% �1/IJ Ili �✓�.� ���� - x � t e '°.� <;� ��J�ri♦'/��♦i�;���i♦/�/�'�.o�`;,���r 1��� 111 IIIII)111 �, �- � . �i0i ♦fir ♦♦i ♦oi/.��/.-=��+i11��'11r 11l ��\\1���1111�Ili - �. � �,,�/�ii/ � �� '14� all■ t �IIIU1111111111111111111 111111lIi111111 IA11111Hill - ' � = �IIIIIflllilllllilillliill■ilAl 9111il11 111 nlllllll11111111i11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIUIIIHiIIlfllll IIIIIIIIIIil11H lillllil� - ill II IIIIIII �; k �.F ':.:e. ;�IIt11A IIIIII■IIIII `—'�'iC rrlllllfl IIIIIII lltllli illllill IIIIII IIIIIII A■IIII Igli IIIII IIIII IIIII ��� r �= IIE:aI Illli Iltillll Iilll■IIIIII lilllll ■IIIII IIIIII illlllll IIIII Iill■1 h11111 �1"IIIII:: ��' mil IIIII IIIII 1011111 111Ui1 i III IIIIIIIIII Illlll It11111 IIIII s z j 1 `•!IIIIII Iplllli lilllll 11■:IIIII Illllifli IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIII :■� 1 x' y r!IIIIII:IIIIIII (milli IIIIIII 111111 Ii1111111 IIIIII Iflllllll IIUII IIIII �G i 1 f , �i it IIIIIII �x,l IIIIII� �_ r r � r��aux ui"'� Illllflll IIIIII'IIIIIII 111111111 IIIIIII ��r+�7"11}II r ■� �—IIIIII lilllll Illfil IIIIII ,,Ial A rAs 01l1 � 'Jq Ln rx w1A rI AU♦� ` _ ,x,,,i �/ij\�//�� �,i IIIIII :IIIIIII UIII IIIII o,'%, „n�inlf 1 ? __ ��/ �I v ■ uu, uu ���fl Ill 1 __ ti _ .iiil IIIII l,_EI n ,., 1 = rt _ =,�„ ♦�iry�♦Ij ill NEI I,,,r I ,llit �""""` ♦/��Ij� �� iriiiii _ IillltllllllllllNlgll=' `' r. I' nlu xnA,lua \ ■I■� ._I 111I11lllllllllllfllli:1 ��' � �"i�1 � � � _ CIA■IIOIIir Resolution No.2009-62 R >n Amu v a p O O fl i o a oaap ooa@❑oaagWp oa - 13 ---- 3L T saOOOLR■i:]Op aOo p ❑ pOo❑ p � '& p 6❑ ❑ �aanno oaoaogaoo�oannflano�a o p pOoac DOn oan00 0013 000C�oaniP � ffO ItpO u k,M 0 = ❑ ■a0 fl aoaoo° � p D n fl s abt a ■ O ❑ t; a ooao onoCIR300al 00aac OC30CG iac�1�0 nooaa e �' O s p p = fl fl O ■ ❑ 13 p '�- 9 p ■ v fl p '� e♦®i+ 0 d Op D b 1.•. \ � aD a o oon�inoa aooa aoo oao ocI �' ■ r4 G p p i ■ El fl p O � �'O V o Q¢0 no flaoaooao�snooc soon noad .� + to a O fl >p ° 13 o a ° o � O s■ ■ s:teaO rias■18maeart ♦r.i 10 O Q fl p O j1 ❑ fl p % 13❑ �OaO�aCTOa�ao3 0 p a fl n p ❑ a o- O arcNvm p O p fl-' c'E,Q ■ a nona�ooa�7 IWeR.iCMU fl p000c{Poao=3oa9 o fl 113 13 I. O oJw Q ` ❑nyvaova O: p O; �•, p O; LEGEND fl' O' _:C C 0- - EXISTING CUSS 1 TRAIL: OFF ROAD 4 C3000- CUSMG CLASS 4 TRAIL: ON ROAD STRIPED LANES ` 0000 - PROPOSED CLASS 1 TRAIL- OFF RWD Refer to following figure: SOME - PROPOSED CLASS 4 TRAIL: ON ROAD STRIPED L.Q "Extract of Figure CE-971 for proposed changes Smw:OKS Assodww.199 to Bicycle Plan BICYCLE PLAN ICE-9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN III-CE-23 Resolution No.2009-62 Proposed Bike Lanes (changes to Figure CE-9) l ^.-.- Pr p�ios i / Class 11 cc '"Y/ Bike Lance' J N, � ;�'` (PCH� ain,St. \`'_�, ,�_. eca Av ly. ) y � _Proposed i Class 11 ` e ane;- - `ti%P -_La1ke!St. i Orange Av to` ' iPRza"ve) 4 ACj , l T �• i 11 y � E , � t ♦ E ♦\ E � W E 5 \\ 1 Extract of Figure CE-9 Legend - - - - Existing Class I Bike Lane - - - - Existing Class II Bike Lane ® - Proposed Class II Bike Lane Res. No. 2009-62 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 02, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hansen NOES: Hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Clerk and ex-offici Jerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #5 SUGGESTED FINDINGS LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 08-002: 1. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 proposes to amend the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to reflect the changes to the Downtown Specific Plan and the General Plan Land Use Plan designations in the DTSP area. The amendments will continue to allow the existing permitted land uses but at a greater intensity than existing and provide for more flexible development standards that would incentivize development and redevelopment of mixed-use developments with ground floor visitor-serving commercial uses in an expanded downtown core. 2. The proposed changes to the Local Coastal Program are in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act that encourage that encourage coastal dependent uses and protect public access and public recreation. The changes proposed in the DTSP Update will continue to prioritize visitor-serving commercial uses in the downtown area and encourage mixed-use developments that would allow residential uses in conjunction with visitor-serving commercial uses. Additionally, public access to the shoreline and public recreational opportunities will continue to be provided while allowing for new development that would be compatible with the existing DTSP area and increase tourism in the DTSP area. 3. The project conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The Design Guidelines of Chapter 4 encourage preservation of existing view corridors to the beach and ocean, project designs that incorporate ocean themes and build upon the "Surf City" culture and pedestrian linkages to the beach and ocean. Chapters 5 & 6 recommend circulation and streetscape improvements that would enhance beach access for pedestrians and motorists and enhance the overall experience for visitors and residents by promoting wider sidewalks for pedestrians, more bicycle parking, shuttle service, a trolley system and more beach parking. No existing coastal access will be impacted. ATTACHMENT #6 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA, ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 TO AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES TO AMEND ZONE 4 — LAND USE PLAN AND ACCOMPANYING TEXT OF THE CITY'S COASTAL ELEMENT FOR THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5) AND TO REFLECT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 AND REQUESTING CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and Public Resources Code Section 30503 and 30510,the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002; and Such amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption; and The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by law, held at least one public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002, and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan, the Certified Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (including the Land Use Plan), and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act, 09-2218.002 1 NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution is located starting from the intersection of Goldenwest Street with Pacific Coast Highway and curves along the coastline, including the Huntington Beach Pier, down to Beach Boulevard. The inland boundary of the Specific Plan Area follows the prolongation of Sunrise Drive from Beach Boulevard to Pacific View Avenue where the boundary curves along Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. From Atlanta Avenue,the boundary flows along Orange Avenue and continues up Lake Street to Palm Avenue where it connects over to Main Street and along Pacific View Avenue to link down along 6th Street. From 6th Street, following along Walnut Avenue to Goldenwest Street, parcels within the first block adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway are included in the Specific Plan Area and consists of approximately 336 acres within the City of Huntington Beach (Exhibit A). 2. That the Local Coastal Program (Coastal Element) for the Subject Property is hereby changed to reflect modified district boundaries and circulation improvements for the Downtown Specific Plan area, associated changes to the land use and subarea designations and updated narrative (Exhibit B). 3. That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 also consists of Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 4. That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to consider, approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002. 5. That pursuant to Section 13551(b) of the Coastal Commission Regulations, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 will take effect 09-2218.002 2 automatically upon Coastal Commission approval, as provided in Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513 and 30519. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting hereof held on the 2nd day of November 2009. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: jjw- 4 t A / City Clerk City Attorney d� REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City dministrator Director of Planning Exhibits: A. Specific Plan Map B. Changes in Land Use Plan (Coastal Element) C. Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 09-2218.002 3 Resolution No.2009-63 Resolution No.2009-63 EXHIBIT A Specific Plan Map - I E Ada to Ave. Resolution No.2009-63 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT the adopted conceptual master plan. Existing oil production facilities are permitted to continue. However,the Coastal Element Land Use Plan provides for an ultimate change in use on the site from oil production to mixed use, including residential,commercial,open space and civic/recreational uses. The Coastal Element Land Use Plan for the remainder of Zone 3 designates the vacant bluff at the eastern edge of the Bolsa Chica as open space. It is intended to accommodate the proposed Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park. The private golf course area and neighborhood park are also designated as open space. The residential portion is designated as low, medium, medium high and high density residential,consistent with existing development. Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) The entire land area is designated as OS-S,Open Space-Shoreline. ZONE 3—LAND USE DESIGNATIONS RESIDENTIAL RL-4,RL-7, RM-15, RMH- 25, RH-30 MIXED USE MH-F2/30(AVG.15)-sp OPEN SPACE OS-P,OS-S,OS-CR ZONE 3—SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan ZONE 3—GENERAL PLAN OVERLAP'S 4B,4J See Table C-1 for land use category definitions. Zone 4—Downtown This portion of the Coastal Zone extends from Goldenwest Street south to Beach Boulevard. (Figure C-8.) Existing Land Uses Inland(Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary.) Zone 4 is known as the City's"Downtown." Existing land uses include recreational beach amenities, single and multi-family residential uses, and a rich variety of visitor serving commercial facilities that serve to make the area the primary activity node for visitors to the Coastal Zone. Within the Downtown area, project areas, with their own distinctive character and purpose, have been developed. Significant commercial project areas include Main Street, the Waterfront Development and Pacific City, a site formerly known as"31 acres." Many of the commercial areas also integrate housing. However, the"Old Town"and "Town Lot" areas are the primary residential nodes in this area. Main Street Main Street runs north south from Pacific Coast Highway to Palm Avenue within the Coastal Zone. The Main Street"core area,"where development is most concentrated, lies between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Street. However, the expansion of the Main Street "core" area is envisioned to extend north on Main Street to Palm Avenue. With the head of Main Street leading directly into the Municipal Pier, Main Street itself serves as an extension of the Pier for Coastal Zone visitors. Main Street and its environs have been developed THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-13 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT as a mixed use,pedestrian oriented district,with visitor-serving commercial uses, integrated housing and upper story office uses. The Waterfront The Waterfront development area encompasses approximately 44 acres located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. The site presently includes a high rise hotel with ballroom and conference facilities, a luxury hotel with conference facilities, specialty retail uses'and a spa and a multi-family residential component. Planned uses for the remaining undeveloped portion include additional luxury hotel accommodations; . This area also includes a small wetlands whichwill be preteeted and eense was restored and conserved in 2004. Existing uses north of the Waterfront development area to Atlanta Avenue include multi-family residential and a residential mobile home park, "�TPacifac City The"'yes"Pacific City site is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway and Atlanta Street to the north,and Huntington and First Street to the east and west. This site is presently vaeant but is plafmed-under construction for development with visitor serving commercial and high density residential uses. Oldtown The area inland from Lake Street and Atlanta Avenue is known as the Oldtown section of the City. This area is developed with a mix of single and multi-family residential uses. Townlot/PCH Frontage This area comprises approximately 17 blocks nerthe€between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue,east of Goldenwest Street and west of Sixth Street and satith of Palm Avenue. Existing land uses in the area are primarily residential. Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) The seaward portion of this zone includes a high density residential development located northeast of the Pier on the sandy beach area. Also included in this sub-area are the Municipal Pier with restaurant uses and recreational fishing opportunities; the Pier Plaza located at the base of the Pier with public open space,an amphitheater and palm court;restaurant uses at the southwest base of the Pier, and Huntington Beach City Beach. The Municipal Pier The City's Municipal Pier is located at the intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway and serves as the focal point of the City's Coastal Zone. The Pier, which was re-built and opened in 1992, is 1,856 feet long, 30 feet wide and 38 feet above the mean low water level. It is constructed of reinforced concrete. It-includes a variety of visitor serving and recreational amenities, including a restaurant, community access booth, lifeguard tower, restrooms and observation and recreational fishing platforms. Visitors can use the Pier to sight see, stroll, fish and/or dine. Proposed enhancements include a funicular/trolly system to transport pedestrians from the Plaza area to the end of the Pier and back. Coastal Element policy restricts the height of buildings on the pier to no more than 2 stories/35 feet and requires that the entire perimeter of the pier be retained for public access. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-14 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT Pier Plaza The Main Pier Plaza is located at the base of the Municipal Pier. It consists of more than eight acres of public space. The public plaza includes a palm court,a 230 seat amphitheater, a spectator area, accessways to the beach and lawn,restrooms and concessions, bicycle parking facilities and automobile parking. It also includes 18,000 square feet of visitor serving commercial uses(restaurants). Pier Plaza was designed as a community focal area where public speaking forums, surfing competitions,foot races,outdoor concerts and similar events are held. Coastal Element Land Use Plan Designations Inland(Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary.) Coastal Element land use designations for the inland portion of this sub-area include mixed use and medium and high density residential. The majority of the sub-area is covered by a specific plan overlay(The Downtown Specific Plan). The Main Street core is subject to the"pedestrian overlay"provisions in addition to the Downtown Specific Plan. Portions of the Community District and Sub-area Schedule apply to the area as well. (See Figure C-10 and Table C-2.) Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) The shoreline area, including the site that currently houses residential development, is designated as open space. The Municipal Pier and the area southwest of its base are designated for visitor serving commercial uses. With the exception of the residential use,development in the area is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. ZONE 4—LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND GENERAL PLAN OVERLAYS OLDTOWN OS-P,RMH-25-d Design District 313 TOWNLOT/PCH RH->30-d-sp,N� a FRONTAGE Design Districts 3A D Downtown Specific Plan WATERFRONT CV-F7-sp, RH-30-sp Design District 44D and I RM-15 Downtown Specific Plan MAIN Nau F430 sp „a NfV Fi g STREET/ENVIRONS sp pd n "4 F!/25 sp p d M->30-d-pd-sp, P Design Districts IA,B,C,D,E Downtown Specific Plan 3' ^�� CRES PACIFIC RH-30-sp,CV-F7-sp CITY Design District 4C,I Downtown Specific Plan PIER AND SHORELINE CV-dzM,OS-S Design Districts 2,4J Downtown Specific Plan See Table C-1 for land use category definitions. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-15 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COASTAL ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN LAND USE,DENSITY AND OVERLAY SCHEDULE TABLE C-1 (Continued) A PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL Public(P) Governmental administrative and related facilities,such as public utilities, schools, libraries,museums,public parking lots, infrastructure,religious and similar uses. MIXED USE Mixed Use(M) ■ Mixed use areas that may include Vertically Integrated Housing(MV) or Horizontally Integrated Housing(MIT) uses,townhomes,garden apartments, live/work units and mid-/high-rise apartments, Commercial Visitor(CV), Commercial Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General(CG)uses. ■ Mixed use development in the coastal zone will focus on providing visitor serving commercial opportunities along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and within the Downtown Specific Plan Area. ■ The exact density, location and mix of uses in this category shall be governed by a Specific Plan("-sp")to allow greater design flexibility and to address the uniqueness of a particular area. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-28 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COASTAL ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN LAND USE,DENSITY AND OVERLAY SCHEDULE TABLE C-1 (continued) Residential Residential densities indicate the maximum density which may be permitted on a site. The actual development density may be reduced to account for site conditions and constraints. 4.0 Maximum of 4.0 dwelling units per net acre. 7.0 Maximum of 7.0 dwelling units per net acre. 15 Maximum of 15 dwelling units per net acre. 25 Maximum of 25 dwelling units per net acre. >30 Greater than 30 dwelling units per net acre. Commercial and Commercial and industrial intensities indicate the maximum floor area ratio Industrial (FAR)which may be permitted on a site. The actual development intensity may be reduced to account for site conditions and constraints. FAR represents the total building area(floor space,excluding basements, balconies,and stair bulkheads) on a lot divided by the total area of the lot. (Note: commercial FARs exceeding 0.4 normally necessitate subterranean or semi-subterranean parking to provide adequate space to meet code requiredparking.) -171 Maximum floor area ratio of 0.35 -172 Maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 -F2A Maximum floor area ratio of 0.75 -F3 Maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 -F4 Maximum floor area ratio of 1.25 -F5 Maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 -F6 Maximum floor area ratio of 2.0 -177 Maximum floor area ratio of 3.0 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-31 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princi les 1 Area wide Maintain the City's downtown as a principal focal point of community Downtown Functional Role identity, containing a mix of community-serving and visitor-serving (cumulative) commercial uses, housing, and cultural facilities. Development should achieve a pedestrian-oriented,"village-like"environment that physically and visually relates to the adjacent shoreline. lA Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use Vei4io,1 s„to..r tie of Rousing(«lt W')("?W») Main StFee Uses permitted by the "CG" and"CV" land use categories, shared parking PCH<i-c-zrcvrr facilities, Cultural and Civic uses and mixed-use structures Downtown vertic-ally-integrating housing with commercial uses. Core Density/Intensity Category: "F1-2"—">30" Height:• three(3) stories for buildings g less then a full 1.1.�..L- `:axe--vv`'u^p , four-(4)stories f full block stmet res • Height: minimum building height is 25 feet; three stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; four stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater Design and Categories: Specific Plan("-sp"), Special Design District("-d") and Development Pedestrian District("-pd") • Requires the preparation of Specific Plan, • Development must be designed and sited to establish a pedestrian-oriented character. ® Maintain and expand streetscape amenities. • Establish an unified rch;te,.wFal ..h.Faetor and highb, articul..te.7 facades - • Require vertical setbacks of upper stories. • Emphasize design elements that maintain viewsheds of the shoreline and Pier. • Encourage the preservation of historical structures. • Establish linkages (walkways) to adjacent streets; providing connectivity of public open spaces and plazas. 113 Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use Vet4ic l Integration of Housing uM» Main Street Same uses Subarea !A. Uses permitted in Commercial nr.,e"Core"�`�' General- -("CG")o-- Commercial Visitor ("CV") and Abutting Commercial Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories, Downtown Core cultural and civic uses, mixed use structures integrating housing and commercial uses and freestanding single- and multi-famL housing. Density/Intensity Category: " F25L'- ">30" • Height: throe (3) stories for buildings o g loss than a full block; four(4)stories for-full bleek stpactures THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-34 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT • Height: minimum building height is 25 feet; three stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; four stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater; three stories for residential only developments Design and Categeries: Speeific Plan ' sp") and Pedestrian (" a") Same as Development . Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd") and Special Design District("-d") • Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate Pedestrian activity • Require vertical setbacks above the second story • Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea LAI THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN I V-C-35 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 (continued) Subarea Characteristic Standards:and Principles, 1C Permitted Uses Cate o ' g ry: Abutting , supporting fetail eemmeroia4i FeStaufants, eukwal-, an DOWRtOWR eivic (as permitted in"C(Y' land use eategof�,q shared par-king facilities, " .Residential High ("RH") Downtown Residential Density/Intensity Category: " ">30" g ry� • Height: three(3)stories Design and Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp") and Pedestrian Dist "^a"pleial Development Design District("-d") • Requires the preparation of.,Speeifie Plan. • Buildings should be sited and designed to fv.ilkate pedestrian a Y Establish unified roluitectu fal ..l,.Factor and highly orticuul. ed facades. • Require that the scale and massing of str.uetwes be eensistent with the- dom%te,A% ehar-aster afA as a transition to-adjacent rasident neighborhoods: o Provide linkages with the M.,i.. Street/ 04 "E;eFes" (Subareas l--rA--c'axd • Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single-family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation I Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") Main Street, Uses permitted in Commercial General ("C ")an Commercial North o Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories, cultural and civic, mixed use Orange structures "integrating housing and commercial, and free-standing Downtown single- and multi-family housing. Uses that conflict with residential units Neighbor- should be excluded. hood Density/Intensity Category: " F1-,i/�° 40 Height: three(3)stories for buildings ereapying less than a full ble ; four(4)stories for full l,look str.,,.tmes Design and Same as Subarea ICB Development Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd") and Special Design District("-d") ® Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian activity ® Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-36 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT a transition to adiacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea IA 1E Permitted Uses Categorv: Public and ®pen Space Main Uses permitted in public land use categories, cultural and Street civic uses,open space Library Design and • Require open space areas Devopment . Provide for reservation of historical structures el THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-37 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 (continued) Subarea ,.Characteristic ;S.tandards,and Princi;les . 2 Functional Role Maintain' the -Hurifington. Beach Pier and adjacent properties for- Pier beach-related recreational purposes, emphasizing its identity as a coastal and cultural amenity. Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") Visitor-serving commercial (surf, bicycle and skate rentals, bait and tackle shops, etc.), restaurants/cafes, beach-related cultural facilities, and parking lots. Density/Intensity • Pier: limit development to be compatible with the recreational role of the Pier • Shoreline: limit development to the existing Maxwell's building "footprint" • Height: two(2)stories;maximum 35 feet Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("-d") Development • Design structures to reflect its beachfront location. • Establish a unifying architectural character for all structures. • Maintain public view of the ocean. • Maintain public access around the entire perimeter of the pier. • Emphasize the Huntington Beach Pier as a community landmark. • Facilitate pedestrian access. • Link the Pier to the Main Street Downtown"Core"(Subarea IA). 3 Area wide Maintain the "Old Town"residential area as a distinct neighborhood of the "Old Town" Functional Role City, incorporating local-serving commercial and community"focal" points to enhance its"village" character. The single family character of the small lot subdivisions shall be maintained. 3A Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") PCH Frontage Density Category: "- "!>30„) Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("A") Development • Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-38 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 (continued) Subarea J Characteristic Standards.and Princi_les. 3B Permitted Uses Category: Residential Medium High("RMH") Town Lots Density Category: "-25" Design and © Incorporate front yard setbacks to maintain the existing residetitial Development neighborhood character. ® Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. 3C Permitted Uses G te.,oF)- Mixed Use Vertieel We�tio of Housing f*,V M) D!`xZ H Nodes Visitor sc vu g oominer-cial uses ,-m tted by the ronune,-,•;eroxal. silo O'CW') land use—eatesot-y, e�whtding use tlat may a&erseb, .,,.t ^ohmtiiicter of sui oundm- r—esidential, and—mixed-use swactu es Category. "-lib'-' ® Hei&: three(3)stories Design and Catego13=Specific Plan/_,a��_v"_J,) Development sign st�«netureszo aeh e a consistent visual chaFwte< and he conTatible with adjaeent residential 1—in-its in.Seale and mass. ® Require structures to he sited .,long the PCH fronta a .with parking to the rear,sides within structures. � 6 Site and design.teyel.,...„e„r t.,.,�, '..t.,in publieviews of the ert f.-,,,,, public places. 3D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Neighborhood("CN") 3C Density/Intensity Category: "-F1" • Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design District("-d") Development Design structures to be visually consistent and compatible with adjacent residential units. • Design and site structures to achieve a"village"character. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-39 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 (continued) -Subarea; i.,ChAracterlstic i Standards,and Principles 4I Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") Atlanta First Multi-family residential,parks and other recreational amenities,schools, and (Later=meet open spaces. Pacific City& Waterfront Residential Density/Intensity Category: "-30" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development • Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions"(Policies LU 9.3.1-9.3.4). ® Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two (2) to four(4)stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. 4J Permitted Uses Category: Shoreline("OS-S") Beach • Coastal and recreational uses. Design and In accordance with Policy LU 14.1.3. Development 4K Permitted Uses Categories: Residential ("RL" or "RM") and Open Space-Conservation (Cont. on next ("OS-C") page) Density/Intensity Residential • Maximum of fifteen(15)dwelling units per acre Design and See Figure C-6a Development A development plan for this area shall concentrate and cluster residential units in the eastern portion of the site and include, consistent with the land use designations and Coastal Element policies, the following required information (all required information must be prepared or updated no more than one year prior to submittal of a coastal development permit application): 1. A Public Access Plan,including,but not limited to the following features: ® Class I Bikeway (paved off-road bikeway; for use by bicyclists, walkers,joggers, roller skaters, and strollers) along the north levee of the flood control channel_ If a wall between residential development and the Bikeway is allowed it shall include desi features such as THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-43 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT TABLE C-3 Public Parking Opp ortunities within Coastal Divisions Coastal Free Metered Total Zone Division Parking Parking Parking Parking (Figure C-4 Location Spaces Spaces Space Comments Zone 1 PCH(on-street)* 300 300 Peter's Landing 630 630 HH Yacht Club 76 76 $1.00/hour Sunset Beach* 672 672 4 hr. maximum Zone 2 Bolsa Chica State Beach 2200 2200 $5.00/day PCH(on-street) 324 324 $1.50/hour Zone 3 PCH(on-street) 260 260 $1.50/hour Surf Theatre Lot 39 39 Permit Only Zone 4 Pier Plaza 421 421 $1.50/hour Main Promenade 815 815 $47582.00/ Hour L$12.00 daily maximum) PCH(on-street) 486 486 $1.50/hour Business Streets 206 206 $1.50/hour Residential Streets 218 218 $1.50/hour City Beach Lot 250 250 $1.50/hour ($12.00 daily maximum) City Beach Lot 1813 1813 $710.00/day Pierside Pavilion** 283 283 $3.75/hour ($11.25 daily maximum) Plaza Almeria** 171 171 $2.00/hour ($15.00 daily maximum) The Strand** 410 470 $2.00/hour includes ($12.00 daily valet spaces) maximum) Zone 5 HB State Beach 1200 1200 $5.00/day PCH/River(inland) 110 110 PCH/River(ocean) 75 75 Beach Blvd. (1600' 83 83 $1.50/hour inland) Newland to channel 75 75 Magnolia to channel 81 81 Brookhurst to 22 22 channel TOTAL 1,965 10,446 9 345 11370 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-56 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT Note: *Most or all located outside of the City's Coastal Zone boundary. **Privately operated parking structures available for public use. Rates for summer months and valet vary. Commercial Parking Much emphasis has been placed on providing adequate parking for commercial facilities in the Coastal Zone to ensure that commercial parking demands do not negatively impact recreational beach user parking. This issue was especially significant when planning for the re-development of the City's Downtown area into a dense node of visitor serving commercial facilities. The unique parking issues of the Downtown area have had been resolved through the development and implementation of the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan(see Technical Appendix). The Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan,a component of the Downtown Specific Plan,was adopted in 1993 and providesd for shared parking facilities including on-street parking, lots and nearby municipal parking structures. Annual r-eperts and madifieations of d+e Mastef Plan, if needed,will serve W eastife that adequate par-king faeilities- In 2009,the Downtown Specific Plan was updated to accommodate for new development within the downtown area. Part of the update process was the elimination of the Downtown Parking Master Plan,which had reached established development thresholds. Although the Downtown Parking Master Plan was eliminated, the downtown still employs a shared parking concept and the.Downtown Specific Plan has added other tools for managing the parking demand of existing and future downtown development such as a trolley, a shuttle to remote lots and a parking directional sign system. Other commercial areas within the City's Coastal Zone,but outside the downtown area, meet their parking needs through implementation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Adequate parking must be provided on site at the time of development. Shared parking is permitted on a case by case basis, if justified. Residential Parking Residential uses within the Coastal Zone are required to provide parking facilities on-site. In some areas of the Coastal Zone,residents may purchase parking permits to exempt them from parking time limits and/or metered parking. Certain residents also have the opportunity to purchase parking stickers that permit them to park in areas where the general public is not permitted. However, Coastal Element policy prohibits the establishment of new preferential parking districts whenever public access to the coast would be adversely affected. Trails and Bikeways Bicycling provides both recreation and an alternative mode of transportation to access the City's coastal resources. The City's bikeway program is one of the most extensive in Orange County and includes both Class I and Class Il. Bikeways are marked with signs and street painting. Existing and proposed bikeways in the City's Coastal Zone are depicted in Figure C-14. Figure C-14 also depicts riding and hiking trails, including a proposed equestrian trail that will be included in the planned Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park(The Huntington Beach Regional Riding and Hiking Trail). This trail will extend from the existing equestrian facilities and trails in Central Park to the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway at Seapoint Avenue. This trail will provide views of the Bolsa Chica wetlands and shoreline. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-57 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT Downtown The downtown area has been designed as the primary visitor serving node in the Coastal Zone. Development of the area is guided by the Downtown Specific Plan. Coastal Element policy promotes the continuation of the area as a visitor serving node. Significant project areas within the downtown area include the Main/Pier area,the Waterfront area and Pacific City, a site formerly known as"31 acres." The Main/Pier area includes the Municipal Pier,the public plaza at the base of the Pier,adjacent restaurants,and commercial/retail development on Main Street and 5th Street. The Waterfront development area is located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. It is designated for uses such as hotels,specialty retail and residential uses. The"31 Aeres'Pacific City site is located on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway at First Street,just south of the Municipal Pier. This site is wed approved to be developed as a mixed use project including visitor serving commercial,office and residential uses. Planned and existing projects within these development areas are summarized in Table C- 5. TABLE C-5 Existing Downtown Area Commercial Facilities Existing Visitor Serving Projects Within the Downtown Area Description The Waterfront Development The Waterfront Hilton Beach Resort 296 hotel rooms, 15,000 square feet of ballroom/meeting space,restaurant pool and fitness center. Hyatt Regency Resort and Spa 517 hotel rooms with a conference center,retail and restaurant uses and a s a and fitness center Main/Pier Pier Pavillion 19,100 square feet retail,restaurant and office uses. Oceanview Promenade 42,000 square feet of visitor serving retail Main Promenade 34,000 square feet of visitor serving retail, restaurant and office uses. Includes 830 space municipal parking structure. Adjacent to Municipal Pier 15,000 square feet of restaurant area. Currently houses Duke's and Chimayo's restaurants. Municipal Pier 8,000 square feet of visitor serving commercial at end of Pier. Pier Plaza No commercial uses. Plaza Almeria 301 Main Street. 30,000 square feet of commercial/retail with 10,000 square feet of office on upper stories. Also includes 42 townhomes. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-67 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT The Strand 157 room boutique hotel and 154,000 square feet of retail,restaurant and office uses Planned/Approved Projects Description The Waterfront Development The Hilton Pacifie Gfand Resort 4 4 acres along PCH,adjacent to existin (Waterfront Development) Hilton Hotel,538 rooras,50,000 square fee speeialty r-etail-and spa and a— A third hotel. Pacific City 31-acre mixed use project consisting of seven commercial buildings with retail, office,restaurant,cultural and entertainment uses and a residential component with 516 condo units and a 2-acre"Village Greed'park. The commercial portion of Pacific City is also planned to have carts,kiosks, outdoor dining,live entertainment indoors and outdoors and a boutique hotel. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-68 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT C 2.3.3 Policies Encourage the Orange County C 2.4.1 Transportation Authority to locate bus Maintain an adequate supply of parking that turnouts along Pacific Coast Highway and supports the present level of demand and other major arterial roads within the City, if allows for the expected increase in private feasible and appropriate. (I-C 9, I-C 22d) transportation use. (1-C 9) C 2.3.4 C 2.4.2 Continue to reserve the abandoned rail right Ensure that adequate parking is maintained of way, located parallel to Lake Street,for a and provided in all new development in the future transportation use such as a transit, Coastal Zone utilizing one or a combination pedestrian and/or bicycle facility. (I-C 9, I- of the following: (1-C 9) C 22d) a. Apply the City's parking standards C 2.3.5 at a minimum. Encourage the development of a b. Implement the Dewnte•=m Par-kin. transportation center in the Coastal Zone in Master Plan a comprehensive or near the Downtown area. The parking strategy for the transportation center should be located to Downtown area. serve both local and commuter traffic, to c. Consider developing new parking promote coastal access,and sited to standards specific to the coastal minimize adverse impacts from the use on zone, subject to Coastal adjacent land uses. (I-C 1, I-C 9, I-C 22d) Commission approval. d. Develop parking assessment C 2.3.6 districts to fund off-site parking New development, such as multi-unit structures, if necessary. housing and commercial centers, should e. Monitor parking programs to make maintain and enhance public access to the the most effective use of parking coast through provisions for enhancing or resources. encouraging ridership on public f. Replace any on-street parking lost in transportation. (I-C 7, I-C 9) the coastal zone on a 1:1 basis within the coastal zone prior to or C 2.3.7 concurrent with the loss of any Provide for future use of water borne parking spaces. passenger services along ocean frontages and harbor waterways. (I-C 1, I-C 9, I-C C 2.4.3 22d) Consider the cost effectiveness of new parking facilities and encourage those that Parkin re-coup the cost of providing the_land, structures, maintenance and management of Objective the facilities in order to minimize ongoing C 2.4 municipal costs. (I--C 9) Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. C 2.4.4 Develop parking areas outside the Coastal Zone for passenger cars and the development of alternate transportation THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN W-C-110 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/ Objective archeological resources. If found to be C 6.1 significant,the site(s)shall be tested and Promote measures to mitigate the adverse preserved until a recovery plan is completed impacts of human activities on marine to assure the protection of the organisms and the marine environment paleontological/archeological resources. through regulation of new development, (I-C 2, I-C 3, I-C 8) monitoring of existing development, and retrofitting necessary and feasible. C 5.1.6 Reinforce downtown as the City's historic Policies center and as a pedestrian-oriented C 6.1.1 commercial and entertainment/recreation Require that new development include district,as follows: (I-C 1, I-C 2, I-C 4) mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and,at a minimum, l. Preserve older and historic prevent the degradation of water quality of structures; groundwater basins,wetlands, and surface water. (I-C 2, I-C 8) 2. Require that new development be designed to reflect the Downtown's C 6.1.2 historical structures and Marine resources shall be maintained, Downtown design guidelines enhanced, and where feasible, restored. adopted Mediterfanean theme; Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or 3. Amend the Downtown Specific Plan economic significance. (I-C 6, I-C 8, I-C (as an LCP amendment subject to 12, I-C 15, I-C 22e) Commission certification)to: C 6.1.3 a. Coordinate with the Citywide Uses of the marine environment shall be Design Guidelines; and carried out in a manner that will sustain the b. Incorporate historic biological productivity of coastal waters and preservation standards and that will maintain healthy populations of all guidelines. species of marine organisms adequate for C. Coordinate Downtown long-term commercial,recreational, development and scientific, and educational purposes. (I-C 7, revitalization with polices and I C 8) programs of the Historic and Cultural Resources Element. C 6.1.4 The biological productivity and the quality WATER AND MARINE RESOURCES of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain Goal organisms and for the protection of human C 6 health shall be maintained and, where Prevent the degradation of marine feasible, restored. (I-C 7, I-C 8, I-C 12) resources in the Coastal Zone from activities associated with an urban C 6.1.5 environment. Require containment curtains around waterfront construction projects on inland THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-124 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT the Downtown Master Parking Plan 3. The City's traffic model to the Specific Plan shall be processed as an extent it is consistent with the City's amendment to the City's Coastal Local Coastal Program; Program and shall not become effective until certified by the California Coastal 4. The City's Trail Master Plan to the Commission. extent it is consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program; j) Continue to implement the City's Zoning Ordinance to the extent it is not d) Coordinate with neighboring inconsistent with the City's Local jurisdictions regarding circulation for Coastal Program as it pertains to parking autos, pedestrians and cyclists to requirements. promote coastal access opportunities. k) Promote public parking opportunities e) Explore the use of water taxis in through the establishment of new or Huntington Harbour and ocean enlarged off-site parking facilities, frontages, especially those near creation of on-street public parking commercial land uses. opportunities, shared parking, and requiring that adequate on-site parking Parking Management be provided in relation to any f) Prohibit the implementation of development. preferential parking districts whenever it would adversely affect public access to 1) Enhance public transit to improve public the coast through a reduction in the access to the coast and to minimize availability of public parking spaces energy consumption and vehicle miles used by public visitors to the coast. traveled. g) Develop parking and traffic control Direct Access plans to promote public access to the m) Provide directional signage for cyclists, coast for those neighborhoods that are pedestrians and autos to guide beach adversely impacted by spill over parking bound traffic. and traffic. n) Annually assess existing access points h) Explore areas where park and ride for maintenance needs. Repair/maintain facilities can be implemented at existing as needed, or as prioritized per capital shopping center parking lots where the improvement program. Acquire new available parking is under utilized. access points where feasible and appropriate through the development i) Gentinue to iImplement the Downtown review process. Master Parking Plan a parkin strategy for the Downtown area o) Evaluations for new access points within the Downtown Specific should focus on pedestrian safety. Plan. Meniter the Plan on an anntta4 basis, and update when neeessafy. Transit Evaluate the impact of downtown p) Coordinate with the Orange County parking on coastal access, public transit, Transportation Authority to develop a and vehicle miles traveled. Updates to transportation center within the Coastal Zone, if feasible. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-144 Resolution No.2009-63 Zone 3 C II' lE 4LEGEND - 1t1N RfSfDE,\`fi:�t\ifDi(.�,l Air?iSITY t�~`-y kf3 RESIDE-N-FL LHIGH DEX-SRY _ Ct24iNF�TCItL "' CV CCnmfRCIAI.11saOR ►1 11I3CED USE MH MIXED USE HORIZO\TAI Zone ...ne c S'M SIIR�USE tERnCAI- ll. J OPEY S.ndi F_ OS-P PARK OS-S SHORF_ PCNl1t' P PUBLIC OVOU-!}" -d DE.SIG:,OtiERLAv Id PEDESTRIA\OLERLAY A sPE`IF`CPL-„°`ERI At Refer to following figure: COA2AfFItC7�IL I.Yn7%t:w.4L nL`x'e1Jti Y sCffa)mz:" "Extract of Figure C-8" Fa !2 F6 for proposed changes to Land Use Plan Fs f F11 '_o Ff? 30 Aa `GASTAL ZON E ZONE 4 LAND USE PLAN z CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL ELrrMAV fV-C-24 Resolution No.2009-63 Extract of Figure C-8 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations X X -5� T ------ --7 M6 z C AV,La� > L; Legend , EDDowntown Specific Plan boundary Land Use Designation CV—Commercial Visitor OS-S—Open Space—Shore M—Mixed Use RH— Residential High Density P-Public Density Schedule Overlay Suffix -177 (3.0 Floor Area Ratio) -sp(specific plan overlay) ->30 (greater than 30 dwelling units per acre) -pd(pedestrian overlay) -30(30 dwelling units per acre) -d(design overlay) Resolution No.2009-63 Proposed DTSP Subarea designations Extract of Figure C-10 Y .3 �-4 44- 111Z iAtlan6 vfe-:- --f Resolution No.2009-63 C Z ViESTMiNSTER sSEAL C ' 1 .1. g• - $ ti •a a� ■� ar as ail IACDEN ■ an, ■■ 1---- - — -` :tA�,E FOUNTAIN %• i 1 ■ VALLEY a 1 ■ ��5 = ■ac � INS � lawsvai�= -_ ■ 1 sqy a FGp of aim ■f--.. TALK R_ F 'O � r EdUs s — z a aZ v x 1 a $ 3t � m 3 PACIFIC a OCEAN ■ s am WIN WE- 40( F was on mat' ' � 11AAtiT•s. Legend - -_ � ® ® ® Existing Class is (Paved Oft-Road)Bikeway 1 :<.:. a BAYNING f-t-f-*-f-A Existing: Riding and Hiking Trail COSTA ooeo® proposed Class 1: Riding and Hiking Trail MESA o■ a■ Existing Class II_ (On Road Striped lanes) Bikeway nouns Proposed Class If: Bikeway - 00000 Existing/Proposed Riding and Hiking Trail Refer to following figure: "Extract of Figure C-14" Coastal Zone for proposed changes to Traits and Bikeways plan Sauce M Associates,1994.Gity of Huntington Beach Update,1995 F�_[ TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS ' � ° 6 gC-J4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON COASTAL ELEMENT I{{-% Resolution No.2009-63 Proposed Bike Lanes (Changes to Figure C-14) Bike La -� xl t -ih '! f;' (PCH ain.St.) leca 1Av ---Proposed ff ," Class 11 ; jf r ri Bike. ane - '`; - - Orange;Av . to \\ l \ } ♦ 6 ♦ i ♦ 0 ♦ N# \` st Extract of Figure C-14 Legend - - - - Existing Class I Bike Lane - - - - Existing Class II Bike Lane ® - Proposed Class II Bike Lane Resolution No.2009-63 Resolution No.2009-63 EXHIBIT C ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5 — DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Not Attached Draft Specific Plan Provided As a Separate Packet And Available For Public Review at the Planning and Zoning Department, The City Clerk's Office and on the City's Website Final Adopted Specific Plan No. 5 Will Be Attached As Exhibit C Res. No. 2009-63 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 02, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hansen NOES: Hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 9#4-t J, Cit Jerk and ex-officio Merk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #7 Attachment No. 7 Summary of Straw Vote Motions (October 06 & October 12,2009 Special Meeting) Planning Commission Approved Modifications DTSP Update October 6,2009 Motions to: 1. To limit the Floor Area Ratio to 0.30 maximum (Approved 4-1-2; Mantini—No, Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 2. To remove requirement of underground parking on the Main Street Library site..."This subdistrict requires parking on the Main Street library site te-ae pr-evided , der-gr-e,,n ." and 5) Parking—a) Shall be provided bed-gfade." (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 3. To add "small cafe"to Footnote #1 of Figure 3-36 - Permitted Uses Subdistrict IA..."Accessory uses to primary uses such as gift shop, retail uses or small cafe" (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 4. To add"park" as a Permitted use (by right) on Figure 3-36—Permitted Uses Sub- district I(Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 5. To revise text of Chapter 1, Page 1-17 as follows: "As activity in the downtown extends further up Main Street past Orange Avenue, an opportunity is created for enhaneing—the north end of Main Street into its own destination ., an ,.ho f point that bookends the downtov,%aleng with the pier-plaza area. it is envisioned that new cultural at4s e ill be feftned at the ne ftl, end of Main Street. to create a community-oriented cultural activity area, which builds on the preservation and enhancement of the Main Street Branch of the Huntington Beach Library and the Huntington Beach Art Center. A The e It ral ai4n plaz., . „11 bee^ffle the largest publie open spaee in the d&Ya4oYm area and will be a destination spaee. cultural arts plaza will incorporate the following amenities: open green space for pedestrian use and public events; decorative paving along pathways; shade and accent trees, as well as turf areas; street furnishings such as benches and trash receptacles; bicycle parking; and public art" (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 6. To retain the existing Public (P) General Plan land use designation on the Main Street Library site. (Approved 4-1-2; Farley—No, Speaker, Shier Burnett- Absent) October 12,2009 Motions to: 7. To approve the summary of changes to Chapter 2—Planning Manager Herb Fauland noted a typo in section 2.5.10, which should reference HBZSO section 241.18. Also added, "Amendments by the Director of Planning may be appealed by the Planning Commission pursuant to HBZSO section 248.28." (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 8. To delete Section 3.2.5 #6, which allows City Council to approve the closure of Main Street: "At the discretion of City Council, all or portions of Main Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Avenue may be vacated to be used as a pedestrian mall, subject to a public hearing. Prior to implementation, any on street parking lost shall be replaced". (Approved 3-2-2; Mantini, Scandura— No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 9. To add new provision#8 to Section 3.2.12, page 3-10: "All landscaped areas shall comply with the city's water efficient landscape requirements of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code." (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 10. To Delete#4 of Section 3.2.21 on Page 3-15 - 4) "55' maximum building height..." and revise Figure 3-10 accordingly. (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 11. To add to#7 on Page 3-17—"Sign placement shall not cover up windows or important architectural features without approval by the Director of Planning and the Design Review Board." (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett- Absent) 12. To approve amended page 3-23 (included staff recommended changes only) (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 13. To add a provision prohibiting handwritten signs on Page 3-24 (Failed 2-3-2; Mantini, Farley, L,ivengood—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 14. To add the following to #1 on Page 3-29 Section 3.2.26.7—"Up to 20% of the required on-site commercial parking may be provided as tandem parking upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator. 21 —40% of the required on-site commercial parking may be provided as tandem parking upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission." JApproved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 15. To delete existing sentence for#2 on Page 3-29 Section 3.2.26.7 and revise to read"Up to 20% of the required on-site parking for multi-family residential uses may be provided as tandem parking. 100% of the required on-site parking for single-family residential uses may be provided as tandem parking." (Approved 3-2-2; Delgleize, Mantini—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett- Absent) 16. To delete provision#6 on Page 3-32, section 3.2.26.11 requiring underground parking in the Cultural Arts Overlay. (Approved 4-1-2; Livengood—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 17. To designate parking be for the exclusive use of Subdistrict 1A, the Main Street Library and Arts Center(Failed 2-3-2; Delgleize, Mantini, Scandura—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 18. To remove cultural overlay area from District 1 maps on Pages 3-37 and 3-39 (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 19. To remove cultural arts overlay language and add verbiage from amended page 1- 17 (see #5 above), which references the Main Street Library site and delete Item B on Page 3-39 (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 20. To change Cultural Institutions from"permitted"to "CUP from PC" on Page 3- 41 —Figure 3-24—Permitted Uses in District 1 (Approved 3-2-2; Mantini, Livengood—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 21. To change Eating and Drinking Establishments, with Alcohol from "CUP from ZA"to "CUP from PC" on Page 3-41 —Figure 3-24—Permitted Uses in District 1 (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 22. To change Public Facilities from "permitted"to "CUP from ZA" on Page 3-41 — Figure 3-24—Permitted Uses in District 1 (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 23. To change ">25,000 sf net site area: 50 du/ac"to " >25,000 sf net site area: 35 du/ac" ; Maximum Building Height—change "<25,000 sf net site area: 45' & 4 stories" and">25,000 sf net site area: 55' & 5 stories"to "<25,000 sf net site area: 35' & 3 stories" and ">25,000 sf net site area: 45' & 4 stories" ; Upper- Story Setback (3rd and 41h Story) on Page 3-43 —Figure 3-25 —Maximum Density—District 1 (change subsequent sections 3.3.1.7, 3.3.1.8, 3.3.1.9 accordingly) (Approved 2-1-2; Farley—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 24. To delete Carts and Kiosks from list of permitted uses on Page 3-52 Figure 3-36— Permitted Uses Subdistrict lA (Approved 4-0-3; Mantini, Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 25. To accept changes to Pages 3-54 and 3-55 regarding Main Street Library Subdistrict 1A(Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 26. To accept District 2 with no changes except the following: To change Eating and Drinking Establishments, with Alcohol from "CUP from ZA"to "CUP from PC" on Page 3-60 Figure 3-41 —Permitted Uses in District 2 (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 27. To accept District 3 with no changes (Approved 4-0-3; Delgleize, Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 28. To accept District 4 with no changes except the following: To change ">25' street frontage & <50' street frontage as well as >2,500 sf&<5,000 sf. 4 du/ac" to ">25' street frontage & 550' street frontage as well as >2,500 sf& <5,000 sh 2 du max." on Page 3-80 Figure 3-48 —Maximum Density—District 4 (revise section 3.3.4.7 accordingly) (Approved 4-0-3; Delgleize, Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 29. To accept District 5 with no changes (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett- Absent) 30. To accept District 6 with no changes except the following: To change Museums from"CUP from ZA"to "CUP from PC" on Page 3-92 Figure 3-59—Permitted Uses District 6 (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 31. To delete entire section 3.3.7.5 regarding Tiered Parking in District 7, Beach on Pages 3-96 and 3-97—including Figures 3-62, 3-63 and 3-64; Figure 3-65 — Summary of Permitted Uses District 7—delete Tiered Parking Structure from list of permitted uses(Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 32. To revise #9 on Page 4-5 as follows: "Create pedestrian paseos to parking lots and adjoining development at the rear of buildings." (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 33. To add#13 on Page 4-20 as follows: "Preserve and incorporate structures which are distinctive due to their age, cultural significance, or unique cultural style in the project." (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett- Absent) 34. To revise #1 on Page 4-27 as follows: "At least 20% of construction/building materials should be non-toxic, recycled-content materials and should be utilized whenever possible." (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 35. To add#23 on Page 4-34 as follows: `Wherever possible, comply with GEC's voluntary Tier II energy Efficiency standards in effect at the time building construction begins." (add green leaf symbol) (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 36. To revise #2 on Page 4-35 as follows: Every property should provide trash and recycling enclosures that are capable of handling the refuse generated by that site. At least half of the trash and recycling area should be dedicated to recycling containers. Composting facilities should be provided if possible. (Approved 3-2-2; Mantini, Livengood—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 37. To revise #7 on Page 4-44 as follows: Drought tolerant grasses should be used for lawn areas where possible. Drought tolerant/native plants should be used in all landscaped areas where possible. (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 38. To add 47 on Page 4-47 as follows: "Solar panels should be utilized where possible." (add green leaf symbol) (Approved 4-1-2; Mantini—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 39. To revise#5 on Page 4-49 as follows: At least 20% of the building/construction materials should be recycled content materials, such as wood substitutes, recycled concrete, and asphalt, as well as non-toxic materials, and should be used whenever possible. (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 40. To add a provision on Page 4-54 that new construction should reduce potable water usage by 50%wherever possible (Failed 2-3-2; Farley, Livengood, Mantini—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 41. To add 45 on Page 4-61 as follows: "Solar panels should be utilized where possible." (add green leaf symbol) (Approved 4-1-2; Mantini—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 42. To revise 45 on Page 4-64 as follows: At least 20% of the building/construction materials should be recycled content materials, such as wood substitutes, recycled concrete, and asphalt, as well as non-toxic materials, and should be used whenever possible. (Approved 4-1-2; Livengood—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 43. To add#11 on Page 4-65 as follows: "Wherever possible, comply with CEC's voluntary Tier II energy Efficiency standards in effect at the time building construction begins." (add green leaf symbol) (Approved 4-1-2; Livengood— No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 44. To revise 41 on Page 4-66 as follows: Every property should provide a trash and recycling enclosure that is capable of handling refuse generated by the site. Composting receptacles are encouraged. (Approved 4-1-2; Livengood—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 45. To add#20 on Page 4-76 as follows: "Solar panels should be utilized where possible." (Approved 4-1-2; Mantini—No; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 46. To revise #19 on Page 4-76 as follows: Interior walls and ceilings should be painted white to add more light to the structure by reflection. (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 47. To revise last paragraph on Page 5-4 Section 5.3.1.1 as follows: "...outdoor dining and plaza areas. Any removal of on-street parking shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio within walking distance of 350 feet of the existing site and pursuant to IIBZSO Section 231.28." (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 48. To delete 61h street network changes on Page 5-5 Figure 5-1 (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 49. To delete entire section 5.3.2.1 on Page 5-6 regarding 61h Street realignment (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 50. To delete entire section 5.3.4 on Page 5-10 regarding exclusive pedestrian phase signals (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 51. To revise section 5.6.3.8 on Page 5-24 as follows: delete last two sentences entirely— Section should read"Additional new conventional or automated parking structures will be needed within the downtown to accommodate the future parking demand." (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 52. To delete last paragraph on Page 6-18 Section 6.3.4 and revise Figure 6-12 to delete the tiered parking (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) 53. To revise last paragraph on Page 6-39 Section 6.6.3 to add the following sentence: "...and tourist attractions. A directional sign program should also include informational signs for historical sites and structures." (Approved 5-0-2; Speaker, Shier Burnett-Absent) October 12,2009 Discussion Items 54. To delete picture of pig and replace with picture of Strand public art on Page 4-41 (Not a Straw Vote) 55. To delete blue bus shelter and replace with picture provided on Page 6-17 Figure 6-11 (same for Figures 6-13, 6-15, 6-19 on subsequent pages) (Not a Straw Vote) 56. To revise Page 7-10 Section 7.3.2 to be consistent with EIR as follows: "The City has a current estimated population of 202,250 people and currently has 1,007.05 acres of park space. Therefore, at this time, the City is approximately 4_2 acres below the necessary park space recommended." (Not a Straw Vote) ATTACHMENT #8Ll DTSP Update—Final Recommended Changes—CC Public Hearing 11/02/09 Attachment No. 8 Issue Existing DTSP PC'Approved Modification Final Staff Recommended Change Chapter 3 1. Vacations Page 17 Section 4.2.16 - Street Page 3-4 Section 3.2.5 — Street Vacations— Page 3-4 Section 3.2.5 — Street Vacations—Add Vacations - "At the discretion PC deleted the following provision from #6 - "At the discretion of the City Council, all of the City Council, all or DTSP Update - #6 "At the discretion of the or portions of Main Street between Pacific portions of Main Street may be City Council, all or portions of Main Street Coast highway and Orange Avenue may be used for a pedestrian mall, between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange used for a pedestrian mall, subject to a public subject to a public hearing." Avenue may be used for a pedestrian mall, hearing, in accordance with existing State law subject to a public hearing. Prior to procedures. Prior to implementation, any on implementation, any on street parking lost street parking lost shall be replaced." shall be replaced." (consistent with existing DTSP) 2. Parking— N/A (tandem parking for Page 3-29 Section 3.2.26.7 Tandem Parking Page 3-29 Section 3.2.26.7 Tandem Parking—2) Residential— required residential parking not —2) Deleted—"Tandem parking "'Tandem parking configuration is allowed for All Districts permitted in existing DTSP) configuration is allowed for residential residential uses." (reflects original staff uses." And added"Up to 20% of the recommendation) required on-site parking for multi-family residential uses may be provided as tandem parking. 100% of the required on-site parking for single-family residential uses may be provided as tandem parking." 3. Residential Varies upon district: 25 —30 Page 3-43 Figure 3-25 — l st column under Page 3-43 Figure 3-25 — I"column under All Density— du/acre All District 1: "<25,000 s.f net site area— District 1: "<25,000 s.f net site area—30 du/ac; District 1 30 du/ac; >25,000 s.E net site area—35 >-25,000 s.t net site area—50 du/ac" &revise du/ac" (changed from>25,000 s.f. net site subsequent sections accordingly (consistent with area—50 du/ac) original staff recommendation) Page 1 of 3 DTSP Update—Final Recommended Changes—CC Public Hearing 11/02/09 Attachment No. 8 Issue' SP C A.p..peoved 1Vlodafication 14nil Stattak' mended Change 4. Building Varies upon site area: 35'/3 Page 3-43 Figure 3-25 — 1st column under Page 3-43 Figure 3-25 — I"column under All Height— stories and 45'/4 stories All District 1: "<25,000 s.f net site area— District 1: "<25,000 s.f net site area—45'/4 District 1 35'/3 stories; >25,000 s.t net site area— stories; >25,000 s.L net site area—55'15 45'/4 stories", (changed from<25,000 s.f stories" &revise subsequent sections accordingly net site area—45'/4 stories; >25,000 s.f. net (consistent with original staff recommendation); site area—55'15 stories); required upper- require upper-story setbacks for Ord and 5 th story setbacks for 3 d and 4 Ih stories stories 5. Main Street Page 48 Section 4.8.03 —District Page 3-52 Section 3.3.1.20 Main Street Page 3-52 Section 3.3.1.20 Main Street Library Library 6—Maximum Floor Area Ratio Library Subdistrict I A—#2) Reduced Subdistrict I A - #2) Floor Area Ratio 0.60 Subdistrict IA —2.0 Maximum Floor Area Ratio from proposed maximum(reflects original staff recommendation 0.60 to 0.30 &revised Figure 3-37 for Main Street Library—PC Alternative) & Summary of Development Standards revise Figure 3-37 Summary of Development Subdistrict IA to reflect 0.30 FAR Standards Subdistrict IA to reflect 0.60 FAR 6. Districts I & 2 Various Pages—Restaurants— Page 3-41 Figure 3-24—Changed Eating Page 3-41 Figure 3-24—Eating and Drinking —Permitted CUP from ZA and Drinking Establishments, with Alcohol Establishments, with Alcohol—CUP from ZA Uses from CUP from ZA to CUP from PC (consistent with original staff recommendation and 2005 Citywide permit streamlining) Page 3-60 Figure 3-41 —Changed Eating Page 3-60 Figure 3-41 —Eating and Drinking and Drinking Establishments, with Alcohol Establishments, with Alcohol—CUP from ZA from CUP from ZA to CUP from PC (consistent with original staff recommendation and 2005 Citywide permit streamlining) 7. Residential Page 29 Section 4.4.03 —Lots Page 3-80 Figure 3-48—Maximum Density Page 3-80 Figure 3-48 —Maximum Density - Density— with 25' of frontage— 1 du max.; - ">25' street frontage & <50' street ">25' street frontage & <50' street frontage as District 4 26' —49' of frontage— I du frontage as well as>2,500 sf& <5,000 sf. 2 well as>2,500 sf&<5,000 sf. 4 du max." & max.; 50' frontage—4 du max. — ,du max.," (changed from 4 du max.) revise Section 3.3.4.7 accordingly(consistent with original staff recommendation) Page 2 of 3 DTSP Update—Final Recommended Changes— CC Public Hearing 11/02/09 Attachment No. 8 dChange_FFifial S 'a iss P,,,�i,,,,Approved Mod fiI00on I Rec6mm6 ed' _1V 17 8. Main Street N/A (not addressed in existing Page 5-4 Section 5.3.1.1 - Added sentence Page 5-4 Section 5.3.1.1 - Add sentence to last Streetscape DTSP) to last paragraph of section that reads, paragraph of section that reads, "...outdoor dining "...outdoor dining and plaza areas. Any and plaza areas. Any removal of on-street removal of on-street parking shall be parking shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio within replaced at a 1:1 ratio within walking walking distance of the existing site pursuant distance of 350 feet of the existing site to HBZSO Section 231.28." (deleted 350-foot and pursuant to HBZSO Section 231.28.11 limitation; consistent with existing HBZSO requirements Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT #9Lil DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE Findings of Fact/ Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 September 25, 2009 e 'fits nk-?�. CHAPTER1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1-1 CHAPTER CEQA Findings......................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................2-1 CHAPTER 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives...............................................................3-1 3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Project Objectives...........................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Selection of Alternatives ................................................................................................3-1 3.4 Project Alternatives Findings......................................................................................3-22 3.4.1 Downtown Specific Pland Update Alternatives...................................... 3-2-4 CHAPTER 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations ...............................................................3-5 4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................3-5 4.2 Significant Adverse Impacts..........................................................................................3-6 4.3 Findings............................................................................................................................3-6 4.4 Overriding Considerations.......................................................................................3 - 7-8 Table Table 2-1 CEQA Findings for the The Downtown Specific Plan Update.....................................................2-3 The Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations iii CHAPTER ] In! rodluctiO' This document presents the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that must be adopted by the City of Huntington Beach (City) pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15091 and 15093, respectively, of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) prior to the approval of the Downtown Specific Plan Update (proposed project). This document is organized as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chapter 2 Presents the CEQA Findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including the identified significant cumulative impact. Chapter 3 Presents the alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to the findings contained in Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City must consider and make findings regarding alternatives when a project would involve environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level, or cannot be substantially reduced,by proposed mitigation measures. Chapter 4 Presents a Statement of Overriding Considerations that is required in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant impacts of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The following discretionary approvals by the City of Huntington Beach constitute the proposed project: ♦ General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 08-007 represents a request for the following: 1) To amend the General Plan Land Use Element by amending the Land Use Map and Land Use Schedule and the Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map within the 336-acre DTSP area to reflect the reconfiguration of the existing 11 districts to seven districts and revisions to development standards, notably increases in allowable building heights and densities as well as the elimination of floor area ratio (FAR) requirements as follows: • To increase the allowable residential density from the currently allowed 25—30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) up to a maximum 50 du/ac (with limitations based on net site area) in areas of District 1,with the exception of certain subdistrict areas. • To eliminate existing floor area ratio (FAR) in District 1. • To increase the number of stories from the currently allowed maximum ranging from two stories/30 feet — 4 stories/45 feet to a maximum of four stories/45 feet or 5 stories and 55 feet with a minimum height of 25 feet required in District 1, with the exception of certain subdistrict areas. 2) To amend the General Plan Circulation Element to revise Figure CE-9: Trails and Bikeways as a result of recommendations proposed in the DTSP Update and traffic study for the project. ♦ Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 08-004 represents a request for the following: To update and amend the text of the existing Specific Plan No. 5—Downtown Specific Plan. The Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations �.� Chaptp qdUction ♦ Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 08-002 represents a request for the following: To update and amend the text of the existing Specific Plan No. 5 —Downtown Specific Plan and the Coastal Element reflecting the changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements in addition to clean-up items that would update the Coastal Element to reflect existing conditions and approved projects. 1-2 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the EIR and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each significant and/or potentially significant adverse impacts are as follows: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR ("Finding 1"). (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency ("Finding 2"). (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR ("Finding 3"). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State CEQA Guidelines §15091, subd. (a), [2] and [3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].) Only after fully complying with the above findings requirement can an agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727]). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific rationale to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the information that demonstrates the decision-making body of the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered"acceptable." The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta I1, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401].) This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the The Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2.1 ,Chdpt,e QAfindings logical step between the finding and the facts in the record (State CEQA Guidelines §15091). Additional facts that support the findings are set forth in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, staff reports to the Planning Commission, and the record of proceedings. Table 2-1 (CEQA Findings for the Downtown Specific Plan Update) summarize the potentially significant impacts of the EIR that were reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation as well as the project-level and cumulative significant impacts, as currently proposed for certification and adoption of the proposed project. 2.2 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations •• - G • Findings O O - :CEQA • • or - Downtown, • - O Update ImpactStaternent Impactsummary , Findings' Aesthetics Implementation of projects within the DTSP area All individual projects would be required to comply with the City's General Plan,applicable code The City finds that the identified will result in more development and increased requirements, and the development standards and guidelines of the proposed DTSP. Lighting changes or alterations in the project, building heights and residential densities resulting associated with projects will be visible but is not considered significant since the DTSP area is which would reduce the potential in an overall intensification of the area. located within an existing developed downtown area. The DTSP project itself is not considered impacts described in Section 4.1.3 Implementation of the project would result in visually offensive to viewers. Potential individual project construction activities will also be to less-than-significant levels, are additional sources of light and glare in the area, visible to viewers.Construction activities are short-term impacts and not considered a significant hereby incorporated into the project. impact to aesthetics.The DTSP project site is not a designated scenic vista nor will it impact a No additional mitigation measures designated scenic vista. Additionally, recommended DTSP Update streetscapes would not are necessary with the reduce any of the view corridors from any streets in the DTSP area with respect to views of the implementation of CR4.1-1. beach, the pier, and Pacific Coast Highway. Additionally, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to trees and rock outcroppings. Air Quality Short-term Impacts The air quality assessment conducted for the project evaluated the highest level of potential The City finds that the identified The analysis demonstrates that the project will impact. The assessment also considered construction activities occurring over the 20-year changes or alterations in the project, result in a significant short-term air quality impact, build-out time frame of the DTSP.Mitigation will reduce NOX emissions,but not to the point that which would reduce the potential specifically for NOX emissions. This is based on they will fall under the SCAQMD's thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions of NOX will impacts discussed in Section 4.2.3 a "worst case" scenario of potentially 50 acres exceed the SCAQMD thresholds even after mitigation, and short-term air quality impacts will be to less-than-significant levels, are concurrently under construction with multiple significant. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, if mitigated to the greatest extent possible, would be hereby incorporated into the project. projects. reduced to below significant levels. The City finds that even with Long-term Impacts GHG emissions are a significant global, national, state, and local factor contributing to climate implementation of all feasible The long-term regional air quality impacts due to change. Therefore, the GHG report prepared by Mestre Greve Associates identified potential mitigation measures and compliance the proposed project (primarily due to increased conditions of approval several of which are included in the identified mitigation measures.These with applicable requirements, some vehicle trips) with the recommended mitigation measures are from CARB Staff Proposal's Potential Performance Standards and Measures. No short-term construction and long- measures will be reduced to some extent. significant impacts to GHG are anticipated as a result of the proposed DTSP. term operational emissions would However, ROG and PM10 emissions would continue to exceed established continue to exceed SCAQMD thresholds and be The long-term regional air quality impacts due to the proposed project (primarily due to thresholds. considered significant and unavoidable. g g q y p p p p � (p y increased vehicle trips)with the recommended measures above will be reduced to some extent. However, the ROG and PM10 emissions would continue to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds No additional mitigation measures and be considered significant and unavoidable. Analysis demonstrates that NOx emissions are technically feasible beyond the during construction will exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, even after mitigation is applied. implementation of mitigation Therefore,short-term air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable.Analysis shows that measures MM4..2-1 through MM4.2- ROG and PM10 emissions will continue to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and be considered 12. significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. All other impact criteria would have a level of less than significant for cumulative impacts. Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations o • - P • e o O • - .27-11 CEOA,Findingsifor ® O • • 'cific Plan Update, ImpactSkdernent lmpactSwnmary Biological Resources Although impacts to biological resources were The mitigation measure, which is an existing requirement of development projects that may The City finds that the identified found to be less than significant and a separate potentially impact sensitive species, is included in this EIR for incorporation into future changes or alterations in the project, analysis for impacts on biological resources is not development projects,as applicable. which would reduce potential required for the DTSP Update, a standard biological impacts to less-than- mitigation measure was identified through the significant levels, are hereby Initial Study/NOP process for the protection of incorporated into the project. No wildlife species under the Migratory Bird Treaty additional mitigation measures are Act(MBTA). necessary with the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.14-1. Cultural Resources Impacts on historical resources are considered Development will be reviewed individually to determine potential impacts on historical The City finds that even with potentially significant since development may be resources. No archeological or paleontological resources were identified in a literature search implementation of all feasible proposed that could impact historical buildings covering the DTSP area. Human remains were discovered on the Pacific City site, and a mitigation measures and compliance and historical resources within the Downtown mitigation measure is proposed to establish a protocol if human remains are discovered on with applicable requirements, Specific Plan Update area. It is not anticipated other DTSP sites. Implementation of the mitigation measures would potentially lessen the potential remains for cumulative that impacts to archeological and paleontological impact from development on cultural resources by requiring professional expertise for impacts to cultural resources, as resources would occur as a result of the DTSP recommendations on preservation or salvation of historical or cultural resources in the event discussed in Section 4.4.3. No Update since previously discovered archeological projects are proposed on potentially historic structures/sites. However, because it is currently additional mitigation measures are sites no longer exist and the entire project area is infeasible to determine if specific development proposals under the DTSP would result in technically feasible in addition to the represents a generally disturbed area. demolition or removal of cultural resources, the DTSP Update's cumulative effects could be implementation of mitigation cumulatively considerable.Therefore,the projects impacts to cultural/historical resources would measures MM4.3-1 through MM4.3- be would be considered significant and unavoidable for both the project and cumulative level. 3. Geology and Soils Impacts in geology and soils are related to the Because the DTSP Update will allow new construction in the DTSP area, new buildings will The City finds that the identified geological activity within the DTSP area, such as need to be outfitted with building measures and techniques designed to shore up the structures changes or alterations in the project, earthquakes, soil conditions, and water table to withstand geological forces that may come to bear on them. It is likely that some of the which would reduce the potential issues. projects that will be proposed in the DTSP Update will include subterranean parking, like impacts discussed in Section 4.4.3 several of the projects that have been constructed (or are under construction) in the area. to less-than-significant levels, are Because of the shallow depth of groundwater,dewatering activities in the DTSP area could be hereby incorporated into the project. needed during construction of any subterranean levels, such as for parking. Enforcement of the No additional mitigation measures building code and all applicable standards will be essential to covering the potential impacts are necessary with the associated with new development in the downtown area. implementation of CR4.4-1 and mitigation measure MM4.4-1. 2.4 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 0 0 i P ' F01a o O O O O • ® O • • O • • O M shriement �'". Im :Sumina Ftndngs Hazards Impacts in the hazards and hazardous materials The City of Huntington Beach shall require a Phase One assessment on properties within the The City finds that the identified area would occur if hazardous materials are Downtown Specific Plan area, including properties utilized for oil production activities, proposed changes or alterations in the project, encountered during demolition of existing for development to assure that any hazardous materials/contaminated soils present on the which would reduce the potential structures or if these materials are utilized during property are identified and remediated in accordance with City specifications 422,429 and 431- impacts discussed in Section 4.5.3 construction or in operations following 92.All native and imported soils associated with a project shall meet the standards outlined in to less-than-significant levels, are construction, including cleaning agents, solvents City Specification No. 431-92 prior to approval of grading and building plans by the Huntington hereby incorporated into the project. and other routine materials used in certain Beach Fire Department.Additionally,all work at a project site shall comply with the City's Public No additional mitigation measures commercial or restaurant activities. Works Department requirements (e.g., haul route permits). All impacts in this area will be are necessary with the reduced to a level of less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures. In the implementation of mitigation event that previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could measures MM4.5.1 and MM4.5.2. present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction in the project area, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that 1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post development and 2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e.g., Huntington Beach Fire Department). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction of individual projects will most likely All on-site surface water will be conveyed to a drainage system that includes catch basin filters. The City finds that the identified alter the existing drainage pattern of the sites and With compliance with applicable measures of the Drainage Area Management Plan and City changes or alterations in the project, immediate area by providing impervious surface regulations and procedures, the project will not result in any significant substantial erosion or which would reduce the potential (e.g.,buildings,concrete,and asphalt). siltation on- or off-site. The proposed DTSP does not include any water wells and no on-site impacts described in Section 4.6.3 groundwater would be used. to less-than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. Individual projects that may be constructed per the DTSP will result in short-term and long-term No additional mitigation measures impacts to water quality. Short-term impacts will occur as a result of construction and project are necessary with the grading activities and are not considered significant. Long-term impacts will occur as a result of implementation of mitigation increased usage of the site by vehicles and people. These impacts can be reduced by measures MM4.6-1 through MM4.6- procedures that protect the quality of storm water runoff. Water quality implementation of the 5 individual projects will include compliance with the adopted Drainage Area Management Plan Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations •• - Q o • -Table O• Findings forthe Downfown SpecificsUpdate Im Stalement ImpactSummary Findngs and adoption of Best Management Practices pursuant to the City-approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for handling any runoff from the projects which may be implemented per the DTSP. Therefore, impacts to water quality are not anticipated with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. The Environmental Hazards Element of the City's General Plan identifies flood zone areas based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's(FEMA)Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Portions of the Specific Plan Area lie within the FEMA 100-year flood boundary.According to Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRM), during a 1% chance storm, the area east of Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard would become inundated up to nine feet deep in some areas. Land Use and Planning The proposed DTSP Update project would T the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental impacts to land use and The City finds that the project would require approval of a proposed General Plan planning(adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a physical environmental impact)as result in less than significant impacts Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, and an established by the CEQA criteria. The proposed DTSP Update would revise the existing 11 for land use and planning as amendment to the Local Coastal Program. DTSP districts by dividing the downtown area into 7 new districts.Amendments to the General described in Section 4.7.3. No Plan and the DTSP include the adjustment of densities and intensities of development within the mitigation is recommended or downtown, as well as increases in allowable building height. The most significant changes are required. proposed for District 1 and District 4,which would provide for improved circulation,parking,and pedestrian/bicycle movement, and allow for a mix of land uses that are visitor and resident serving. The DTSP Update will not,however,substantially alter the existing land use pattern in the DTSP area. The DTSP update does not propose any changes to the Coastal Element(or conflict with the Coastal Act) that would result in physical environmental coastal resource impacts. The DTSP Update does not propose physically dividing an established community. Therefore,the project will not result in significant impacts in land use and planning. Noise Short-Term Noise Impacts Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by The City finds that even with Temporary construction noise will result during construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable implementation of all feasible building construction of individual projects that generators can reach high levels.The project will comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. If any mitigation measures and compliance may be implemented as a result of the proposed projects plan to include pile driving (e.g., for construction of subterranean parking), further with applicable requirements, DTSP. Construction noise related to pile-driving analysis would be needed to determine any impacts from this activity. The use of pile drivers construction-related noise resulting will result in significant and unavoidable impacts. presents the greatest intensity potential for construction noise impacts.This temporary increase from the proposed project could in ambient noise levels would be noticeable and would likely be cause for human annoyance. result in an exceedance of Long-Term On-Site Impacts Therefore, construction activities associated with pile driving would be considered significant established noise thresholds. No Noise impacts from individual project and unavoidable for both the project and cumulative impacts.Long-term noise impacts resulting additional mitigation measures are developments will derive mainly from the traffic from traffic are not considered to be significant. technically feasible in addition to the generated by site activities. implementation of CR4.8-1 and mitigation measures MM4.8-1 through MM4.8-3. 2-6 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations cl�apter 2 OMA.Finolngs Table 2,-1 CEQA Fin.dingisforthe Down'towr,1 SpecificPlan, • • • ImpactStaternent lrinoactSwnrnay Fincrings Population and Housing The DTSP Update could result in up to 648 new Based on the significance criteria, the proposed project would not result in any significant The City finds that the project would dwelling units with associated population growth impacts relative to population and housing. Proposed residential development is consistent with result in less than significant impacts (1,562 persons) in the Downtown area through projections developed as part of the General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements and for population and housing as proposed redevelopment of properties within the regional projections for the City of Huntington Beach. described in Section 4.9.3. No specific plan area. mitigation is recommended or required. Public Services The proposed project would result in the need for Fire The City finds that the identified additional public services relating to fire All projects must be designed with fire protection features as an integral part of the equipment changes or alterations in the project, protection, police, schools, parks and libraries. systems or devices identified and agreed upon by the HBFD. Compliance and implementation which would reduce the potential With mitigation, impacts to public services will be of fire protection requirements would reduce impacts to an extent. Because additional fire public service-related impacts less than significant, except for fire. Because personnel, facilities and/or equipment may be needed in relation to future development discussed in Section 4.10.3,to less- additional fire personnel, facilities and/or proposals per the DTSP Update,and it is unknown as to where or how these additions may be than-significant levels, are hereby equipment may be needed in relation to future provided, impacts relative to fire protection would be significant and unavoidable for both incorporated into the project. development proposals per the DTSP Update, project-level and cumulative impacts. and it is unknown as to where or how these Police The City finds that even with additions may be provided,impacts relative to fire There are no plans for additional facilities or expansion of current facilities and/or additional implementation of all feasible protection would be significant and unavoidable. staff. The project will be designed to provide safety measures (e.g., alarms systems, security mitigation measures and compliance Projects would also be required to pay lighting). It is not anticipated that the project will result in significant impacts to police services with applicable requirements, development impact fees to ensure impacts to and/or facilities. significant impacts related to fire other public services (i.e. — libraries, schools, Schools service, personnel and equipment parks)are less than significant. The proposed project will have an impact on schools due to the increased development would continue with additional (population growth)that may occur as result of individual projects implemented per the DTSP. development. Based on the development that could occur,approximately 303 students may be generated due to the DTSP. No additional mitigation measures Parks are technically feasible beyond the Notwithstanding the proposed DTSP Update development, the City is currently deficient 10 implementation of CR4.10-1 through acres of parkland to meet its General Plan objective of providing at least 5.0 acres per 1,000 CR4.10-5 and mitigation measures residents. The proposed DTSP Update project requires 7.8 acres of additional parkland/park MM4.10-1 and MM4.10-2. space to be added to the overall city parkland inventory. The City has met park requirements within the DTSP but cumulatively will not meet the standard citywide. Since the proposed 648 residential units will generate an anticipated 1,562 new residents and development will be required to provide parks or in-lieu fees,the impact on parks is not considered significant within the DTSP area. As such, the DTSP Update project will not result in any significant impacts to Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations C-hbWe02CEQA'FihdIngs,,, O •le-2-11 CEQ)Afindings'Ifor - Down, • O Kbn ,Update ImpactStaternent lmooctswnrnarl Fincrings parks. Libraries Based upon the existing city population of 202,250 and the average daily customers of 160 at the Main Street Branch,the additional 1,562 residents anticipated from residential development allowed in the DTSP Update would generate an additional 1.25 daily patrons, a less than significant impact. However, site specific projects are analyzed in the development approval process in the context of a range of public services, including libraries.Through the entitlement rocess,the City will insure that project specific impacts are ameliorated. Recreation With population increases expected through The City has set its park standard at 5 acres per 1,000 people. The City's current population is The City finds that the identified implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan 202,250 people, according to the U.S. Census. The City currently has 1,007.05 acres of changes or alterations in the project, Update over the next 20 years, recreation parkland/park space.When measured against its population,the City is approximately 10 acres which would reduce the potential facilities in the City of Huntington Beach could be short of the established standard for parkland/park space. The 648 residential units and other impacts described in Section 4.11.3 impacted by population growth and/or increase in potential new development included in the DTSP update results in a need for the equivalent of to less-than-significant levels, are tourist activities as a result of commercial, 7.8 acres of parkland or parks based on City standards. New developments are required to hereby incorporated into the project. restaurant or hotel construction. comply with Code requirements for dedication of land or in-lieu fees to offset impacts to less No additional mitigation measures than significant. The DTSP Update includes a Cultural Arts Overlay in the downtown area are necessary with the (District 1) that would allow for 30,000 square feet of net new development, which could implementation of CR4.11-1 potentially occur on the Main Street Library site. Although this site is not listed on the City's existing inventory of parks and recreation facilities,it does provide significant green space in the DTSP area. It cannot readily be determined if and when development may be proposed on this site. Project-specific impacts would be analyzed if and when a development is proposed. However,the proposed development standards for this overlay area would ensure that there is no net loss of reen space on the library site. Transportation/Traffic A traffic study was prepared by Kimley-Horn At the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway,the project will increase the The City finds that the identified Associates, Inc. that evaluated the existing and ICU value by 0.02,to bring it to 0.94.At the intersection of Orange Avenue at Lake Street,the changes or alterations in the project, future conditions with and without the proposed project traffic will cause the intersection to worsen from LOS E to LOS F in the evening peak which would reduce potential project. The study concluded that in Year 2030 hour. In addition, in both Year 2020 and 2030 conditions, the proposed implementation of the impacts described in Section 4.12.3 the intersection of Goldenwest Street at Pacific pedestrian-only phases at the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway at 6th Street and Pacific to less-than-significant levels, are Coast Highway will continue to operate at LOS E Coast Highway at 1st Street would reduce the capacity for the movement of vehicle by roughly hereby incorporated into the project. in the evening peak hour, and the intersection of 30%, and results in LOS E or F conditions in the evening peak hour.The proposed pedestrian- No additional mitigation measures Orange Avenue at Lake Street will worsen to only phase is the direct cause of the unacceptable Level of Service at these two intersections. are necessary with the LOS F levels of delay. The traffic study also Without the pedestrian-only phases,both intersections would operate at LOS D or better in both implementation of mitigation identifies potentially significant impacts for peak hours. Each of these impacts is significant, and mitigation for these project impacts has measures MM4.12-1 &MM4.12-2. pedestrian-only phased signal improvements at been identified.All other study intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS D or better in both 2_8 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations • e - O o 0 Table 2-1, CMA Findingso - Rowntown.Specific Plan, eso Im Statement ImpactSummary Findings,, PCH and 61h St. and PCH and 1st St that are peak hours. identified as a potential option in the DTSP Update. However, mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. In As new development is proposed, parking is required to be provided pursuant to the addition, if the option is not implemented, the requirements of the DTSP. The DTSP indicates that all parking for residential and hotel potentially significant impact is eliminated. development is required to be provided on-site. Parking for commercial (e.g., retail, restaurant) developments is also required to be provided on-site. However, project applicants could apply The parking study conducted by Kimley-Horn for a conditional use permit to satisfy the parking requirement via payment of in-lieu fees or identified that it is difficult to find parking 35 days shared parking agreements. Parking is required to meet the minimum code requirements. per year and that there is an actual parking Therefore, development associated with the proposed DTSP Update would not result in deficiency 15 days per year, which would require significant cumulative parking impacts. implementation of supplemental parking measures. However, development as a result of the DTSP Update will not result in inadequate parking capacity as all projects would be required to provide parking in accordance with the codified requirements. Utilities and Service Systems Individual projects that may be developed within Water and Sewer Services The City finds that the identified the DTSP area could require extension of existing Water usage will increase as a result of implementation of the development allowed under the changes or alterations in the project, utilities and service systems. proposed DTSP Update. While the update project itself and its adoption will not create which would reduce the potential significant and unavoidable impacts per se, each development project proposed as a result of impacts described in Section 4.13-3 adoption of the Plan will need to be vetted with utility providers to ensure that adequate water to less-than-significant levels, are supplies are available to support proposed development. With implementation of the hereby incorporated into the project. recommended mitigation measures, the project's potentially significant impacts to utilities and No additional mitigation measures services will be less than significant. The DTSP Update carries no significant and unavoidable are necessary with the impacts to utilities and services. implementation of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 through The City of Huntington Beach recognizes that there will be impacts, particularly with water MM4.13-5. supply and infrastructure issues, from cumulative development in the DTSP area. To ensure adequate water supply for future developments, and to be consistent with Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221,The City is requiring a water supply assessment of all new development projects that are subject under the Water Code Section 10912 (a), which includes residential development of more than 500 dwelling units,a commercial building greater than 250,000 sq.ft, a hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms,or a project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units. In the context of other approved and pending projects and anticipated growth, cumulative impacts on water supply would be significant. However, additional water supply anal ses conclude that the roject's contribution to cumulative impacts, which represents Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations • • -r,',2 CEPA Findings, Table -2-11 'CEQA Findings • - , o • o - aUpdote ImpactSkdernent ImpoctsurnmCffy Findings approximately 1.1 % of the Citywide water demand, would not be significant. Therefore, cumulative impacts,in terms of water supply,are considered less than significant. While there is a separate study by the City to estimate potential future infrastructure needs in the Downtown Specific Plan area, such as pipes and fire hydrants. As individual development occurs within the DTSP, additional hydraulic studies shall be performed to verify that water pipes are adequately sized to support both domestic and fire protection for each specific project. Water conservation measures and storm water runoff requirements will also ameliorate much of the cumulative impacts from the proposed DTSP Update.Any potential cumulative impacts from the DTSP Update should be limited by the proposed mitigation measures. Electrical Services Individual projects will most likely require extension of existing electrical facilities.With regard to electrical distribution, it should also be noted that an increase in density within the DTSP area will likely lead to vertical growth, and the quantity of elevators and escalators within the DTSP area may increase,thus creating a greater demand for electricity.Currently, incremental repairs and boosters are being added as development occurs. Several new circuits and lines will need to be installed to provide the required supply without impairing the levels of service to the surrounding area. Ultimately, the electrical system in the area should be master planned to match the conditions proposed in the DTSP Update. Each development will be required to pay for the development's share of infrastructure improvements to electrical systems per SCE requirements. Natural Gas Services The project will require expansion of gas services to serve potential future individual developments projects in the DTSP area. No significant adverse impacts associated with providing gas service to the project are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Solid Waste Services Individual project per the DTSP Update will be required to implement a recycling program pursuant to City code that will divert a substantial amount of solid waste from the landfill and continue to assist the City in meeting the California Integrated Water Management Board's (CIWMB) solid waste diversion goals. The project will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Telephone/Cable/Internet No changes are proposed by the providers to the existing cable, internet and telephone service systems. No significant adverse impacts associated with providing telephone/cable/internet service to the project are anticipated. Transit Services The ro'ect does not negatively impact the existing bus service lines and no additional facilities 2.10 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 'Chapter @Findings. • e - 2-1 CEQA Findfings,for - 'Down,townspecffaUpdate Impaystatement Impactsummarl Rndings will be required as a result of the DTSP Update development.Therefore, no significant adverse impacts associated with providing public transit service to the project are anticipated. Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations • • ® ® ® ® ® rdu ® w ® e Altdrh ® e 3.1 INTRODUCTION The EIR prepared for Downtown Specific Plan Update project considered three separate alternatives to the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the primary intent of an alternatives evaluation is to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." This chapter describes the project objectives and design criteria used to develop and evaluate project alternatives presented in the Draft EIR. A description of the alternatives compared to the proposed project and the findings regarding the feasibility of adopting the described alternatives is presented for use by the City in the decision-making process. 3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The project objectives include the following (not listed in any particular ranked order): • Create an environment that promotes increased revenues to support community services and transform the City's economy. • Provide an established vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that the next phase of community investment and improvement can begin. • Provide and implement a DTSP land use plan that promotes orderly and viable development and that also meets the needs of visitors (including tourism), residents and businesses. • Provide development standards and design guidelines that encourage development of underused parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture that will complement the existing uses in the DTSP. • Provide adequate parking that is also incorporated into the framework of pedestrian pathways within the downtown. • Establish and maintain efficient on-site and off-site traffic circulation. • Implement green and sustainable building practices,where appropriate and feasible. 3.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES The range of potentially feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that were taken into account when considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f] were environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably The Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3.1 A�Ch o • - e gs,Rpgarding,Project - o identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project. 3.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to the proposed project, as well as a description of the specific economic, social, or other considerations that make them infeasible for avoiding or lessening the impacts. The City finds that the adoption of any of the alternatives to the project is infeasible. The reasons for each fording are provided following the description of the alternative, and are further described in the Draft EIR. 3.4.1 The Downtown Specific Plan Update Alternatives As shown below and in Chapter 6 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR, three alternatives were evaluated in comparison to the proposed project. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described. The alternatives that were selected for analysis include: ® No Project AlternativeIn addition to alternative development scenarios, Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analyses of a "no project" alternative. The purpose of examining such an alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the effects of approving the project with the effects of not approving the project. For the purposes of this analysis, the "no project" alternative assumes the DTSP area would continue to allow development under the standards and provisions of the existing DTSP. It is difficult to determine the amount of development that would be proposed under the existing DTSP. However, for comparative purposes, it is assumed that this alternative would result in the least amount of development of all three alternatives due to existing constraints such as buildout of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Development under the No Project Alternative could potentially range from no or very little development to substantial development/redevelopment similar to that of the proposed DTSP Update. As a conservative approach, this alternative assumes very little development would occur and therefore, all topical areas would result in less impacts than the proposed DTSP development potential. ■ Conservative Market Demand Development Alternative—This alternative assumes development potential based on studying conservative marked demand. The conservative development potential identified per the market demand analysis conducted during the preparation of the proposed DTSP Update identifies the following; 203,350 square feet of retail (213,467 proposed with DTSP Update), 75,783 square feet of restaurant uses (92,332 proposed with DTSP Update), 108,814 square feet of office uses (92,784 proposed with DTSP Update), 268 residential units (648 proposed units with DTSP Update), no hotel development (235 hotel rooms proposed with DTSP Update), and 30,000 square feet of cultural arts center (same as DTSP Update). ® Reduced Development Alternative — This alternative would involve a proposed DTSP that would include a 50% reduction in net new development. Therefore, this alternative would propose new development consisting of 106,735 square feet of retail uses, 46,166 square feet of restaurant uses, 46,392 square feet of office uses, 324 residential units, and 15,000 square feet of cultural arts facilities. This amount was selected to create a project alternative that would be a reasonable and fair approach to determining whether a reduced development scenario would meet project objectives, and reduce significant environmental impacts 3-2 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 0 • -• O 0• • • 0 • 0 No Project Alternative As discussed previously, Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analysis of a "no project" alternative. The purpose of examining such an alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the effects of approving the project with the effects on not approving the project. This "no project" analysis must discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not to be approved. The No Project Alternative represents the status quo;development could still occur under the existing Downtown Specific Plan. In summary, the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts; including those that have been determined to be significant and unavoidable (including air quality, noise and public services). The No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts on air quality, hydrology/water quality, noise, land use, public services, transportation/parking, recreation, and utilities and service systems than those associated with the proposed project. However, impacts to cultural resources (which have been determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources) would not necessarily be reduced by the No Project Alternative. Development allowed per the existing DTSP could continue and could potentially impact historical resources. The potential impacts of the proposed project can be mitigated or have been found to be less than significant for many of the topical areas except for air quality, cultural resources, and public services. Additionally, the No Project Alternative does not fulfill all of the project objectives identified for the proposed DTSP Update. Findings The City hereby fords that the No Project Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: ■ Would not provide an established vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that the next phase of community investment and improvement can begin. ■ Would not enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality, state-of-the-art development. ■ Would not require green and sustainable building practices. ■ Would not provide adequate parking since the existing Downtown Parking Master Plan of the Downtown Specific Plan has reached its development cap. R Conservative Market ®errand Alternative This alternative assumes development potential based on studying conservative marked demand. The conservative development potential identified per the market demand analysis conducted during the preparation of the proposed DTSP Update identifies the following; 203,350 square feet of retail (213,467 proposed with DTSP Update), 75,783 square feet of restaurant uses (92,332 proposed with DTSP Update), 108,814 square feet of office uses (92,784 proposed with DTSP Update), 268 residential units (648 proposed units with DTSP Update), no hotel development (235 hotel rooms proposed with DTSP Update), and 30,000 square feet of cultural arts center (same as DTSP Update). Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations o • - e • -•e o e o - I - • - In summary, the Conservative Market Demand Development Alternative would not reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. This alternative would still allow future potential development opportunities, but the uses would be slightly different than those of the proposed DTSP Update. Compared to the total net new development proposed under the DTSP Update, this alternative assumes 10,117 square feet less of retail uses, 16,549 square feet reduction in restaurant uses, 16,030 square feet additional office use, 400 fewer residential units, 30,000 square feet of cultural uses (same as proposed project), and no hotel rooms. Although, this alternative would have fewer impacts on air quality, hydrology/water quality, noise, public services, population and housing, transportation/parking, recreation, and utilities and service systems than those associated with the proposed project, there would not be a significant difference in the level of impacts. Additionally, this alternative would not reduce the significant unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed project. This alternative would not meet the project objectives identified for the proposed DTSP Update to the extent that the proposed project would. This alternative provides less housing, retail and restaurant, and no hotel development (promoting tourism/visitors) and potentially a reduction in increased revenues associated with retail, restaurant and hotel uses. Findings The City hereby finds that the Conservative Market Demand Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: ® Would not provide the same level of residential and restaurant/retail uses at the project site. o Would not promote tourism/visitors by providing for a new hotel development. ® Would not provide the desired mix and balance of land uses to meet the needs of residents, visitors and businesses. Reduced Development Alternative This alternative would involve a proposed DTSP that would include a reduction in net new development. Therefore, this alternative would propose new development consisting of 106,735 square feet of retail uses, 46,166 square feet of restaurant uses, 46,392 square feet of office uses, 324 residential units, and 15,000 square feet of cultural arts facilities. This alternative assumes a 50% reduction in development compared to the proposed DTSP Update project. Although the Alternative would fulfill most of the project objectives identified for the proposed project, it would not reduce significant impacts identified for the proposed project to less-than-significant levels and would not fully realize the goals of DTSP Update. Findings The City hereby finds that the Reduced GPA/ZTA Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: ■ Would not provide the same level of residential and commercial/retail uses at the project site. ® Would meet the City's housing goals to a lesser degree. ® Would meet the City's intent to promote increased revenues to a lesser degree. 3-4 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 4- e - - I •ing C• •- • ions 4.1 INTRODUCTION Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The City of Huntington Beach proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant and unavoidable air quality, cultural resources, noise, and public service impacts, as well as cumulative air quality, cultural resources, noise, and public services impacts of the proposed project. This section describes the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits or other considerations of the proposed project to support the decision to proceed with the project even though four identified project- specific impacts and four identified cumulative impacts are not mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 4.2 SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS The City is proposing to approve the proposed project and has prepared an EIR required by CEQA. The following impacts are unavoidable because it has been determined that no feasible mitigation is available or the mitigation that could be implemented is outside the purview of the City. Refer to Chapter 2 (CEQA Findings) for further clarification regarding the impacts listed below. Air Quality ■ Project Specific — Short-term: Peak construction activities associated with the proposed DTSP would generate air emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. This is based on a "worst case" scenario of potentially 50 acres concurrently under construction with multiple projects. Long-term: Reactive Organic Compounds (ROG) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM,o ) emissions will exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and be considered significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 4 • - - of'Overriding Considerations, ■ Cumulative — Reactive Organic Compounds (ROG) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM10) emissions will continue to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and be considered significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. Cultural Resources ■ Project Specific — Impacts to historical resources are considered potentially significant since specific development projects may be proposed that could impact historical buildings and historical resources within the DTSP area, including unrecorded resources that may become significant within the 20-year Plan period. ■ Cumulative — Implementation of proposed mitigation measures will reduce impacts to cultural resources, however, the cumulative effects could be cumulatively considerable because it is currently infeasible to determine if specific development proposals under the DTSP would result in demolition or removal of historical or cultural resources. Noise ■ Project Specific — Pile driving activities would result in substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. ■ Cumulative — Pile driving activities would result in construction related temporary increases in ambient noise levels,resulting in a cumulative impact. Public Services ■ Project Specific — Additional fire personnel, facilities, and/or equipment may be needed in relation to future development proposals per the DTSP Update, and it is unknown as to where or how these additions may be provided. ■ Cumulative — Any increases in personnel and/or equipment would necessitate the expansion of existing facilities or development of a new station, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts, which cannot be fully determined at this time. Recommended mitigation measures would ensure that the DTSP area is served within established response times and adequate staffing and equipments levels are maintained, however, potential impacts are still considered a cumulative impact. 4.3 FINDINGS The City has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures and project revisions with respect to the project's impacts, both project-specific and cumulative (see Chapter 2, CEQA Findings). The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project (see Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). The project alternatives evaluated would result in impacts lesser-than or equal to those of proposed project. Despite potential impact reductions, the impacts resulting from the project alternatives, with the exception of the No Project Alternative, are not expected to be significantly 3-6 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Qlhapter4 StdteriienhoU0ver-ridlhd o • - • e different than those that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The Reduced Development Alternative was deemed to be the environmentally superior project alternative. However, the Reduced Development Alternative would not meet the environmental, social, economic, and other considerations outlined in Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives, above. 4.4 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Specific economic, social, or other considerations outweigh the project-specific and cumulative air quality, cultural resources, noise and public services impacts stated above. The reasons for proceeding with the proposed project, even though four identified project-specific impacts and four cumulative impacts are not fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level, are described below. Proposed Project Benefit 1. The project would create a healthy mix of land uses that are geared toward creating an urban village that serves as a destination to both residents and visitors. 2. The project would involve the implementation of development standards and design guidelines necessary to develop of underused parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture. 3. The project would involve the incorporation of environmentally sustainable development practices into new development proposals, including those recommended by the US Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program Certification, or Build it Green's Guidelines and Rating Systems. 4. The project provides for a diversity of transportation opportunities, such as walking, bicycling and expanded transit use. 5. The project would result in the incorporation of more public open space areas in key locations and in conjunction with new development. 6. The project will maintain and enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development consistent with the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan. 7. The project will provide the equivalent of 10-15 percent new residential units as affordable housing, consistent with City requirements and California Redevelopment Law. 8. The project will implement development standards that encourage mixed-use development. 9. The project considers all available options for additional parking in the downtown core and will ensure that adequate parking is available. Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations - o • s o- • • 10. The project expands the boundaries of parking requirements currently limited to the nine-block Downtown Master Plan area that will encourage consolidation and development of underutilized parcels. 11. The project will create an environment that promotes tourism, which will increase revenues to support community services and transform the City's economy into a destination economy. 3-8 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations ATTACHMENT # 10 - - 0Gt. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT-NO. 08-004 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 : 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 amends the HBZSO by amending Specific Plan No. 5 —Downtown Specific Plan to reconfigure the existing 11 Specific Plan districts into 7 districts, modify development and parking standards, incorporate design guidelines and provide recommendations for street improvements, public amenities, circulation enhancements, infrastructure and public facility improvements and parking strategies. The proposed changes will be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City's General Plan because the land uses proposed in the DTSP Update will not substantially change from the permitted and specified land uses of the existing DTSP and thus, the General Plan. These changes would not alter the established land use pattern in that visitor-serving commercial and mixed use developments would continue to be permitted and the primarily developed uses in these areas. The proposed changes to the development standards would allow greater maximum building heights and densities, in certain areas, than are currently allowed in the DTSP area. However, compliance with development standards that call for upper story setbacks and residential buffers as well as the design guidelines will result in high quality, attractive projects that are compatible with existing surrounding developments that were developed under the current DTSP. 2. In the case of general land use provisions, the DTSP Update is consistent with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which they are proposed. The proposed land uses that would be developed with implementation of the DTSP Update would not significantly differ from the existing land uses that are permitted and developed in the DTSP area. The amended DTSP will enhance potential to create an urban village with high quality design and sustainable features in comparison with development that could occur under the current standards of the existing DTSP. The DTSP Update is also sensitive to existing residential uses and proposes development standards and subdistricts, which would afford these areas additional protection from potential impacts from future development. The DTSP Update would be consistent with the adopted Council goals, objectives and policies of the DTSP area and implement the vision for the downtown. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The proposed changes to the development standards such as increases in maximum allowable building heights and residential densities in certain areas, elimination of floor area ratio (FAR) requirements and reduced parking ratios are justified by compensating benefits of the Specific Plan. The changes proposed in the DTSP Update will facilitate development and redevelopment of properties so that the next phase of community investment and improvement will occur in the DTSP area. The DTSP Update will provide a healthy mix of land uses that will create an environment that promotes tourism to increase revenues to support community services. The development standards and design guidelines will ensure high quality projects with enough open space, air, light, ventilation, pedestrian connections, interesting architecture, parking, well designed circulation, and landscaping for an enjoyable environment for both residents and tourists. 4. The amended DTSP is consistent with good zoning practice and was prepared utilizing a comprehensive approach, which included involving the public in numerous public workshops and meetings and reviewing the proposed DTSP Update in terms of potential benefits to both residents and visitors in the larger context of directing future development. Smart growth and sustainable design principles were considered in the preparation of the DTSP Update. All projects would be required to provide sustainable building practices. The DTSP Update would be in conformity with general welfare in that adequate utilities and public facilities and services would be ensured through identified mitigation measures and code requirements for future projects. Although Fire services would need to be improved at some point during the 20-year planning period, future development projects would be required to be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure adequate service can be provided. ATTACHMENT # 11 �o RESOLUTION NO. 2009-6=2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-007 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to redesignate the land use designations of the existing 336- acre Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 5), as more particularly described as Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto, to be consistent with the modified district boundaries for the Downtown Specific Plan area. The amendment also includes modifying the Land Use Schedule (Table LU-2a) and the Community District and Subarea Map and Schedule (Figure L ;.-6; liable LU-4) of the General Plan Land Use Element to differentiate the reconfigured districts and permitted uses within the Specific Plan and allow increases in density and building heig;lts in the newly reconfigured districts. The amendment also includes re-numbering subarea 31). which- is not within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries, to 3C on the Subarea Map (Figure LU> 6) as a result of the modifications to the subareas of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Circulation Element (Figure CE-9) of the General Plan is amended to reflect changes in proposed bicycle paths that are included in the Downtown Specific Plan Update. Pursuant to California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the. City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 and recommended approval of said entitlement to the City Council; and Pursuant to California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-007; and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and is consistent with other elements of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located starting from the intersection of 09-2218/37811 1 Goldenwest Street with Pacific Coast Highway and curves along the coastline, including the Huntington Beach Pier, down to Beach Boulevard. The inland boundary of the Specific Plan Area follows the prolongation of Sunrise Drive from Beach Boulevard to Pacific View Avenue where the boundary curves along Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. From Atlanta Avenue, the boundary flows along Orange Avenue and continues up Lake Street to Palm Avenue where it connects over to Main Street and along Pacific View Avenue to link down along 6th Street. From 6th Street, following along Walnut Avenue to Goldenwest Street, parcels within the first block adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway are included in the Specific Plan Area, and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and `B", respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, which amends the General Plan Land Use and' Circulation Elements for the subject area to reflect changes within the Downtown Specific Plan Update, is hereby approved. The Director of Planning is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended Land Use Map and Subarea Map and amended Land Use and Circulation Elements. A copy of said maps and the Land Use and Circulation Elements, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Planning Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of ) 2009. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk G City Attorney REVIEW D APPROVED: rNITIfirED AND APPROVED: 4F� City dmi strator PfanWing Director ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Specific Plan Map Exhibit C: General Plan Changes 09-2218/37811 2 Resolution No.2009-62 Resolution No.2009-62 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 22, of the Map of Huntington Beach Seventeenth Street Section, as recorded in Book 4, Page 10 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence northerly 50 feet approximately to a point, said point being the centerline intersection of Goldenwest Street (formally Twenty-third Street) and Walnut Avenue, said point also being the True Point of Beginning; thence southwesterly along said centerline of Goldenwest Street and its southwesterly prolongation 780 feet approximately to a point on the high tide line of the Pacific Ocean; thence southeasterly along said high tide line 6,100 feet approximately to a line parallel with and 72.50 feet northwesterly, measured at right angles from the southwesterly prolongation of the centerline of Main Street; thence southwesterly along said parallel line 1,470 feet approximately to a line parallel with heretofore said high tide line; thence southeasterly along said parallel line 145 feet approximately to a line parallel with and 72.50 feet southeasterly, measured a right angles from said southwesterly prolongation of the centerline of Main Street; thence northeasterly along said parallel line 1,470 feet approximately to the heretofore said high tide line; thence southeasterly along said high tide line 5,470 feet approximately to the southerly prolongation of the Survey Centerline of Beach Boulevard; thence northerly along said Survey Centerline of Beach Boulevard 2,800 feet approximately to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Tract No. 9580, as shown on a map recorded in Book 444, Pages 29 through 31 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and the southerly line of said Tract No. 9580 and said southerly lines westerly prolongation 1,800 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Pacific View Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Pacific View Avenue 220 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Huntington Street; thence northerly along said centerline of Huntington Street 1,240 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Atlanta Avenue; thence westerly along said centerline of Atlanta Avenue 750 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of First Street, said intersection is also the centerline intersection of Orange Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Orange Avenue 650 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Lake Street, thence northerly along said centerline of Lake Street 1,830 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Palm Avenue, thence westerly along said centerline of Palm Avenue 332 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Main Street; thence southerly along said centerline of Main Street 430 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Sixth Street; thence southwesterly along said centerline of Sixth Street 1,750 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Walnut Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Walnut Avenue 5,533 feet approximately to the True Point of Beginning. Resolution No.2009-62 Resolution No.2009-62 EXHIBIT B Specific Plan Map WE r� ,terms a rs'�:a gl- f ,.-muv ii-AAO O ' �/ tea !"l� �a V . Ap p9JS k �,r��� � �€ a.#�� --,��� .-� �`„��+� s .✓ Uk: a;. ux �+�k r�+u�.?'�.� r�,'^� � ��� tit.�'r.'�&�.�3x EXHIBIT C Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-2a (Cont.) Land Use Schedule(Cont.)' Land Use Category T ical Permitted Uses MIXED USE Mixed Use o Single uses containing Commercial Neighborhood(CN),or Commercial General (M) (CG)or Residential uses as listed above. • Mixed use areas that may include Vertically Integrated Housing(MV)or Horizontally Integrated Housing(MH)uses,townhomes,garden apartments, live/work units and mid-/high-rise apartments, Commercial Neighborhood (CN),Commercial Visitor(CV) and Commercial General(CG)uses. • The exact density,location, and mix of uses in this category is intended to be governed by a Specific Plan("-sp")to allow greater design flexibility and to address the uniqueness of a particular area. Mixed Use-Vertically . Single use structures containing Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General Integrated Housing (CG)uses as listed above. (MV) • Mixed use structures incorporating residential units on the second floor and/or rear of commercial uses;with restrictions on the types of commercial uses to ensure compatibility with the housing. Mixed Use-Horizontally • Single use structures containing Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General Integrated Housing (CG)uses as listed above. (MH) . Multi-family residential,including townhomes,garden apartments,and mid-/high-rise apartments. • (Note: each use is limited to a portion of the total designated site,as prescribed by policy in this element.) OPEN SPACE Parks Public parks and recreational facilities. (OS-P) Shoreline Publicly owned coastal beaches. Ancillary buildings may be permitted, such as food (OS-S) stands and recreation equipment rentals,as determined by City review and approval. Commercial Recreation Publicly or privately owned commercial recreation facilities such as golf courses. (OS-CR) Conservation Properties to be retained for environmental resource conservation and management (OS-C) purposes(e.g.,wetlands protection). Ancillary buildings, such as maintenance equipment storage,may be permitted,as determined by City review and approval. Water Recreation Lakes and other water bodies used for recreational purposes, such as boating, (OS-W) swimming, and water skiing. 7 See LU7.1.1 and LU7.1.2 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-26 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 1 Area wide Maintain the City's downtown as a principal focal point of community Downtown Functional Role identity, containing a mix of community-serving and visitor-serving (cumulative) commercial uses, housing, and cultural facilities. Development should achieve a pedestrian-oriented, "village-like" environment that physically and visually relates to the adjacent shoreline. 1A Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use VeFtieal b egr-ation of Housing("N1Vn>(`M") Main Street/ Uses permitted by the "CG" and "CV" land use categories, shared parking PCH crcar COF facilities, cultural and civic uses and mixed-use structures Downtown "integrating housing with commercial uses. Core Density/Intensity Category: "-FIT'">30" • H buildings 1 than a full Week-, f2@}g�lt: #cra82 /��6t9r-icS-�9s9E613py3ngx'cso , four-(4)stories for-f ill block stmet„ es • Height: minimum building height is 25 feet; three stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; four stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater Design and Categories: Specific Plan("-sp"), Special Design District ("-d") and Development Pedestrian District("-pd") • Requires the preparation of Spec;f,.P! • Development must be designed and sited to establish a pedestrian-oriented character. • Maintain and expand streetscape amenities. • Establish an unified ar-c.eet»»1 ch aFact-r and highly ariou-ate facade:• Require vertical setbacks of upper stories. • Emphasize design elements that maintain viewsheds of the shoreline and Pier. ® Encourage the preservation of historical structures. • Establish linkages (walkways)to adjacent streets;providing connectivity of public open spaces and plazas. I Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use Vei4iea i tog...,t:en f b1.. :^^ "( M Main Street Sa,,,o uses as C..b..,roa !A. Uses permitted in Commercial General "COFell Abutting ("CG"), Commercial Visitor ("CV") and Commercial Downtown Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories, cultural and civic Core uses, mixed use structures integrating housing and commercial uses and freestanding single- and multi-family housin . Density/Intensity Category: "�%25" ">30" • H • b.t• tb, (3) stories for buildings ece p ing loss than a full block• f„r(4)stories for fill block sty-.,.. wes THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-48 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT Height: minimum building height is 25 feet; three stories maximum for residential only developments; three stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; four stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater Design and Categories: Speeifie Plan " sp' edes#ian District ("pd"` Same as Development Subarea, exeept standard for-shoreline views—ed. Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd") and Special Design District("-d") • Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate Pedestrian activity • Require vertical setbacks above the second story • Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as a transition to adiacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea A THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-49 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princi les 11C Permitted Uses Category: Mixed T lse uor-iz ntal lato,....,tiea of Housing("MIT) Abutting Professional offees petting retail is t.uuurau,ts ouultwal a„`1 � tl e res > > 10WHt0Wn eivie (' `,hied in "GO" land use `ateg fuq shared parking t o_1_tie "CeFe" free st.u,,.l;.,g multi family r^5:,1^ ti 1.Residential High ("RH") Downtown Residential Density/Intensity Category: " l- 1301 ">30" g lS'� �� • Height: three(3)stories Design and Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp") and PedestFiandistrict " Special Development Design District("A") ® Requires the pr-epar- t:on of Specific 127�.. p Buildings should be s4e and designed to f cilit4e pedes4ia ac4iy;ty. a Establish an unified r..h:teetw.ul ehar-a.ter and highly .urtiouul.uto.l fi roads. a Require yeftio l setbacks above the second st..ru, O Require that the seale andmassing of stp,e. ffes be istei4 w4h the tttl'wntey,% eharaoter—and as 4ansition t6 aE�uiefA residential neighborhoods' 0 D ide linkages with the Main Slfe PCH "cores" (Subareas !A and T13) • Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single-family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation 1D Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") Main Street, Uses permitted in Ceffh%ercial General ("CG") and- Commercial North e Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories, cultural and civic, mixed use Orange structures vertically-integrating housing and commercial, and free-standing Downtown single- and multi-family housing. Uses that conflict with residential units Neighbor- should be excluded. hood Density/Intensity Category: " '�l—�T "( >30„) • Height: three (3) stories for buildings eecupying less than ' fall block-, four-(4)stories for-full block stru a uufes Design and Same as Subarea IGB Development Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd") and Special Design District("-d") • Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate Pedestrian activity • Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-50 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT a transition to adiacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea LA) 1E Permitted Uses Category: Public and Open Space Main Uses permitted in public land use categories, cultural and Street civic uses,open space Library Design and • Require open space areas Development • Provide for preservation of historical structures THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-51 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (font.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 2 Functional Role Maintain the Huntington Beach Pier and adjacent properties for beach-related Pier recreational purposes, emphasizing its identity as a coastal and cultural amenity. Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") Visitor-serving commercial (surf, bicycle and skate rentals, bait and tackle shops, etc.), restaurants/cafes, beach-related cultural facilities, and parking lots. Density/Intensity • Pier: limit development to be compatible with the recreational role of the Pier • Shoreline: limit development to the existing Maxwell's building "footprint" • Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("-d") Development • Design structures to reflect its beachfront location. • Establish an unifying architectural character for all structures. • Maintain public view of the ocean. • Emphasize the Huntington Beach Pier as a community landmark. • Facilitate pedestrian access. • Link the Pier to the Main Street Downtown"Core"(Subarea 1A). 3 Area wide Maintain the "Old Town" residential area as a distinct neighborhood of the "Old Town" Functional Role City, incorporating local-serving commercial and community "focal" points to enhance its"village"character. The single family character of the small lot subdivisions shall be maintained. 3A Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") PCH Frontage Density Category: " ">30" Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("-d") Development . Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-52 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 3B Permitted Uses Category: Residential Medium High("RMH") Town Lots Density Category: "-25" Design and • Incorporate front yard setbacks to maintain the existing residential Development neighborhood character. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. 34C Permitted Uses Eategoi=y: Mixed Use Venieal Integration of Housing("NI'')Housing aam PCH Node V' 't 7 ift .d h th G 1 Visitor-("CV-L) rcrr-rfvaa� s____ _______o __-- - ___—__ __' -, r-_. _.__-_. -y _ _ _ _ land use eategoFy, excluding uses that m adversely inVact character ..f suFfounding residential, and mixed use st•., metres ertioalh,_ pAegr-ati g housing with conuner-eial. Dens:t y/Intensit y Eatego+yi " a Height: three(3)stories Design and Eategely Specific Plan " Development . Design Tstmetiffes—to achieve stem visual eha cte and v� eompatible with adjacent resi de„ti l,,,Sits in scale and ro • Requirestr et„r to he sited along the PCH fen4e with par-king to the r sides,or- .;th;,,stfuet„res • Site and design .de el.. pA to maintainpublic views of the oeast f e pub.lie places. 3D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Neighborhood("CN") 3C Density/Intensity Category: "-F1" Y Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design District("-d") Development o Design structures to be visually consistent and compatible with adjacent residential units. • Design and site structures to achieve a"village"character. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-53 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princi les 4C Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") D�'x-cam first Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, restaurants, (Lake)Street entertainment, and other uses(as permitted by the"CV" and"CG" land use Pacific categories) GO commercial Density/Intensity Category: "-177" • Height: eight(8)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development • Establish a unified"village" character, using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses. • Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor. • Incorporate pedestrian walkways,plazas,and other common open spaces for public activity. • Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas. • Establish a well-defined entry from PCH. • Maintain views of the shoreline and ocean. 4D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") Waterfront Hotels/motels and supporting visitor-serving commercial uses(in accordance commercial with Development Agreement) Density/Intensity Category: "-F7 • Hotel/motel rooms: 1,690 • Commercial: 75,000 square feet Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development As defined by the adopted Development Agreement. 4E Permitted Uses Category: Open Space Conservation ("OS-C"), uses permitted by the PCH/Beach Commercial Visitor("CV")land use category,and free-standing multi-family Northeast housing("RM"). (Please refer to the Land Use Map for the exact boundaries of each land use designation.) (Continued on Density/Intensity Category: next page) • For RM designations, 15 units per acre • For CV designations,F2 • Height: three(3)stories THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 11-LU-56 Resolution No.2009-62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 4E Design and Category: PCHBeach Development • Establish a major streetscape element to identify the Beach Northeast Boulevard-PCH intersection. (Cont.) • Site, design, and limit the scale and mass of development, as necessary, to protect wetlands. • Maintain visual compatibility with the downtown. • Incorporate onsite recreational amenities for residents. • Minimize access to and from PCH, providing an internal roadway system. • Incorporate extensive landscape and streetscape. 4F Permitted Uses Category: Conservation("OS-C") Wetlands • Wetlands conservation. 4G Permitted Uses Category: Public("P")and Conservation("OS-C") Edison Plant • Wetlands conservation. • Utility uses. Design and In accordance with Policy LU 13.1.8. Develo ment 4H Permitted Uses Category: Conservation("OS-C") Brookhurst- Wetlands conservation. Magnolia 4I Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") Atlanta Multi-family residential, parks and other recreational amenities, schools, and (Lake)Street open spaces. Pacific City & Waterfront Residential Density/Intensity Category: "-30" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan(II-sp") Development • Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions"(Policies 9.3.1-9.3.4). • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two (2) to four(4) stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-57 Resolution No.2009-62 Extract of Figure LU-5 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations 1 � oa 's w � Atla a Ave. jai y 01, RH-30-sp SA N bC Legend Downtown Specific Plan boundary Land Use Designation CV—Commercial Visitor OS-S—Open Space—Shore M—Mixed Use RH—Residential High Density P-Public Density Schedule Overlay Suffix -F7(3.0 Floor Area Ratio) -sp(specific plan overlay) ->30(greater than 30 dwelling units per acre) -pd(pedestrian overlay) -30(30 dwelling units per acre) -d(design overlay) • 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 . 1 ' 11 1 1 1 Cam' N /A �,":♦v a�\%[ii r Ii-q.`� `� �_ i — ■ �.�__ —��� ==o �� � aA �5Q �, r � O �� -- IR1111111= E �c�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOI � �za♦0�`�as°�aa 3ba��a � �e y •r �••— �� IIIIIII� •IIIIII nllmnnlllnnu ml_= !I '���` \♦aa�@���\a �\�A o� Aa,� .— = lllllle�ni�iiin =�,���.,._==c= rl r' 'S^` a �` z�yaa @` ♦ y !� II 111■ _ NN —__ as ,••° ° o` � • �•- �� •I —_ -�E ' \ =_ A J`i\aa gA aQ � �o �� ♦v ♦ �� 29 EI111= n `a. ..,,:.dw=-_ \ �' oA`A4,� �� ��♦ Ir =-1111111� �,1. in-n.-.u-unnm=o \♦ �A�♦.��•Oa. ♦ , � $�\�� G IIIIIIII 1 � � �� �uw.-nl �A \ ����:♦A � •g � — 11111110 �_— ■ O��unmui CIIIIIII.IIIII Ord■a =11111�� �1 \� �IIIIII■ ■■_ Will milln Edll i milli IlNnio =_ Illllli_ ��� 1 Illullm nou: '■ In�liii l�Ill _ Resolution No.2009-62 ti >n AV ❑ ❑ a O 130003 OooCN:InOaaooaCvClono AV 's a a El o❑ m O a 13 a O Elm aan --�. ddC38DDcp dtt�aaod3ooaO13Od❑�na U o ® ❑ a ❑ a a a dODGJ7000 000 ❑QOC 000cr00400000 000IQa ❑ ffo a C1 a oa 13 aD "Opim 0 3® ❑ >o 0 � a aD=1000=0001V a 00ao Dao G IT a \ $ e tt TO C3' a' ❑ O ❑ D ❑ ❑ 2 $ a a a •1*ma ❑ pp ❑ 1P 4 o MAC a oaoC0❑❑❑ ❑❑o_ a aoa 000 oc; [s ■ mvwrcwo a a ,-'o ♦®a �Od IIII a00QIID00$3000C�000 II00ff I'`o R1 a e a ❑ ❑ O e 00 a „01A0 a p a 'a 4* O amm 101 mtam m®mmammmm AV I '. O O Q 0 Jd El 13 aOCOE3000800 � Q $ °n a a0. a ❑ a ❑ or OQQ a as comma$--pt]DOO�DDOo - j (03 0 a 13 El \ aOOQgM0O0Xm0os' Cz a O a ` Q OMrsse ❑ . E� amm A' O: a 0. LEGEND o: Oi ^^0 ® EXISTING CLASS I TRAIL OFF ROAD Q% O X7000- EXISTING CLASS 0 TRAIL- ON ROAD STRIPED LANES � *Q00 a PROD CLASS I TRAIL. OFF ROAD Refer to following figure: Gams - PROPOSED CLASS 11 TRAIL- ON ROAD STRIPED Lq "Extract of Figure CE-9" for proposed changes slm.DKS Assodaws.Iasa to Bicycle Plan BICYCLE vcr- A PLANo CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN III-CE 23 Resolution No.2009-62 Proposed Bike Lanes (changes to Figure CE-9) en Proposed d Class II ' W Bike Lane - 6th St. (PCH to Main St.) eca Av Proposed mow• , ' Class II Bike Lane Lake St. (Orange Ave. to Pecan Ave.) \\ 6 ��f �/ \ \ N l� L \\ FF Extract of Figure CE-9 Legend - - - - Existing Class I Bike Lane - - - - Existing Class II Bike Lane - Proposed Class II Bike Lane ATTACHMENT # 12 o�J -- RESOLUTION NO. 2009-6 3 COP lip A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA, ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 TO AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES TO AMEND ZONE 4 — LAND USE PLAN AND ACCOMPANYING TEXT OF THE CITY'S COASTAL ELEMENT FOR THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5) AND TO REFLECT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 AND REQUESTING CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and Public Resources Code Section 30503 and 30510, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002; and Such amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption; and The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by law, held at least one public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002, and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan, the Certified Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program(including the Land Use Plan), and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act, 09-2218.002 1 NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution is located starting from the intersection of Goldenwest Street with Pacific Coast Highway and curves along the coastline, including the Huntington Beach Pier, down to Beach Boulevard. The inland boundary of the Specific Plan Area follows the prolongation of Sunrise Drive from Beach Boulevard to Pacific View Avenue where the boundary curves along Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. From Atlanta Avenue,the boundary flows along Orange Avenue and continues up Lake Street to Palm Avenue where it connects over to Main Street and along Pacific View Avenue to link down along 6th Street. From 6th Street, following along Walnut Avenue to Goldenwest Street, parcels within the first block adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway are included in the Specific Plan Area and consists of approximately 336 acres within the City of Huntington Beach (Exhibit A). 2. That the Local Coastal Program (Coastal Element) for the Subject Property is hereby changed to reflect modified district boundaries and circulation improvements for the Downtown Specific Plan area, associated changes to the land use and subarea designations and updated narrative (Exhibit B). 3. That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 also consists of Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 4. That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to consider, approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002. 5. That pursuant to Section 13551(b)of the Coastal Commission Regulations, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 will take effect 09-2218.002 2 automatically upon Coastal Commission approval, as provided in Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513 and 30519. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting hereof held on the day of 2009. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk �'�City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City dministrator Director of Planning Exhibits: A. Specific Plan Map B. Changes in Land Use Plan(Coastal Element) C. Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 09-2218.002 3 Resolution No.2009-63 Resolution No.2009-63 EXHIBIT A Specific Plan Map 3 �z�t # � W NGER Atla to Ave: - �..� �, „dam ot� '�- �•� r� '��`��"����� ra,� ���;;��vt �� - � 5 ..,� 5'+k ,� �'.�F, �s � '�j " c �5.� ��. F'�c ":�' �," �z''+�? x; � is � »•� ^� e` Resolution No.2009-63 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT the adopted conceptual master plan. Existing oil production facilities are permitted to continue. However,the Coastal Element Land Use Plan provides for an ultimate change in use on the site from oil production to mixed use, including residential, commercial,open space and civic/recreational uses. The Coastal Element Land Use Plan for the remainder of Zone 3 designates the vacant bluff at the eastern edge of the Bolsa Chica as open space. It is intended to accommodate the proposed Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park. The private golf course area and neighborhood park are also designated as open space. The residential portion is designated as low, medium,medium high and high density residential, consistent with existing development. Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) The entire land area is designated as OS-S, Open Space-Shoreline. ZONE 3—LAND USE DESIGNATIONS RESIDENTIAL RL-4, RL-7,RM-15,RMH- 25, RH-30 MIXED USE MH-172/30(AVG.15)-sp OPEN SPACE OS-P, OS-S, OS-CR ZONE 3—SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS Holly Seacliff Specific Plan,Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan ZONE 3—GENERAL PLAN OVERLAP'S 413, 4J See Table C-1 for land use category definitions. Zone 4—Downtown This portion of the Coastal Zone extends from Goldenwest Street south to Beach Boulevard. (Figure C-8.) Existing Land Uses Inland(Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary.) Zone 4 is known as the City's"Downtown." Existing land uses include recreational beach amenities, single and multi-family residential uses, and a rich variety of visitor serving commercial facilities that serve to make the area the primary activity node for visitors to the Coastal Zone. Within the Downtown area, project areas,with their own distinctive character and purpose, have been developed. Significant commercial project areas include Main Street,the Waterfront Development and Pacific City, a site formerly known as"31 acres." Many of the commercial areas also integrate housing. However,the"Old Town"and "Town Lot"areas are the primary residential nodes in this area. Main Street Main Street runs north south from Pacific Coast Highway to Palm Avenue within the Coastal Zone. The Main Street"core area,"where development is most concentrated, lies between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Street. However, the expansion of the Main Street "core" area is envisioned to extend north on Main Street to Palm Avenue. With the head of Main Street leading directly into the Municipal Pier,Main Street itself serves as an extension of the Pier for Coastal Zone visitors. Main Street and its environs have been developed THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-13 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT as a mixed use, pedestrian oriented district,with visitor-serving commercial uses, integrated housing and upper story office uses. The Waterfront The Waterfront development area encompasses approximately 44 acres located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. The site presently includes a high rise hotel with ballroom and conference facilities, a luxury hotel with conference facilities, specialty retail uses and a spa and a multi-family residential component. Planned uses for the remaining undeveloped portion include additional luxury hotel accommodations; . This area also includes a small wetlands which will be pfetected and eonse ..oa was restored and conserved in 2004. Existing uses north of the Waterfront development area to Atlanta Avenue include multi-family residential and a residential mobile home park. 22 7�s-Pacif c City The�� Ae_vies;"Pacific City site is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway and Atlanta Street to the north, and Huntington and First Street to the east and west. This site is presently•,,.e planned-under construction for development with visitor serving commercial and high density residential uses. Oldtown The area inland from Lake Street and Atlanta Avenue is known as the Oldtown section of the City. This area is developed with a mix of single and multi-family residential uses. Townlo&PCH Frontage This area comprises approximately 17 blocks nerth-ef between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue, east of Goldenwest Street and west of Sixth Street and seti h of Palm Avenue. enue Existing land uses in the area are primarily residential. Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) The seaward portion of this zone includes a high density residential development located northeast of the Pier on the sandy beach area. Also included in this sub-area are the Municipal Pier with restaurant uses and recreational fishing opportunities; the Pier Plaza located at the base of the Pier with public open space, an amphitheater and palm court; restaurant uses at the southwest base of the Pier, and Huntington Beach City Beach. The Municipal Pier The City's Municipal Pier is located at the intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway and serves as the focal point of the City's Coastal Zone. The Pier,which was re-built and opened in 1992, is 1,856 feet long, 30 feet wide and 38 feet above the mean low water level. It is constructed of reinforced concrete. It includes a variety of visitor serving and recreational amenities, including a restaurant, community access booth, lifeguard tower, restrooms and observation and recreational fishing platforms. Visitors can use the Pier to sight see, stroll, fish and/or dine. Proposed enhancements include a funicular/trolly system to transport pedestrians from the Plaza area to the end of the Pier and back. Coastal Element policy restricts the height of buildings on the pier to no more than 2 stories/35 feet and requires that the entire perimeter of the pier be retained for public access. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-14 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT Pier Plaza The Main Pier Plaza is located at the base of the Municipal Pier. It consists of more than eight acres of public space. The public plaza includes a palm court,a 230 seat amphitheater, a spectator area, accessways to the beach and lawn,restrooms and concessions,bicycle parking facilities and automobile parking. It also includes 18,000 square feet of visitor serving commercial uses(restaurants). Pier Plaza was designed as a community focal area where public speaking forums, surfing competitions,foot races, outdoor concerts and similar events are held. Coastal Element Land Use Plan Designations Inland(Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary.) Coastal Element land use designations for the inland portion of this sub-area include mixed use and medium and high density residential. The majority of the sub-area is covered by a specific plan overlay(The Downtown Specific Plan). The Main Street core is subject to the "pedestrian overlay"provisions in addition to the Downtown Specific Plan. Portions of the Community District and Sub-area Schedule apply to the area as well. (See Figure C-10 and Table C-2.) Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) The shoreline area, including the site that currently houses residential development, is designated as open space. The Municipal Pier and the area southwest of its base are designated for visitor serving commercial uses. With the exception of the residential use, development in the area is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. ZONE 4-LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND GENERAL PLAN OVERLAYS OLDTOWN OS-P,RMH-25-d Design District 313 TOWNLOT/PCH RH->30-d-sp,, MV FRONTAGE Design Districts 3A.-arid D Downtown Specific Plan WATERFRONT CV-F7-sp, RH-30-sp Design District 4dD and I RM-15 Downtown Specific Plan MAIN r114 F4/30 sp pa MV Fig- STREET/ENVIRONS sp pd, P,N4 F 11 Q5 sp pd-, MV F6/25-sped M->30-d-pd-sp, P Design Districts 1 A,B,C,D,E Downtown Specific Plan 3' ^�S-PACIFIC RH-30-sp,CV-F7-sp CITY Design District 4C,I Downtown Specific Plan PIER AND SHORELINE CV-d-sp, OS-S Design Districts 2, 4J Downtown Specific Plan See Table C-1 for land use category definitions. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-15 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COASTAL ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN LAND USE,DENSITY AND OVERLAY SCHEDULE TABLE C-1 (Continued) LAND'USE. 'TYPICAL PERMITTED USES : CATEGORY .. PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL Public(P) Governmental administrative and related facilities, such as public utilities, schools, libraries, museums, public parking lots, infrastructure,religious and similar uses. MIXED USE Mixed Use(M) Mixed use areas that may include Vertically Integrated Housing(MV) or Horizontally Integrated Housing(MH)uses,townhomes, garden apartments, live/work units and mid-/high-rise apartments, Commercial Visitor(CV), Commercial Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General(CG)uses. ■ Mixed use development in the coastal zone will focus on providing visitor serving commercial opportunities along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and within the Downtown Specific Plan Area. ■ The exact density, location and mix of uses in this category shall be governed by a Specific Plan("-sp")to allow greater design flexibility and to address the uniqueness of a particular area. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-28 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COASTAL ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN LAND USE,DENSITY AND OVERLAY SCHEDULE TABLE C-1 (continued) DENSITY 'MAXIMUM-PERMITTED DENSITYIINTENSITY = -CATEGORY Residential Residential densities indicate the maximum density which may be permitted on a site. The actual development density may be reduced to account for site conditions and constraints. 4.0 Maximum of 4.0 dwelling units per net acre. 7.0 Maximum of 7.0 dwelling units per net acre. 15 Maximum of 15 dwelling units per net acre. 25 Maximum of 25 dwelling units per net acre. >30 Greater than 30 dwelling units per net acre. Commercial and Commercial and industrial intensities indicate the maximum floor area ratio Industrial (FAR)which may be permitted on a site. The actual development intensity may be reduced to account for site conditions and constraints. FAR represents the total building area(floor space, excluding basements, balconies, and stair bulkheads)on a lot divided by the total area of the lot. (Note: commercial FARs exceeding 0.4 normally necessitate subterranean or semi-subterranean parking to provide adequate space to meet code required parking.) -F1 Maximum floor area ratio of 0.35 -172 Maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 -F2A Maximum floor area ratio of 0.75 -173 Maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 -F4 Maximum floor area ratio of 1.25 -175 Maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 -176 Maximum floor area ratio of 2.0 -F7 Maximum floor area ratio of 3.0 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-31 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 1 Area wide Maintain the City's downtown as a principal focal point of community Downtown Functional Role identity, containing a mix of community-serving and visitor-serving (cumulative) commercial uses, housing, and cultural facilities. Development should achieve a pedestrian-oriented, "village-like"environment that physically and visually relates to the adjacent shoreline. IA Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use Vertical i tegF do of Housing(">` W Main Cat Uses permitted by the "CG" and "CV" land use categories, shared parking nru"Core" facilities, Cultural and civic uses and mixed-use structures Downtown veFtically-integrating housing with commercial uses. Core Density/Intensity Category: 11—VIP"">30" ® Height: #tree (3) stories for buildings o g less than a fill Meek 7 F.,r(4)stories f r fill 110ek stmet„ e v Height: minimum building height is 25 feet; three stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; four stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater Design and Categories: Specific Plan("-sp"), Special Design District ("-d") and Development Pedestrian District("-pd") • Requires the pr-epafatien of a Specific Nan, • Development must be designed and sited to establish a pedestrian-oriented character. • Maintain and expand streetscape amenities. • Establish an n f;o.l r-oh teet„ral ehar-aetor and 1.;,.h , artie lated facades: • Require vertical setbacks of upper stories. • Emphasize design elements that maintain viewsheds of the shoreline and Pier. • Encourage the preservation of historical structures. • Establish linkages (walkways) to adjacent streets; providing connectivity of public opens aces and plazas. 1B Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use Vertieal T„tegFatiefi of Housing " Main StFeet �.,.,,o S����-�� � ^ Uses permitted in Commercial 1 GG!`....077 rJarrl�-a��—u��cmarca rri. OT"�e" General ("CG"), Commercial Visitor ("CV") and Abutting Commercial Neighborhood ('TN") land use categories, Downtown cultural and civic uses, mixed use structures integrating Core housing and commercial uses and freestanding single- and multi-family housing. Density/Intensity Category: —F6425L— "( >30„) • 4 #wee(3) stories for-buildings � less than µ full t.look• �Ic.rgir�crscc-�Tr�cvi-icszvrvmxa-axso occupying. ... ..... ........., four(4)stories for fill bleek stmet„ es- THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-34 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT • Height: minimum building height is 25 feet; three stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; four stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater; three stories for residential only developments Design and Categories: Specific Plan " sp„ and Pedestfian Pistrist ("pd„`Smes Development Subarea, except standard for she-eline.,iewshed Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd") and Special Design District("-d") • Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate Pedestrian activity • Require vertical setbacks above the second story • Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as a transition to adiacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (SubareLAI THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 1 V-C-3 5 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 (continued) Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 1C Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use Horizontal integration fHousing i"rnnu»> Abutting Professional offiees pe Ri tng reail at t „1+,,.-A1 a > ; l> resaufa �� n e DO'A'Rt0'A',R .. (as p ~.,heal i "GO"land use c tegoi ,) shared paFk ng G..;l;ties n Goo standing multi family residential.Residential High ("RBI") Downtown Residential Density/Intensity Category: " " "( >30") 0 Height: three(3)stories Design and Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp") and ne,dest ian Dis fief (" pd!!)-Special Development Design District("-d") • Requires the preparation of a Specs ..Dl�„ • Buildings should he sited and designed to f4eil;tate pe.des4ia.aetiyity • Establish an unified r-eh;teet.,ral ehar-aeter and highly at4ie,,late.d faeades-. O Dequ4e yef4ie l setbacks above the second stei=y. • Require that the se le and massingof st,- etur-es be consistent with the .de ,,,t.,wa character and as a t ansition to adja.eHt si de„t;mil neighbor-hoods. e 7D ..vi de linkages with the Main StreetW14 ".crow (Subaveas !A rR Tn) d. Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single-family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation ID Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") Main er Uses permitted in Cormser-eial General ("GG"` and Commercial North o€ Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories, cultural and civic, mixed use Orange structures veftieal�, integrating housing and commercial, and free-standing Downtown single- and multi-family housing. Uses that conflict with residential units Neighbor- should be excluded. hood Density/Intensity Category: " F114'L "( >30„) ® Height: three (3) stories for-buildings ^ g less than' fill Meek four(4)stories F r f,ll bleeL str.,..t„res Design and Same as Subarea lEB Development Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), ]Pedestrian District ("- pd") and Special Design District("-d") • Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate Pedestrian activity • Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-36 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea lA 1E Permitted Uses Category: Public and Open Space Main Uses permitted in public land use categories, cultural and Street civic uses, open space Library Design and • Require open space areas Development . Provide for preservation of historical structures THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-37 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 (continued) Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 2 Functional Role Maintain the Huntington Beach Pier and adjacent properties for Pier beach-related recreational purposes, emphasizing its identity as a coastal and cultural amenity. Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") Visitor-serving commercial (surf, bicycle and skate rentals, bait and tackle shops, etc.), restaurants/cafes, beach-related cultural facilities, and parking lots. Density/Intensity • Pier: limit development to be compatible with the recreational role of the Pier • Shoreline: limit development to the existing Maxwell's building "footprint" • Height: two(2)stories;maximum 35 feet Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("-d") Development • Design structures to reflect its beachfront location. • Establish a unifying architectural character for all structures. • Maintain public view of the ocean. • Maintain public access around the entire perimeter of the pier. • Emphasize the Huntington Beach Pier as a community landmark. • Facilitate pedestrian access. • Link the Pier to the Main Street Downtown"Core"(Subarea IA). 3 Area wide Maintain the "Old Town" residential area as a distinct neighborhood of the "Old Town" Functional Role City, incorporating local-serving commercial and community"focal" points to enhance its "village" character. The single family character of the small lot subdivisions shall be maintained. 3A Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") PCH Frontage Density Category: '� !> " Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("A") Development • Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-38 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 (continued) Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 313 Permitted Uses Category: Residential Medium High("RMH") Town Lots Density Category: "-25" Design and • Incorporate front yard setbacks to maintain the existing residential Development neighborhood character. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. 34c- Permitted Us Categei=w Mixed Use Vertical integration of Housing("N4V'4 D=odes Visitor sen,ing commercial uses pefmittedby the Commer-ei l visit^ ("CW) land use eats , excluding uses that may adversely impact el etei of suffounding residential, and mixed uses wert:r.r,ll„ integrating housing ,with eemmer-ei Dens ty/Intensity Categoryy: F8"" e Height: throe(3)stories- Design and Category: Specific Plan(" sp'� Developmen a Design structures to achieve a consistent visual character- and compatible with adjacent residential units ale ra mass. ® Reese structures to be sited along the PC14 fFeiitage, with pafkia t^ the r sidesor- within strmmetur-ems • Site and design de elo „t to maintainpublic views of thecoast from public places. 34D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Neighborhood("CN") 3C Density/Intensity Category: "-F1" ® Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design District("-d") Development ® Design structures to be visually consistent and compatible with adjacent residential units. O Design and site structures to achieve a"village"character. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-39 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 (continued) Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princi les 4I Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") Atlanta Multi-family residential,parks and other recreational amenities, schools, and (Lake)Street open spaces. Pacific Crtv & Waterfront Residential Density/Intensity Category: "-30" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("_Sp") Development • Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions"(Policies LU 9.3.1-9.3.4). • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two (2)to four(4) stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. 4J Permitted Uses Category: Shoreline("OS-S") Beach • Coastal and recreational uses. Design and In accordance with Policy LU 14.1.3. Development 4K Permitted Uses Categories: Residential ("RL" or "RM") and Open Space-Conservation (Cont. on next ("OS-C") page) Density/Intensity Residential • Maximum of fifteen(15)dwelling units per acre Design and See Figure C-6a Development A development plan for this area shall concentrate and cluster residential units in the eastern portion of the site and include, consistent with the land use designations and Coastal Element policies, the following required information (all required information must be prepared or updated no more than one year prior to submittal of a coastal development permit application): 1. A Public Access Plan,including,but not limited to the following features: • Class 1 Bikeway (paved off-road bikeway; for use by bicyclists, walkers,joggers, roller skaters, and strollers) along the north levee of the flood control channel. If a wall between residential development and the Bikeway is allowed it shall include design features such as THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-43 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT TABLE C-3 Public Parking Opp ortunities within Coastal Divisions Coastal Free Metered Total Zone Division Parking Parking Parking Parking (Figure C-4 Location Spaces Spaces Spaces Comments Zone 1 PCH(on-street)* 300 300 Peter's Landing 630 630 HH Yacht Club 76 76 $1.00/hour Sunset Beach* 672 672 4 hr. maximum Zone 2 Bolsa Chica State Beach 2200 2200 $5.00/day PCH(on-street) 324 324 $1.50/hour Zone 3 PCH(on-street) 260 260 $1.50/hour Surf Theatre Lot 39 39 Permit Only Zone 4 Pier Plaza 421 421 $1.50/hour Main Promenade 815 815 $4-.5)2.00/ Hour $( 12.00 daily maximum) PCH(on-street) 486 486 $1.50/hour Business Streets 206 206 $1.50/hour Residential Streets 218 218 $1.50/hour City Beach Lot 250 250 $1.50/hour ($12.00 daily maximum) City Beach Lot 1813 1813 $-710.00/day Pierside Pavilion** 283 283 $3.75/hour ($11.25 daily maximum) Plaza Almeria** 171 171 $2.00/hour ($15.00 daily maximum) The Strand** 410 470 $2.00/hour includes ($12.00 daily valet spaces) maximum) Zone 5 HB State Beach 1200 1200 $5.00/day PCH/River(inland) 110 110 PCH/River(ocean) 75 75 Beach Blvd. (1600' 83 83 $1.50/hour inland) Newland to channel 75 75 Magnolia to channel 81 81 Brookhurst to 22 22 channel TOTAL 1,965 $14-4 10,446 9 345 11,370 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-56 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT Note: *Most or all located outside of the City's Coastal Zone boundary. **Privately operated parking structures available for public use. Rates for summer months and valet vary. Commercial Parking Much emphasis has been placed on providing adequate parking for commercial facilities in the Coastal Zone to ensure that commercial parking demands do not negatively impact recreational beach user parking. This issue was especially significant when planning for the re-development of the City's Downtown area into a dense node of visitor serving commercial facilities. The unique parking issues of the Downtown area hwoe had been resolved through the development and implementation of the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan(see Technical Appendix). The Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan,a component of the Downtown Specific Plan,was adopted in 1993 and providesd for shared parking facilities including on-street parking, lots and nearby municipal parking structures. ^n„Ual ropefts and modifieations of the Master-Plan, if needed,will set:ve to ensure tha4 adequate par4ifig faeilities afe pfevided for-existing and planned eemmer-eial tises in the Downtown 1n 2009, the Downtown Specific Plan was updated to accommodate for new development within the downtown area. Part of the update process was the elimination of the Downtown Parking Master Plan,which had reached established development thresholds. Although the Downtown Parking Master Plan was eliminated,the downtown still employs a shared parking concept and the Downtown Specific Plan has added other tools for managing the parking demand of existing and future downtown development such as a trolley, a shuttle to remote lots and a parking directional sign system. Other commercial areas within the City's Coastal Zone,but outside the downtown area,meet their parking needs through implementation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Adequate parking must be provided on site at the time of development. Shared parking is permitted on a case by case basis, if justified. Residential Parking Residential uses within the Coastal Zone are required to provide parking facilities on-site. In some areas of the Coastal Zone, residents may purchase parking permits to exempt them from parking time limits and/or metered parking. Certain residents also have the opportunity to purchase parking stickers that permit them to park in areas where the general public is not permitted. However, Coastal Element policy prohibits the establishment of new preferential parking districts whenever public access to the coast would be adversely affected. Trails and Bikeways Bicycling provides both recreation and an alternative mode of transportation to access the City's coastal resources. The City's bikeway program is one of the most extensive in Orange County and includes both Class I and Class Il. Bikeways are marked with signs and street painting. Existing and proposed bikeways in the City's Coastal Zone are depicted in Figure C-14. Figure C-14 also depicts riding and hiking trails, including a proposed equestrian trail that will be included in the planned Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park(The Huntington Beach Regional Riding and Hiking Trail). This trail will extend from the existing equestrian facilities and trails in Central Park to the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway at Seapoint Avenue. This trail will provide views of the Bolsa Chica wetlands and shoreline. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-57 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT Downtown The downtown area has been designed as the primary visitor serving node in the Coastal Zone. Development of the area is guided by the Downtown Specific Plan. Coastal Element policy promotes the continuation of the area as a visitor serving node. Significant project areas within the downtown area include the Main/Pier area,the Waterfront area and Pacific City, a site formerly known as"31 acres." The Main/Pier area includes the Municipal Pier,the public plaza at the base of the Pier,adjacent restaurants,and commercial/retail development on Main Street and 5th Street. The Waterfront development area is located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. It is designated for uses such as hotels, specialty retail and residential uses. The"'�r-es"Pacific City,site is located on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway at First Street,just south of the Municipal Pier. This site is planned approved to be developed as a mixed use project including visitor serving commercial, office and residential uses. Planned and existing projects within these development areas are summarized in Table C- 5. TABLE C-5 Existing Downtown Area Commercial Facilities Existing Visitor Serving Projects Within the Downtown Area Description The Waterfront Development The Waterfront Hilton Beach Resort 296 hotel rooms, 15,000 square feet of ballroom/meeting space,restaurant pool and fitness center. Hyatt Regency Resort and Spa 517 hotel rooms with a conference center, retail and restaurant uses and a spa and fitness center Main/Pier Pier Pavillion 19,100 square feet retail,restaurant and office uses. Oceanview Promenade 42,000 square feet of visitor serving retail Main Promenade 34,000 square feet of visitor serving retail, restaurant and office uses. Includes 830 space municipal parking structure. Adjacent to Municipal Pier 15,000 square feet of restaurant area. Currently houses Duke's and Chimayo's restaurants. Municipal Pier 8,000 square feet of visitor serving commercial at end of Pier. Pier Plaza No commercial uses. Plaza Almeria 301 Main Street. 30,000 square feet of commercial/retail with 10,000 square feet of office on upper stories. Also includes 42 townhomes. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-67 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT The Strand 157 room boutique hotel and 154,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and office uses Planned/Approved Projects Description The Waterfront Development The Hilton Pacific Grand Re 4 4 aeres along PCH,adjacent to existin (Waterfront Development4 Hilt,.., Hotel can Foems, 50,000 square fee conferenee ce to 12,000 square feet o specialty retail and spa and a A third hotel. Pacific City 31-acre mixed use proiect consisting of seven commercial buildings with retail, office, restaurant,cultural and entertainment uses and a residential component with 516 condo units and a 2-acre"Village Green" park. The commercial portion of Pacific City is also planned to have carts,kiosks, outdoor dining,live entertainment indoors and outdoors and a boutique hotel. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-68 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT C 2.3.3 Policies Encourage the Orange County C 2.4.1 Transportation Authority to locate bus Maintain an adequate supply of parking that turnouts along Pacific Coast Highway and supports the present level of demand and other major arterial roads within the City, if allows for the expected increase in private feasible and appropriate. (I-C 9, I-C 22d) transportation use. (1-C 9) C 2.3.4 C 2.4.2 Continue to reserve the abandoned rail right Ensure that adequate parking is maintained of way, located parallel to Lake Street,for a and provided in all new development in the future transportation use such as a transit, Coastal Zone utilizing one or a combination pedestrian and/or bicycle facility. (1-C 9, 1- of the following: (I-C 9) C 22a) a. Apply the City's parking standards C 2.3.5 at a minimum. Encourage the development of a b. Implement the r,em ffA,,wn Par,1 ng transportation center in the Coastal Zone in r��a comprehensive or near the Downtown area. The Parking strategy for the transportation center should be located to Downtown area. serve both local and commuter traffic,to c. Consider developing new parking promote coastal access, and sited to standards specific to the coastal minimize adverse impacts from the use on zone, subject to Coastal adjacent land uses. (I-C 1, I-C 9, I-C 22c1) Commission approval. d. Develop parking assessment C 2.3.6 districts to fund off-site parking New development, such as multi-unit structures, if necessary. housing and commercial centers, should e. Monitor parking programs to make maintain and enhance public access to the the most effective use of parking coast through provisions for enhancing or resources. encouraging ridership on public f. Replace any on-street parking lost in transportation. (I-C 7, I-C 9) the coastal zone on a 1:1 basis within the coastal zone prior to or C 2.3.7 concurrent with the loss of any Provide for future use of water borne parking spaces. passenger services along ocean frontages and harbor waterways. (I-C 1, I-C 9, I-C C 2.4.3 22d) Consider the cost effectiveness of new parking facilities and encourage those that Parking re-coup the cost of providing the land, structures, maintenance and management of Objective the facilities in order to minimize ongoing C 2.4 municipal costs. (I-C 9) Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. C 2.4.4 Develop parking areas outside the Coastal Zone for passenger cars and the development of alternate transportation THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-110 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/ Objective archeological resources. If found to be C 6.1 significant,the site(s)shall be tested and Promote measures to mitigate the adverse preserved until a recovery plan is completed impacts of human activities on marine to assure the protection of the organisms and the marine environment paleontological/archeological resources. through regulation of new development, (I-C 2, I-C 3, I-C 8) monitoring of existing development, and retrofitting necessary and feasible. C 5.1.6 Reinforce downtown as the City's historic Policies center and as a pedestrian-oriented C 6.1.1 commercial and entertainment/recreation Require that new development include district,as follows: (I-C 1, I-C 2, I-C 4) mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at a minimum, 1. Preserve older and historic prevent the degradation of water quality of structures; groundwater basins,wetlands, and surface water. (1-C 2, I-C 8) 2. Require that new development be designed to reflect the Downtown's C 6.1.2 historical structures and Marine resources shall be maintained, Downtown design guidelines enhanced, and where feasible, restored. adopted Mediter-raneaii the Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or 3. Amend the Downtown Specific Plan economic significance. (I-C 6, I-C 8, I-C (as an LCP amendment subject to 12, I-C 15, I-C 22e) Commission certification)to: C 6.1.3 a. Coordinate with the Citywide Uses of the marine environment shall be Design Guidelines; and carried out in a manner that will sustain the b. Incorporate historic biological productivity of coastal waters and preservation standards and that will maintain healthy populations of all guidelines. species of marine organisms adequate for C. Coordinate Downtown long-term commercial,recreational, development and scientific,and educational purposes. (I-C 7, revitalization with polices and I-C 8) programs of the Historic and Cultural Resources Element. C 6.1.4 The biological productivity and the quality WATER AND MARINE RESOURCES of coastal waters, streams,wetlands, estuaries,and lakes appropriate to maintain Goal organisms and for the protection of human C 6 health shall be maintained and,where Prevent the degradation of marine feasible,restored. (I-C 7, I-C 8, I-C 12) resources in the Coastal Zone from activities associated with an urban C 6.1.5 environment. Require containment curtains around waterfront construction projects on inland THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-124 Resolution No.2009-63 COASTAL ELEMENT the Downtown master Pa-king Plan 3. The City's traffic model to the Specific Plan shall be processed as an extent it is consistent with the City's amendment to the City's Coastal Local Coastal Program; Program and shall not become effective until certified by the California Coastal 4. The City's Trail Master Plan to the Commission. extent it is consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program; j) Continue to implement the City's Zoning Ordinance to the extent it is not d) Coordinate with neighboring inconsistent with the City's Local jurisdictions regarding circulation for Coastal Program as it pertains to parking autos,pedestrians and cyclists to requirements. promote coastal access opportunities. k) Promote public parking opportunities e) Explore the use of water taxis in through the establishment of new or Huntington Harbour and ocean enlarged off-site parking facilities, frontages, especially those near creation of on-street public parking commercial land uses. opportunities, shared parking, and requiring that adequate on-site parking Parking Management be provided in relation to any f) Prohibit the implementation of development. preferential parking districts whenever it would adversely affect public access to 1) Enhance public transit to improve public the coast through a reduction in the access to the coast and to minimize availability of public parking spaces energy consumption and vehicle miles used by public visitors to the coast. traveled. g) Develop parking and traffic control Direct Access plans to promote public access to the m) Provide directional signage for cyclists, coast for those neighborhoods that are pedestrians and autos to guide beach adversely impacted by spill over parking bound traffic. and traffic. n) Annually assess existing access points h) Explore areas where park and ride for maintenance needs. Repair/maintain facilities can be implemented at existing as needed, or as prioritized per capital shopping center parking lots where the improvement program. Acquire new available parking is under utilized. access points where feasible and appropriate through the development i) `o Implement Downtown review process. Masse.Par-king Plan a parking strategy for the Downtown area o) Evaluations for new access points within the Downtown Specific should focus on pedestrian safety. Plan. M nite f the Plan o an annua4 basis, and update when neeessat=y. Transit Evaluate the impact of downtown p) Coordinate with the Orange County parking on coastal access,public transit, Transportation Authority to develop a and vehicle miles traveled. Updates to transportation center within the Coastal Zone, if feasible. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-144 Resolution No.2009-63 Zone 3 rr c Cl- ZONE 4"LEGENDf -. � 4 RMDEAnAL RM RFSIDENTI.1L MEDIUM DF\SiTY PH RESIDE-> IAL NIGH DENS TY f Cv CONWERCIAL VISITOR '-} &HW)usf. M MMED USE _ ASH MIXED USE HORIZONT.L � MV AII\'ED CSE%IRTICAL Zoe. QPFY tingCF. OS-P PARK O&S SHORE; Pf:73Llt" P PUBUC 04Z:1i AY d DESIGN OVERLAN -Pd PEDESTRIA\O%TR-1AY -sp SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY Refer to following figure- <U��ff {:,.af_,.,rt�t "Extract of Figure C-8" Fa I? F7 ;;A for proposed changes to band Use Plan Fi .0 FS I F!I Q Fit 3.0 Ht�NTNT4(V BAH COASTAL ZONE ZONE 4 LAND USE'PLAN z . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL ELE¢4EAIT " W-C-24 ex., Resolution No.2009-63 Extract of Figure C-8 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations \ I O, a, SA � Np Atlanta .a c. o/ �y b Po so � co RH-30-sp Leacnd Downtown Specific Plan boundary Land Use Designation CV—Commercial Visitor OS-S—Open Space—Shore M—Mixed Use RH—Residential High Density P-Public Density Schedule Overlay Suffix -F7(3.0 Floor Area Ratio) -sp(specific plan overlay) ->30(greater than 30 dwelling units per acre) -pd(pedestrian overlay) -30(30 dwelling units per acre) -d(design overlay) Resolution No.2009-63 Proposed DTSP Subarea designations Extract of Figure C-10 5� r d'9Pq 1 E 3A 1 1 C 1B dr- 4J 1A D Atlanta Ave. 41 z m 4C L m 41 4J 4D Resolution No.2009-63 -2 SEAL VFESTMINSTER BEACH 4M 001 00110M I M sm 0 I SIR No �m J_ m em m1m m M iIEL FOUNTAIN VALLEY 405 at low a m A P(df-o antC ■ 81 E1Us i5 --b"m PACRC OCEAN a 1%0 am Im imm mmi imm mut mor YORKT- 40 a a a M,a a a I■ earmool- AMM� wool as NP imm Legend 1100 HAMILTON - - - Existing Class I.- (Paved Off-Road)Bikeway Existing: Riding and Hiking Trail eeoee Proposed Class 1: Riding and Hiking Trail COSTA MESA Existing Class If: (On Road Striped Lanes) Elikeway momme Proposed Class 11: Bikeway 00000 Existing/Proposed Riding and Hiking Trail Refer to following figure: "Extract of Figure C-141" Coastal Zone for proposed changes to Trails and.Bikeways plan Soufce-.DKS Associates,1994;City of Huntington Beach Update,1995 F r_1A TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS 1-T CITY OF HUNTINGTON COASTAL ELEMENT IV-C-% Resolution No.2009-63 Proposed Bike Lanes (Changes to Figure C-14) a W Proposed 0 Class II , .11 J Bike Lane 6th St. (PCH to Main St.) eca Av Proposed yam• ;' Class II Bike Lane Lake St. (Orange Ave. to Pecan Ave.) \\\ �% oast i y , /f ` i s Extract of Figure C-14 Legend - - - - Existing Class I Bike Lane - - - - Existing Class II Bike Lane Proposed Class II Bike Lane Resolution No.2009-63 Resolution No.2009-63 EXFIIBIT C ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. S DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Not Attached Draft Specific Plan Provided As a Separate Packet And Available For Public Review at the Planning and Zoning Department, The City Clerk's Office and on the City's Website Final Adopted Specific Plan No. 5 Will Be Attached As Exhibit C ATTACHMENT # 13 - City of Huntington.Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning& Stanley Smalewitz, Director of Economic Development BY: Jennifer Villasenor, Associate PlannerirJ DATE: October 6, 2009 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 08-001 (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5 - DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: The project site consists of the existing Downtown Specific Plan area. No changes to the existing specific plan boundaries are proposed. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: o Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001 (EIR No. 08-001): - Analyzes the proposed general plan amendment and local coastal program amendment to reflect the various changes in land use and development standards, including proposed increases in allowable building heights and densities, as well as the reconfiguration of the existing 11 DTSP districts into seven. - Analyzes the proposed zoning text amendment to update Specific Plan No. 5 - Downtown Specific Plan. - Documents potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. - Evaluates three alternatives to the proposed project. - Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels for the project with the exception of impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, and public services, which would remain significant and unavoidable. o Staff s Recommendation: - Certify EIR No. 08-001 because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project, identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies, and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 08-001 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1635 (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: - A. "Continue certification of EIR No. 08-001 and direct staff accordingly." B. "Deny certification of EIR No. 08-001 with findings for denial." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 (GPA), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 (LCPA) and Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 (ZTA) that involves a City-initiated proposal to update the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The project proposes to reconfigure the existing 11 Specific Plan districts into 7 districts, modify development and parking standards, including proposed increases in allowable densities and building heights and the elimination of floor area ratio (FAR) requirements, incorporate design guidelines and provide recommendations for street improvements, public amenities, circulation enhancements, infrastructure and public facility improvements and parking strategies. The GPA proposes to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements to reflect the various changes in land use and development standards proposed in the DTSP Update as well as the reconfiguration of the districts. Changes to the General Plan include revisions to the Land Use Map and modifications to the Land Use Schedule and Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map in the Land Use Elemcnt. The amendment to the Circulation Element includes a revision to Figure CE-9: Trails and Bikeways as a result of recommendations proposed in the DTSP Update and traffic study for the project. The ZTA proposes to amend the existing text of the Downtown Specific Plan and the LCPA would amend, the Implementation Program (IP), specifically the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Land Use Plan/Coastal Element of the City's certified Local Coastal Program. Amendments to the Coastal Element will involve changes that are consistent with the changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements in addition to several policies that are proposed to be updated based on proposed changes to the.DTSP. The proposed LCPA is also subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission. An analysis of the GPA, LCPA, and ZTA is presented in a companion report that will be considered by the Planning Commission after action on the EIR. Because the Downtown Specific Plan covers a large geographical area and provides the framework for development in the area over a 20-year period, a program-level EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although the DTSP Update does not propose development, the following net new development potential, which was determined based on a study that analyzed market demand of a range of land uses that could potentially be developed in the DTSP area over a 20-year period, provided a development threshold for analyzing environmental impacts in the EIR: PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 2 (09sr59EIR 08-001) TABLE 1 - New Development Maximum Potential Land Use Maximum Development Retail 213,467 square feet Restaurant 92,332 sq.ft. Office 92,784 sq.ft. Cultural Facilities 30,000 sq.ft Residential 648 units (minimum 324,000 s.f.) Hotel 235 rooms (approx. 160,000 s.f.) Total 912,583 s.f. The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include: aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic and utilities and service systems. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided. The EIR consists of two volumes. Volume I is the Draft EIR and Appendices that were circulated for a minimum 45-day public review period. Volume II is titled the Final EIR and includes the comments received during the public review period, responses to those comments and text changes to the Draft EIR (Volume 1) to clarify or correct information in response to comments or as identified as necessary by staff. These volumes are referenced as Attachment No. 2 to this staff report. Background: The DTSP was originally adopted on November 16, 1983 to encourage revitalization of the downtown area by promoting a mix of commercial, residential and recreational uses that would be able to take advantage of the area's proximity to the ocean. At the time, the goal of the DTSP was to change the image of the downtown area and establish the framework for both public and private improvements to create a vibrant and viable downtown. The document has been amended several times over the past two and a half decades, most recently in 2007. The last comprehensive update of the DTSP was in 1995, which introduced the "Village Concept" for downtown development. The 1995 "Village Concept" amended development standards and regulations to scale back the intensity of development in the DTSP area and encourage more pedestrian-scale development. The 1995 "Village Concept" also encouraged a balance between serving the residential uses within and surrounding the downtown while allowing for the expansion of visitor activities. The 1995 update of the DTSP adopted the Downtown Parking Master Plan that established shared parking regulations and identified development thresholds (maximum - 500,000 square feet) based on parking supply for the downtown core area. The Downtown Parking Master Plan provided a strategic approach to parking for development in the downtown area. The Downtown Parking Master Plan utilizes shared parking concepts and reduced parking ratios for the core commercial area in the DTSP. The shared parking concept allows one parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict due to variations in peak parking demands (e.g., seasonal uses, days of week, hours of day). The Downtown Parking Master Plan identifies development thresholds for various land uses that must be monitored in order for the Plan to work effectively. Initially, the Downtown Parking Master Plan identified an overall PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 3 (09sr59EIR 08-001) development threshold of 500,000 square feet. In 2000, the Downtown Parking Master Plan of the DTSP was revised to establish the development thresholds (maximum - 715,000 square feet) for the downtown core area that are currently identified in the DTSP today. The development thresholds established within -the Downtown Parking Master Plan area were established based on existing available parking. This allowed new development to occur without the provision of additional parking, provided that the proposed development did not exceed established thresholds. In 2006, the City Council, in accordance with adopted Strategic Plan goals and objectives, directed staff to initiate an update to the DTSP because current development in the DTSP has reached the established thresholds constraining development and redevelopment in the DTSP area. In July 2007, the Redevelopment Agency approved a contract with RRM Design Group to provide consulting services for the preparation of the DTSP Update. In addition, Kimley-Horn was contracted as the City's parking and traffic consultant on the project. ISSUES: Subject Property Land Use, Zoning, and General Plan Designations: The 336-acre DTSP area is zoned SP5-CZ (Specific Plan No. 5 — Coastal Zone) and consists of I districts within the specific plan area. The General Plan land use designations for the existing I I districts are listed in Table 2 as follows: TABLE 2—Existing DTSP General Plan Land Use Designations _ Existing DTSP District General Plan Land Use Designation District 1 —Visitor-serving Commercial Mixed Use Vertical- .1.5 FAR(MU)-0.35(C)/25 du/acre—design overlay— specific plan overa MV-F8-d-s District 2—Residential Residential High Density—30 units per acre—design overlay—specific plan overlay RH-30-d-sp District 3—Visitor-serving Commercial Mixed Use Vertical-3.0 FAR(MU)-3.0(C)/30 du/acre—specific plan overlay —pedestrian overlay MV-F12-s - d District 4—Mixed-Use; Office Mixed Use Horizontal-1.25 FAR—30 du/acre—specific plan overlay— Residential pedestrian overlay(MH-F4/30-sp-pd) District 5—Mixed'Use; Mixed Use Vertical-.2.0 FAR=25 du/acre—specific plan overlay- Cvmmercial7afficelResidentia{ pedestrian oVer(ay(MV=F6/25-sp�pd) District 6—Mixed-Use; Mixed Use- 2.0 FAR(MU)-2.0 (C)/25 du/acre—specific plan overlay— Commercial/Office/Residential pedestrian overlay(M-F11/25-sp-pd); Public(P) District 7—Visitor servirig Commercial Commercial Visitor-3.0 Floor Area Ratio(FAR)-specific plan overlay(CV FT=s District 8—High Density Residential Residential High Density—30 units per acre—specific plan overlay(RH-30- sp District 9—Commercial/Recreation Commercial Visitor—3.0 Floor Area Ratio(FAR)—specific plan overlay(CV- F7-s District 10—Pier-related Commercial Commercial Visitor-design overlay(CV-d) District 11 —Beach Open Space Open Space—Shore(OS-S) PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 4 (09sr59EIR 08-001) General Plan Conformance: --The EIR is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Air Quality Element Goal AO 1: Improve regional air quality by a) decreasing reliance on single occupancy vehicular trips, b) increasing efficiency of transit, c) shortening vehicle trips through a more efficient jobs-housing balance and a more efficient land use pattern, and d) increasing energy efficiency. Policy A 1.8.1: Continue to enforce construction site guidelines that require truck operators to minimize particulate emission. Policy A 1.8.2: Require installation of temporary construction facilities (such as wheel washers) and implementation of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways. Policy A 1.10.1: Continue to require the utilization and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction. The EIR recommends Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 to improve air quality emissions during construction. The mitigation measure identifies Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) to minimize construction dust, exhaust emissions from construction equipment and VOC emissions from paint and architectural coatings. The EIR also discusses requirements for all projects to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which would also reduce short- term/construction emissions. However, even with the implementation of the mitigation measures and regional requirements, NOx emissions would remain above the thresholds established by the SCAQMD and would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 4.2-12 requiring transportation demand management (TDM) measures and energy efficient measures would reduce criteria pollutants from long-term/operational aspects of development in the DTSP area to an extent, but not to a less than significant level. The EIR determined that implementation of the DTSP Update project will generate emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance for both ROG and PM10 resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. Consequently, project-specific impacts that are significant and unavoidable remain significant and unavoidable when studied in a cumulative sense as well. The EIR concluded that construction and operation of projects in the DTSP area would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from mobile sources such as motor vehicles traveling to and from the site and stationary sources such as natural gas combustion for heating and electricity consumption. The EIR recommends mitigation measures that are consistent with measures recommended by the California Climate Action Team and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the DTSP Update requires all projects to incorporate sustainable building practices, which may include energy conservation measures. PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 5 (09sr59EIR 08-001) B. Circulation Element Goal CE 2: Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. Policy CE 2.1.1: Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) not to exceed LOS "D" for intersections during the peak hours. The EIR includes a detailed traffic analysis of the proposed project and cumulative development. The traffic analysis included a detailed assessment of existing traffic conditions as well as Year 2020 with Project and Year 2030 with Project conditions. The traffic analysis studied 24 intersections, four network alternatives and pedestrian-only phased signal improvements at Pacific Coast Highway and 1st Street and Pacific Coast Highway and 6th Street. With implementation of mitigation measures, all impacts related to traffic from implementation of the DTSP Update can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Obiective CE 2.3: Ensure that the location, intensity and timing of new development is consistent with the provision of adequate transportation infrastructure and standards as defined in the Land Use Element. Policy CE 2.3.1: Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. The EIR studied four network alternatives, pedestrian-only phased signal improvements and other circulation improvements proposed in Chapter 5 —Circulation and Parking of the DTSP Update. The analysis concluded that the circulation improvements proposed in the DTSP Update would not introduce design features incompatible with current circulation patterns. C. Coastal Element Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Obiective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Policy C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. The proposed LCPA reflects the changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements as a result of changes that are proposed in the DTSP Update. The DTSP Update does not propose changes to the existing districts of the DTSP that encompass the beach and pier. However, the DTSP does propose to allow tiered beach parking structure on the existing beach surface parking lots. The provisions of the PC Staff Report—10/06/09 6 (09sr59EIR 08-001) DTSP require that any tiered beach parking or parking structure shall not result in the loss of recreational sand area and the top of such structures shall be located at the same elevation of the sidewalk adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway or a minimum of one foot below the maximum height of the adjacent bluff to ensure that coastal resources are protected. The EIR recommends mitigation measures that would reduce adverse impacts to the greatest extent feasible. However, the EIR identifies four areas in which impacts, with mitigation, would be significant and unavoidable. The EIR analyzes environmental impacts from net new development that is anticipated to occur over a 20-year period. The DTSP area is generally built-out and net new development would occur on scattered vacant lots, underutilized parcels and redevelopment of existing parcels. The EIR concludes that adequate public services would be available to serve the new development that is anticipated, with the exception of Fire services, which may require upgrades to existing facilities and staffing levels as new development occurs. Because the extent of needed upgrades is unknown at this time, impacts to Fire services were determined to be significant and unavoidable. In addition, future projects would be required to connect to existing infrastructure and, if necessary, upgrades would be required at the time development is proposed. Each project would be reviewed to determine if upgrades or improvements would be required. Finally, a water supply assessment was prepared for the DTSP Update, which concluded that water supply is available to accommodate the net new development anticipated in the DTSP area. D. Environmental Hazards Element Goal EH 1: Ensure that the number of deaths and injuries, levels of property damage, levels of economic and social disruption and interruption of vital services resulting from seismic activity and geologic hazards shall be within acceptable levels of risk. Objective EH 1.1: Ensure that land use planning in the City accounts for seismic and geologic risk, including groundshaking, liquefaction, subsidence, soil and slope stability and water table levels. Objective EH 1.2: Ensure that new structures are designed to minimize damage resulting from seismic hazards, ensure that existing unsafe structures are retrofitted to reduce hazards and mitigate other existing unsafe conditions. Policy EH 1.2.1: Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction such as stated in the Uniform Building Code. The EIR analyzed potential impacts related to environmental hazards. Development as a result of implementation of the proposed DTSP Update would expose people and/or structures to potentially adverse effects from seismic activity, groundshaking, or liquefaction. Code Requirement 4.4-1 and Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 require that development projects submit a grading plan containing the recommendations of the final required soils and geotechnical analysis that would reduce a project's impacts from seismically induced groundshaking and related ground failure to a less than significant level. Goal EH 3: Ensure the safety of the City's businesses and residents from methane hazards. PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 7 (09sr59EIR 08-001) Objective EH 3.2: Minimize methane hazards in the identified Methane Overlay District, and other areas outside the Methane Overlay Districts as may later be defined, through the regulation of construction and adherence to the City's Methane Hazard Mitigation Plan. Policy EH 3.2.2: Establish, enforce, and periodically update testing requirements for sites proposed for new construction within the identified Methane Overlay District. The entire DTSP area is located within a Methane Overlay District as identified in the General Plan. The Fire Department requires a developer to implement a site soils testing plan at a project site in accordance with standard City specification No. 429 to determine the presence of methane gas. If methane gas is detected, a Remediation Plan would be required, subject to review and approval by the Fire Department. E. Environmental Resources/Conservation Element Goal ERC 2: Protect and preserve significant habitats of plant and wildlife species, including wetlands, for their intrinsic values. Policy ERC 2.1.10: Conduct construction activities to minimize adverse impacts on existing wildlife resources. Mitigation Measure 4.14-1 requires nesting surveys for sensitive or protected migratory avian species prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities, including impact-avoidance measures, to ensLire that the substantial loss of these species will not occur. F. Growth Management Element Goal GM 1: Provide adequate police services to meet the needs of the City's population. Policy GM 1.1.7: Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize policing safety and security. Goal GM 2: Provide adequate fire and paramedic services to meet the needs of the City's population. Policy GM 2.1.2: Provide a 5-minute response time for emergency fire services at least 80 percent of the time. Policy GM 2.1.3: Provide a 5-minute response time for paramedic services at least 80 percent of the time. Policy GM 2.1.4: Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize fire safety and prevention. The EIR includes an analysis of potential impacts related to police and fire services and both departments were consulted in the preparation of the EIR. Implementation of the proposed project PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 8 (09sr59EIR 08-001) would not require any new or physically altered police facilities to maintain adequate response time and staffing. To maximize policing safety and security, Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1 is recommended requiring that all projects be designed to provide for safety measures such as alarm systems and security lighting subject to review by the Police Department. Code Requirement 4.10-1 requires all projects to incorporate fire protection improvements, including access requirements and modernization of existing equipment/systems, subject to review by the Fire Department. The Fire Department indicated that new development that would occur as a result of the DTSP Update would require a proportionate increase in Fire Services to maintain acceptable response times. Although, the Fire Department currently operates within acceptable levels of service, the Fire Department has indicated that the closest station to the DTSP area, Fire Station 5 located at 530 Lake Street, is currently operating at maximum response times. Recommended mitigation measures would require that fees collected from projects would be deposited into the City's General Fund and allocated to City services to ensure that the DTSP area is served within acceptable response times and adequate staffing and equipment levels are maintained. However, because additional fire personnel, facilities or equipment may be needed for future development projects, and it is unknown where or how these additions may be provided, the EIR concludes that impacts on Fire Services are significant and unavoidable. G. Hazardous Materials Element Goal HM 1: Reduce, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for harm to life, property, and the environment from hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Objective HM 1.1: Promote the proper handling, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 ensure remediation of contaminated soils containing hazardous materials, if any, prior to development of a proposed project and by providing supplemental procedures in the event of unanticipated discoveries of contaminants during construction. H. Historic and Cultural Resources Element Objective HCR 1.1: Ensure that all of the City's historically and archaeologically significant resources are identified and protected. The EIR documents all recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project. Although three archeological sites have been recorded in the DTSP area, these sites no longer exist. As a conservative measure, the EIR recommends Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 in the event that resources are uncovered during site work. The EIR also identifies historic resources that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places in addition to local landmarks that are listed in the Historic and Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 requires projects that propose development on properties listed on any national or state register of historic places or in the Historic and Cultural Resources Element to submit a report from a qualified architectural historian regarding the significance of existing structures on the project site. Based on the findings of the report, further mitigation may be required. However, because it is unknown if future development projects would result in removal or demolition of historic resources, including PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 9 (09sr59EIR 08-001) those that are not yet recorded, impacts to historic and cultural resources are significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. I. Housing Element Goal H 2: Provide adequate housing sites to accommodate regional housing needs. Goal H 3: Assist in development of affordable housing. The EIR includes an analysis of the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) future housing need as determined by SCAG population projections. Under the existing land use designations, residential uses are permitted within mixed-use and residential districts. However, development under the existing specific plan is constrained. The DTSP Update anticipates 648 residential units during the life of the Plan, which would provide needed housing for the City and the region, contributing to the City's progress towards meeting its RHNA numbers. Projects would also be required to, comply with the City's affordable housing requirements, ensuring development of affordable housing within the DTSP area. J. Land Use Element Goal L U 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. Policy LU 2.1.2: Require that the type, amount, and location of development be correlated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and services (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). Policy L U 2.1.6: Monitor the capacities of other infrastructure (water, sewer, and other) and services and establish appropriate limits on development should their utilization and demands for service exceed acceptable levels of service. The EIR analyzes the proposed project's impact on supporting infrastructure and services and found that the demand of the project would be less than significant through implementation of code requirements and mitigation measures, with the exception of impacts related to Fire services. Mitigation Measure 4.13-5 requires the preparation of a sewer study for individual projects to verify that water pipes will be available to adequately support each project. Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-3 ensure that runoff from future projects are treated prior to discharge into the City storm drain system. Implementation of existing regulations along with Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-3 would reduce potential pollutant loads and ensure that appropriate construction and operation of stormwater treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used. Existing regulatory requirements would ensure that construction of any stormwater drainage facilities would not result in substantial environmental effects and potential impacts would be less than significant. Water supply analyses conclude that development from implementation of the DTSP Update would not result in significant impacts on water supply. PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 10 (09sr59E1R 08-001) K. Noise Element - Goal N 1: Ensure that all necessary and appropriate actions are taken to protect Huntington Beach residents, employees, visitors, and noise sensitive uses from the adverse impacts created by excessive noise levels from stationary and ambient sources. Policy N 1.2.1: Require, in areas where noise levels exceed an exterior Lan of 60 dB(A) and an interior Lan of 45 dB(A), that all new development of "noise sensitive" land uses, such as housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, and religious facilities, include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits. Policy N 1.2.3: Require development, in all areas where the ambient noise level exceeds an Lan of 60 dB(A), to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate special design measures in their construction, thereby, reducing interior noise levels to the 45 dB(A) Lan level. The EIR includes a noise analysis consistent with CEQA requirements. The EIR includes a mitigation measure that requires a noise assessment with noise reduction measures for commercial and mixed use projects within 50 feet of residential uses to ensure compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. In addition, mixed use projects would be required to locate noise generating equipment, such as air conditioning units and exhaust fans, away from residential units to the extent possible per the proposed provisions of the DTSP Update. In addition, projects would be required to minimize noise transmission between commercial and residential uses through the use of building materials to mitigate sound transmission or configuration of interior spaces to minimize sound amplification. With thcse requirements, the impact on ambient noise levels associated with implementation of the project would be less than significant. Policy N 1.2.5: Require development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the acceptable limits of the City noise ordinance. Increases in traffic as a result of the project could increase the ambient noise levels for residential uses adjacent to the streets within the 65 CNEL noise contour, specifically Pacific Coast Highway, Main Street and Goldenwest Street. The EIR recommends a mitigation measure that requires a noise assessment and noise reduction measures for projects proposed with residential uses along these streets. The mitigation measure would ensure that sensitive land uses would not experience significant noise levels in accordance with General plan policies. Objective N 1.6: Minimize the impacts of construction noise on adjacent uses. Policy N 1.6.1: Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish hours of operation, to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise impacts through the implementation of the existing Noise Ordinance and/or any future revisions to the Noise Ordinance. Under the City's Municipal Code, construction activities can only occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM from Monday through Saturday. Future projects will be required to adhere to these requirements in order to mitigate excessive or adverse noise sources associated with construction PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 11 (09sr59EIR 08-001) activities. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 and Code Requirement 4.8-1 ensure that impacts associated with construction activities resulting from implementation of the proposed project are minimized to the maximum extent feasible. However, even with limitations on pile driving activities, a temporary increase in ambient noise levels will occur and is considered significant and unavoidable. L. Public Facilities and Services Element Objective PF 1.1: Provide adequate police facilities and personnel to correspond with population and service demands, and provide protection for the community from illicit activities and crime. Policy PF 1.3.2: Ensure that new development and land use proposals are analyzed to determine the impact on their operators, occupants, visitors, or customers may have on the safety and welfare of the community. The EIR includes an analysis of impacts to police facilities and services. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly impact the level of service delivery for the project area and would not require any new or physically altered police facilities to maintain adequate response times and staffing. However, to further ensure the safety of residents in future developments, Mitigation Measure MM 4.10-1 is recommended requiring that all projects be designed to provide for safety measures such as alarm systems and security lighting subject to review by the Police Department. Goal PF 2: Ensure adequate protection from fire and medical emergencies for Huntington Beach residents and property owners. Policy PF 2.3.1: Continue to require all structures to follow all State and nationally recognized fire codes. The EIR includes an analysis of impacts related to Fire Department services and emergency response. Code Requirement 4.10-1 requires all projects to incorporate fire protection improvements, including access requirements and modernization of existing equipment/systems, subject to review by the Fire Department. The Fire Department indicated that new development that would occur as a result of the DTSP Update would require a proportionate increase in Fire Services to maintain acceptable response times. Although, the Fire Department currently operates within acceptable levels of service, the Fire Department has indicated that Fire Station 5, the closest station to the DTSP area, is currently operating at capacity. Recommended mitigation measures would require that fees collected from projects would be deposited into the City's General Fund and allocated to City services to ensure that the DTSP area is served within acceptable response times and adequate staffing and equipment levels are maintained. However, because additional fire personnel, facilities or equipment may be needed for future development projects, and it is unknown where or how these additions may be provided, the EIR concludes that impacts on Fire Services are significant and unavoidable. Policy PF 4.2.3: Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities. The EIR includes an analysis of potential impacts to schools. The EIR documents that direct population growth resulting from the proposed project would not have an impact on the capacity of PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 12 (09sr59EIR 08-001) schools within the schools serving the project site. With the implementation of Code Requirements 4.10-2 and 4.10-3, fees collected would offset any additional increase in educational demand at the -- elementary school, middle school, and high school levels serving the DTSP area. Objective PF 5.1: Provide adequate library service that responds to the needs of the community. The EIR includes an analysis of potential impacts to library service. The existing library facilities are reasonably adequate to accommodate the increase in users from the proposed project. However, implementation of Code Requirement 4.10-5, payment of library and community enrichment impact fees, would ensure that Iibrary services would be adequate as growth occurs in the DTSP area. In addition, the proposed Cultural Arts Subdistrict, which is located in part on the existing Main Street Branch Library site, lists libraries as a permitted use and would allow for continuation of the library use on the site. This subdistrict reduces the number and type of uses that could be permitted on the library site from the existing DTSP and restricts the allowable uses to cultural arts-related and accessory uses, in addition to continuation of the existing library use. M. Recreation and Community Services Element Policy RCS 2.1.1: Maintain the current park per capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons, which includes the beach in the calculation. The EIR analyzes the project's potential impacts on recreation opportunities in the DTSP area. Code Requirement 4.11-1 ensures that recreational opportunities are provided through dedication of land or payment of fees to acquire, develop, improve, and expand the City's open space and parklands inventory. N. Urban Desikn Element Goal UD 1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach. Implementation of the project will change the visual character of the area and introduce new sources of light and glare. The EIR analyzes the potential impacts associated with these changes, including an analysis of impacts to scenic resources and vistas, particularly the beach, pier and Pacific Ocean. In terms of impacts on the existing visual character of the DTSP area, the EIR concludes that although the DTSP Update would result in more intense development due to increased density and building height allowances. However, proposed design guidelines, which encourage project designs to connect to the beach and "Surf City" theme of the DTSP area, and development standards, which require residential buffers and upper story setbacks, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level and ensure high quality designs and aesthetically appealing projects in the DTSP area. O. Utilities Element Policy U 1.1.1: Monitor the demands on the water system, manage the development to mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements to the water supply and distribution system, and maintain and expand water supply and distribution facilities. PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 13 (09sr59EIR 08-001) Policy U 1.3.2: Continue to require the incorporation of water conservation features in the design of all new and existing uses such as the use of native plants, low flow toilets and water efficient — - appliances. The EIR includes an analysis of the project's impact on water supply. The Final EIR includes additional water supply analyses to further support the conclusions of the draft EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in water demand. To minimize the amount of water required to serve the anticipated development potential, consistent with the City's conservation programs and statewide efforts, a mitigation measure is recommended requiring each individual project to implement separate water conservation measures to comply with statewide water conservation goals of a 20 percent reduction in water use. To ensure adequate water supply for future developments, and to be consistent with Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221, a separate water supply assessment will be required for all projects that propose residential development of more than .500 dwelling units, a commercial building greater than 250,000 sq.ft, a hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms, or a project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units. Policy U 1.2.2: Require new developments to connect to the sewer system. Polite U 2.1.6: Require that sewer capacity is available before building permits are issued for new development. Implementation of the proposed project could require new sewer connections and construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance systems for future developments. Projects would be required to pay a fee for connection to the Orange County Sanitation District, based on the increase in anticipated use of the sewage system. The fee ensures that all users pay their share of any necessary expansion of the system, including expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. Mitigation Measure 4.13-5 requires the preparation of a sewer study for individual projects to verify that water pipes will be available to adequately support each project. Policy U 3.1.6: During development review, determine if any structures meant for human habitation are constructed within the 100-year flood plain. If necessary, evaluate the structures' flood safety, and require remedial actions. The EIR indicates that the majority of the DTSP is located in flood zone X and is outside of the 100- year flood plain. The EIR also recommends Mitigation Measure 4.6-2, which requires hydrology and hydraulic studies for all projects including an analysis of 10-, 25- and 100-year storms and back-to- back storm events. Objective U 3.3: Ensure that storm drain facilities (channels and outputs) do not generate significant adverse impacts on the environment in which the facilities traverse or empty. Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-3 ensure that runoff from future projects are treated prior to discharge into the City storm drain system. Implementation of existing regulations along with Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-3 would reduce potential pollutant loads and ensure that appropriate construction and operation of stormwater treatment control Best Management Practices PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 14 (09sr59EIR 08-001) (BMPs) are used. Existing regulatory requirements would ensure that construction of any stormwater drainage facilities would not result in substantial environmental effects and potential impacts would be _ — less than significant. Zoning Compliance: Not applicable. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), EIR No. 08-001 was prepared by Hodge & Associates/RRM Design Group to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project as well as identify appropriate mitigation measures. The Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission for review at the start of the 45-day public comment period on July 20, 2009. The Final Draft EIR, including the Response to Comments and all text changes, was distributed to the Planning Commission and posted on the City's website on September 25, 2009. The document must be adopted and certified by the Planning Commission prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 and 7onifig Next Amendment No. 08-004. The procedure that was followed during the preparation of EIR No. 08-00f is outlined below: November 2008 Staff conducted an initial study and determined that an FIR would be required. November 6, 2008 A Notice of Preparation was filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify public of intent to prepare an EIR. November 6, 2008 to December 5, Initial Study/Notice of Preparation available for 30 day public 2008 review and comment period. November 19, 2008 A Public Scoping Meeting was held to solicit comments and issue areas to be studied in the EIR. July 20, 2009 A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse. July 20, 2009 to September 2, 2009 Draft EIR available for public review and comment for forty-five days. August 13, 2009 A Public Comment Meeting was held to solicit comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. October 6, 2009 Public hearing is scheduled before Planning Commission to Certify EIR No. 08-001. PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 15 (09sr59EIR OM,01.) Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. There are, however, four project-specific and four cumulative adverse environmental impacts anticipated from the proposed project that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures. The adverse environmental impacts are as follows: Air Quality • Project Specific — Short-term: Peak construction activities associated with the proposed DTSP would generate air emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. This is based on a "worst case" scenario of potentially 50 acres concurrently under construction with multiple projects. Long-term: Reactive Organic Compounds (ROG) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM10 ) emissions will exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and be considered significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. • Cumulative—Reactive Organic Compounds (ROG) and Fine Particulate Matter (PMio) emissions will continue to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and be considered significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. Cultural Resources ® Project Specific — Impacts to historical resources are considered potentially significant since specific development projects may be proposed that could impact historical buildings and historical resources within the DTSP area, including unrecorded resources that may become significant within the 20-year Plan period. ® Cumulative — Implementation of proposed mitigation measures will reduce impacts to cultural resources, however, the cumulative effects could be cumulatively considerable because it is currently infeasible to determine if specific development proposals under the DTSP would result in demolition or removal of historical or cultural resources. Noise • Project Specific —Pile driving activities would result in substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. ■ Cumulative — Pile driving activities would result in construction related temporary increases in ambient noise levels, resulting in a cumulative impact. Public Services ■ Project Specific—Additional fire personnel, facilities, and/or equipment may be needed in relation to future development proposals per the DTSP Update, and it is unknown as to where or how these additions may be provided. ® Cumulative — Any increases in personnel and/or equipment would necessitate the expansion of existing facilities or development of a new station, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts, which cannot be fully determined at this time. Recommended mitigation measures would ensure that the DTSP area is served within established response times and adequate staffing and equipments levels are maintained, however, potential impacts are still considered a cumulative impact. PC Staff Report—I0/06/09 16 (09sr59EIR 08-001) Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) must be prepared prior to approval of the project. The SOC would describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The SOC for the Downtown Specific Plan Update is part of the general plan amendment, local coastal program amendment and zoning text amendment staff report. Environmental Board: The City's Environmental Board reviewed the EIR and provided a comment letter during the NOP process. In summary, the Board commented on the following: concerns regarding allowable density and building height increases and the elimination of FAR requirements, the lack of open space areas in the DTSP area and traffic. The Board also commented that sustainability should be a goal and requirement of the DTSP. This comment is addressed in the Plan as all projects are required to incorporate sustainable practices. Finally, the Board cited concerns regarding the elimination of the Resource Production Overlay. However, the final recommendation is to put the Resource Production Overlay back into the DTSP as it currently exists. Coastal Status: The entire DTSP area is located within the City's coastal zone. The EIR analyzes the proposed changes to the City's certified Local Coastal Program. Upon adoption of the project by the Planning Commission and City Council, the DTSP Update will be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for final action. The changes proposed in the DTSP Update will not be effective until the Coastal Commission takes action on the project. Redevelopment Status: A majority of the DTSP area is located within a Redevelopment Project area. Design Review Board: See companion report for GPA and ZTA. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The EIR was circulated to other Departments for review and comment. All Department comments and recommendations are incorporated into the EIR and its mitigation measures. As development of the proposed project occurs, compliance with mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Refer to Resolution No. 1635 Exhibit A). Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on September 24, 2009, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within the DTSP area and a 1,000 ft. radius of the DTSP area, interested parties, and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 17 (09sr59EIR 08-001) document. As of September 29, 2009, no communications on the draft EIR, other than letters included in the Final EIR/Response to Comments, have been received. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): • Draft EIR: April 10, 2009 Within 1 year of complete application; May 20, 2010 • General Plan Amendment; Zoning Text Amendment; Local Coastal Program Amendment: May 20, 2009 Not Applicable ANALYSIS: The analysis section provides an overview of the EIR and its conclusions, a review of the project alternatives, and a summary of the response to comments. EIR Overview The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. It is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR discusses potential adverse impacts in 14 issue areas. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. A summary of key issues and mitigation measures as a result of the environmental impact report process is provided below. A complete listing of the recommended mitigation measures is provided in the Mitigation Monitoring Program provided as Attachment No. 3. o Aesthetics Implementation of the project will change the visual character of the area and introduce new sources of light and glare. The EIR analyzes the potential impacts associated with these changes, including an analysis of impacts to scenic resources and vistas, particularly the beach, pier and Pacific Ocean. The EIR concludes that impacts associated with light and glare from new development could be potentially significant and recommends implementation of a standard code requirement that requires a project lighting/photometric plan for projects to demonstrate that lighting levels will not impact surrounding properties and uses. In terms of impacts on the existing visual character of the DTSP area, the EIR concludes that although the DTSP Update would result in more intense development due to increased density and building height allowances, the project's proposed design guidelines and development standards, which require residential buffers and upper story setbacks, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 18 (09sr59EIR 08-001) ♦ Air Quality - Air quality modeling was completed by Mestre Greve to assess construction (short-term) and operational (long-term) impacts related to the project. The EIR analyzed the following emissions: Carbon Monoxide (CO), Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2,5), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Sulfur Oxides (SOx), Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). In addition, the EIR examined if localized CO concentrations at nearby intersections would be increased beyond state and national standards as a result of increased vehicle traffic. Short-term/Construction Impacts The EIR recommends Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 to improve air quality emissions during construction. The mitigation measure identifies Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) to minimize construction dust, exhaust emissions from construction equipment and VOC emissions from paint and architectural coatings. The EIR also discusses requirements for all projects to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which would also reduce short-term/construction emissions. However, even with the implementation of the mitigation measures and regional requirements, NOx emissions would remain above the thresholds established by the SCAQMD and would remain significant and unavoidable. Long-term/Operational Impacts The EIR determined that implementation of the DTSP Update will generate emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance for both ROG and PM10 resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. These impacts are due primarily to emissions from mobile sources, such as vehicles, traveling to, from and within the DTSP area. Mitigation Measure 4.2-12 requiring transportation demand management (TDM) measures and energy efficient measures would reduce criteria pollutants to an extent but not to a less than significant level. Project specific impacts that are significant and unavoidable remain significant and unavoidable when studied in a cumulative sense as well. The EIR examined if localized CO concentrations at nearby intersections would be increased beyond state and national standards as a result of increased vehicle traffic. The EIR analysis determined that the proposed project will not cause localized CO concentrations at nearby intersections to exceed national or state ambient air quality standards. Therefore, "hot spots" are not anticipated to occur at local intersections as a result of project implementation. Greenhouse Gases The EIR concludes that construction and operation of development that occurs with implementation of the DTSP Update would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from mobile sources such as motor vehicles traveling to and from the site and stationary sources such as natural gas combustion for heating and electricity consumption. Mitigation Measures 4.2-2 through 4.2-12 include measures that are consistent with strategies recommended by the California Climate Action Team and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's for reducing climate change emissions, which would ensure that construction and operational impacts from the project remain less than significant with respect to climate change. PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 19 (09sr59EIR 08-001) ♦ Biological Resources Impacts to biological resources were found to be less than significant during the NOP/Initial Study process. Therefore, the EIR does not include an analysis of potential impacts to biological resources. However, a standard mitigation measure is included to ensure that projects would not result in impacts to sensitive or protected migratory avian species during construction. ♦ Cultural Resources According to the cultural resources records check completed for the project, seven archeological studies have been conducted within or adjacent to the DTSP area in which three archeological sites have been recorded. Two of the sites are associated with the Pacific City project and testing, monitoring and data recovery were carried out under that project. The third site was recorded 25 years after it destroyed. A collection of artifacts from this site was donated to the Bowers Museum. The EIR also discloses that four properties within the DTSP area are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, 24 properties within the DTSP area are listed in the General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element. The EIR includes Mitigation Measure 4.3-1, which requires a report from a qualified architectural historian for any project that proposes development on a site listed or eligible for listing on a national or state historic register or that is listed in the General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element. Based on the report, further mitigation may be required. The EIR also includes Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 to be implemented in the event that archeological resources, paleontological resources or human remains are encountered during construction. The EIR concludes that project-specific and cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be significant and unavoidable because it is not known if specific development proposals under the DTSP Update would result in demolition or removal of cultural/historic resources. In addition, it is unknown whether future development projects would be proposed on previously unrecorded historic resources during the life of the specific plan. ♦ Geology and Soils The EIR includes an analysis of existing geology, seismicity and soil conditions within the DTSP area that would be conducive to geological constraints such as liquefaction or expansive soils. The EIR concludes that implementation of the DTSP Update will require project-specific submittal of a detailed soils and geotechnical analysis in accordance with City standard requirements for future development proposals. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 requires compliance and implementation of the recommendations of all soils and geotechnical studies. With incorporation of recommended mitigation measures and applicable City requirements, all impacts would be less than significant. ♦ Hazards and Hazardous Materials The EIR analyzes the potential for adverse impacts associated with hazardous materials on human health and the environment resulting from project implementation. Future development projects would be required to comply with City specifications for soil testing and remediation. Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 PC Staff Report—10/06/09 20 (09sr59EIR 08-001) and 4.5-2 require additional site assessments to ensure that hazardous materials and contaminated soils are identified and remediated and additional measures to be implemented in the event that hazardous materials are encountered during construction. With incorporation of recommended mitigation measures and applicable City requirements, all impacts would be less than significant. e Hydrology and Water Quality Implementation of the DTSP Update would result in more development at a greater intensity than the existing DTSP and therefore, the project would result in impacts to hydrology and water quality. Because no specific development is proposed, the EIR identifies mitigation measures recommended for incorporation in future development projects. The recommended mitigation measures require submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and hydrology and hydraulic studies for individual projects. The mitigation measures also require compliance with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements in place at the time of project construction. Other mitigation measures require a project's landscape plans to comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and identification of planning and safety measures for projects proposed within a tsunami run-up area. The EIR concludes that impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. ® Land Use and Planning The proposed project consists of legislative acts to implement the DTSP Update. The changes proposed in the DTSP Update are intended to facilitate redevelopment in the DTSP area. As previously mentioned in the Background section of this report, the City Council directed an update to the existing DTSP to accommodate and provide for future development in the DTSP area. The changes that are proposed in the DTSP Update include increases in allowable building heights and densities and the elimination of FAR requirements in the proposed District 1 — Downtown Core. The uses permitted in District 1 are similar to the uses permitted in the existing DTSP districts (1, 3, 5 and portions of 4 and 6) that make up the consolidated District I and would not result in a substantial change in the existing land use pattern of the DTSP. The DTSP also proposes two subdistricts for District 1. The Cultural Arts Subdistrict consists of the Main Street library site, the Huntington Beach Art Center site as well as properties north of Acacia. This subdistrict reduces the number and type of uses that could be permitted on the library site from the existing DTSP and restricts the allowable uses to cultural arts-related and accessory uses, in addition to continuation of the existing library use. The Neighborhood Subdistrict located on Ist and 2nd Streets between Walnut and Orange Avenues, proposes to allow residential and mixed use (office/residential) development as currently permitted for this area in the existing DTSP. The proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element reflect the consolidation of the 11 existing districts into seven districts as well as proposed increases in allowable building heights and densities and the elimination of FAR requirements in the DTSP Update. The changes to the Circulation Element include updating Figure CE-9, Bike Plan, to include new bicycle lanes proposed in the DTSP Update. The amendment to the Coastal Element reflects the changes that are proposed for the Land Use and Circulation Elements in addition to policies that would be amended to reflect the project's elimination of the Downtown Parking Master Plan as well as the elimination of adherence to a Mediterranean style of architecture in the DTSP area. PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 21 (09sr59EIR 08-001) The proposed land use designations would revise land use designations for District 1 (downtown core) and District 4 (established residential). Currently, the proposed District 1 is subject to six different land use designations mostly consisting of various ranges of mixed use designations and densities, except for the Main Street Library site, which is part of the proposed Cultural Arts Subdistrict and currently has a P (Public) land use designation. The proposed land use designation for District 1 would consolidate the various mixed use designations and one public designation into one mixed use designation, although the existing District 6 designation for the site allows mixed use developments. Revisions to the land use designations in the proposed District 4 would revise existing mixed use and residential-high density designations to residential high density. This revision would reflect the existing land uses that are currently developed and would be consistent with the permitted land uses and development standards of the proposed District 4. The land use designations for the remaining districts are not proposed to change from current designations. TABLE 3-Proposed Land Use Design tions Proposed District# EXisting GP land use Proposed GP land use ,designation designation 1 -Downtown Core Mixed- MV-F8-d-sp M->30-d-sp-pd Use MV-F12-sp-pd MV-F6/25-sp-pd MH-F4/30-sp-pd P M-F 11/25-sp-pd 2-Visitor-Serving Mixed- CV-F7-sp CV-F7-sp Use 3-Visitor-Serving CV-F7-sp CV-F7-sp Recreation 4-Established Residential RH-30-d-sp RH->30-d-sp MH-F4/30-sp-pd M-F11/25-sp-pd 5-Multi-Family Residential RH-30-sp RH-30-sp 6-Pier CV-d CV-d-sp 7-Beach OS-S OS-S Legend CV' Commercial Visitor. F7(3.0 Floor Area Ratio) OS-S Open Space Shore 530(greater than,30 dwelling units per acre) M ..NHxed:Use 30(30 dwelling units per acre} RH=Res�deiltiai'H gh Density sp(specific plan`ove lay) p (pedestrian overlay) -d(design oveda The EIR states that the proposed DTSP Update would be compatible with existing DTSP and adjacent land uses and would not substantially change the mix of uses that are currently permitted in the DTSP. Although the DTSP Update would represent intensification of land use by increasing allowable densities, building heights and overall development potential, the change in intensity is compatible with and comparable to the mix of land uses with the DTSP area and other planned or approved projects in the City. The EIR concludes that impacts to land use and planning would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 22 (09sr59EIR 08-001) ♦ Noise Potential noise impacts relate to short-term construction activities and long-term changes in ambient conditions primarily related to increases in traffic were analyzed in the EIR. Ambient noise levels were measured at ten locations within the DTSP area and roadway noise levels were calculated using data from the traffic study. In terms of the short-term noise impacts from construction, the City's noise ordinance exempts noise associated with construction provided the construction takes place between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday. Despite this exemption, to further reduce impacts the EIR recommends Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-1 to implement noise attenuation measures during project construction. Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-1 also recommends locating construction staging areas as far as possible from residences and other sensitive noise receptors. Even with mitigation, noise levels during pile driving would raise the ambient noise levels to a significant level. Although no development is proposed in the DTSP Update, it is likely that pile-driving would occur for any proposals that include subterranean parking structures. This construction related temporary increase in noise levels would be significant and unavoidable in terms of project-specific and cumulative impacts. In order to ensure that long-term noise levels do not exceed the City of Huntington Beach exterior and interior noise standards for residential uses within the DTSP area, Mitigation Measure 4.8-2, which addresses noise impacts from traffic, and Mitigation Measure 4.8-3, which addresses noise from commercial and mixed-use projects, require submittal of a detailed noise assessment and identification of noise reduction measures to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. ♦ Population and Housing This section of the EIR analyzes the potential for the project to induce population and employment growth beyond current growth projections and the impacts on housing. The development potential analyzed for the DTSP Update includes 648 net new residential units. These new units would result in potentially 1,562 new residents to the area. In addition, new retail, restaurant, hotel and office development would indirectly contribute to daytime population growth. The project would provide increases to needed housing to the City and the region, contributing to the City's progress towards meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. The DTSP Update was not considered when population projections were developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). However, the SCAG projections were based on the build-out scenarios of the City's General Plan. The EIR states that the growth anticipated in the General Plan has not occurred at the level/density of what was anticipated and as such, population increases have been below projections by SCAG. Because the population and housing growth that would occur with implementation of the DTSP Update would be within the amount of growth contemplated by the General Plan, impacts to population and housing are less than significant and the EIR does not recommend any mitigation. ♦ Public Services The EIR evaluates the effects of the proposed project on public services (fire, police, schools, libraries and parks) by identifying anticipated demands on existing and planned service availability. All impacts on public services as a result of the proposed DTSP Update were found to be less than significant with the exception of Fire Services. The Police Department concluded that the additional number of officers needed to accommodate the population growth anticipated by the DTSP Update can be absorbed by PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 23 (09sr59EIR 08-001) existing staffing levels. In addition, the EIR states that new projects are subject to review by City departments, including the Police Department. Conditions of approval can be incorporated into a proposed project or use, which can serve to reduce impacts on demand for police services. Incorporation of safety measures and design features in a project, as required by Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, would further reduce impacts from increased demand for police services. The EIR also identifies standard code requirements, which require payment of development impact fees to address a project's impacts on other public services and facilities such as schools, libraries and parks. With the implementation of code requirements and recommended mitigation measures the EIR concludes that impacts on police, schools, libraries and parks are less than significant. The level of service provided by the Fire Department is based on response times. The Fire Department indicated that new development that would occur as a result of the DTSP Update would require a proportionate increase in Fire Services to maintain acceptable response times. Although, the Fire Department currently operates within acceptable levels of service, the Fire Department has indicated that Fire Station 5, the closest station to the DTSP area, is currently operating at maximum response times. Recommended mitigation measures would require that fees collected from projects would be deposited into the City's General Fund and allocated to City services to ensure that the DTSP area is served within acceptable response times and adequate staffing and equipment levels are maintained. However, because additional fire personnel, facilities or equipment may be needed for future development projects, and it is unknown where or how these additions may be provided, the EIR concludes that impacts on Fire Services are significant and unavoidable. ® Recreation The EIR analyzes the potential net new development that is anticipated to occur with implementation of the DTSP Update over an approximately 20-year time span. The City requires that projects dedicate parkland, improve parkland, pay park in-lieu fees, or some combination thereof, to ensure that adequate recreation facilities are available. With the implementation of code requirement CR 4.12-1 at the time of development, payment of applicable park fees and/or dedication of land, would ensure no significant impacts to recreation opportunities. s Transportation/Traffic The EIR examines the potential impacts related to traffic generation, circulation and parking demand. A traffic study was completed by Kimley-Horn and Associates that includes an analysis of existing traffic conditions, cumulative conditions with and without the project in Year 2020 and cumulative conditions with and without the project in Year 2030 to assess potential impacts at project buildout and the long-term effect of the project in conjunction with other growth. The traffic study also analyzed impacts from the implementation of pedestrian improvements identified in Chapter 5 — Parking and Circulation of the DTSP Update, which includes pedestrian-only phases for signal operation at the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway and I" Street and Pacific Coast Highway and 6 h Street. Finally, the traffic study analyzed four network alternatives: ■ Alternative 1 —Main Street closure from Pacific Coast Highway to Orange, with no cross traffic on Olive and Walnut Avenues ■ Alternative 2 — Main Street closure from Pacific Coast Highway to Orange, with cross traffic on Olive and Walnut Avenues PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 24 (09sr59EIR 08-001) ■ Alternative 3 —Main Street closure from Walnut Avenue to Olive Avenue only ■ Alternative 4—61h Street realignment between Orange Avenue and Main Street Alternatives I — 3 are not proposed in the DTSP Update but were analyzed in the traffic study to address alternative configurations for Main Street that have been discussed as potential options in the past. Only Alternative 4 is included in Chapter 5 —Circulation and Parking and the DTSP Update as a future option. As defined by the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element, an acceptable level of service (LOS) for intersections is LOS D. Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS E or F is considered deficient/ unsatisfactory. In addition, an intersection is also considered impacted if the LOS is E or F and the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value changes by 0.01 or more. Out of 24 intersections evaluated in the vicinity of the project area, the EIR documents that Year 2020 with Project conditions would result in significant impacts at two intersections (Pacific Coast Highway/1st Street and Pacific Coast Highway/6t" street) in the PM peak hour if the pedestrian-only phases are implemented. Year 2030 with Project conditions would result in significant impacts at the same intersections as Year 2020 conditions in addition to the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway/Goldenwest Street and Orange Avenue/Lake Street in the PM peak hour. The EIR presents mitigation options to address the impacts from implementation of the pedestrian-only phase signal improvements, which would be required to be implemented by year 2020 or 2030 if they are not operational by 2020. The EIR also presents Mitigation Measure 4.12-2, which requires a right-turn overlap signal phasing for southbound Goldenwest Street. Implementation of this measure would reduce significant impacts at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 also identifies two options for reducing significant impacts to a less than significant level at the intersection of Lake Street and Orange Avenue by installing a signal at this intersection or providing additional eastbound and westbound through lanes, which would require the removal of parking on both sides of Orange Avenue. Either option would be required to be implemented by 2030 and would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. The EIR also addresses parking impacts in the DTSP area. Although, the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) is proposed to be eliminated, the DTSP incorporates parking requirements in Chapter 3 — Land Use and Development Standards of the DTSP Update. The recommended parking requirements would continue to allow reduced parking ratios for retail, restaurant and office uses as well as the continuation of the parking in-lieu fee program. Parking for residential and hotel uses would be required to provide all parking on-site. The EIR indicates that parking in the downtown is adequate with the exception of approximately 35 days per year, when it is difficult to find parking including 15 days per year when a parking deficiency is experienced. However, the parking deficiency occurs during special events and summer/holiday weekends when the number of visitors to the beach increases. To this end, recommendations for parking strategies to address this issue are provided in the DTSP Update. However, the EIR concludes that development projects as a result of implementation of the DTSP Update would be required to provide parking in accordance with the parking requirements in Chapter 3 of the DTSP Update, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant. s Utilities and Service Systems This section of the EIR analyzes potential impacts to water, wastewater, solid waste services and other utility systems. Implementation of future development would result in an increase in water demand. To ensure that the City has a sufficient supply of water available to serve development consistent with the PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 25 (09sr59E1R 08-001) City's conservation programs and statewide efforts, a mitigation measure regarding water conservation has been identified. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.13-1 requires coordination with utility and service providers prior to construction of a project. Implementation of a project could require new sewer connections and construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance systems. Mitigation Measure 4.13-4 requires a sewer study and additional hydraulic studies to determine sizing of line upgrades to accommodate a project's sewer flow. Finally, a mitigation measure is proposed to address the project's impacts on electrical services by requiring a project to pay its fair share toward infrastructure improvements for electrical systems. Impacts to other utilities and services such as solid waste were determined to be less than significant. The EIR concludes impacts related to utilities and service systems would either be less than significant or less than significant with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Alternatives to the Proposed Proms CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or its location that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision- making and public participation. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Three alternatives were selected for detailed analysis in the Draft EIR: ® Alternative 1: No Project Alternative — Assumes the DTSP area would continue to allow development under the standards and provisions of the existing DTSP. It is difficult to determine the amount of development that would be proposed under the existing DTSP. However, for comparative purposes, it is assumed that this alternative would result in the least amount of development of all three alternatives due to existing constraints such as buildout of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Development under the No Project Alternative could potentially range from no or very little development to substantial development/redevelopment similar to that of the proposed DTSP Update. As a conservative approach, this alternative assumes very little development would occur and therefore, all topical areas would result in less impacts than the proposed DTSP development potential. • Alternative 2: Conservative Market Demand Alternative — Assumes the DTSP area would develop based on the conservative market demand development potential of 203,350 square feet of retail uses, 75,783 square feet of restaurant uses, 108,814 square feet of office uses, 30,000 square feet of cultural arts uses, 268 residential units and no hotel uses. ® Alternative 3: Reduced Development Alternative — Assumes the DTSP would develop to 50% of the development potential analyzed for the proposed DTSP Update. The reduced development scenario includes: 106,733.5 square feet of retail uses, 46,166 square feet of restaurant uses, 46,392 square feet of office uses, 15,000 square feet of cultural arts uses, 324 residential units and 117 hotel rooms. PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 26 (09sr59EIR 08-001) TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED/ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Use Proposed DTSP Conservative Market Reduced Development Update Demand Alternative Alternative (Proposed Project (Alternative No. 2) Alternative No. 3 Retail 213,467 s.f. 203,350 s.f. 106,733.5 s.f. Restaurant 92,332 s.f. 75,783 s.f. 46,166 s.f. Office 92,784 s.f. 108,814 s.f. 467392 s.f. Cultural 30,000 s.f. 30,000 s.f. 15,000 s.f. Residential 648 units 268 units 324 units Hotel 235 rooms 0 rooms 117 rooms Note: Alternative 1 represents the No Project Alternative, which is the continuation of development under the existing DTSP. Alternative l assumes very little development would occur and therefore, is not included in the comparisons in Table 3. Alternative 1 would result in environmental impacts but not to the extent the proposed project or the other two alternatives would. In addition, Alternative I would reduce significant and unavoidable impacts in the areas of air quality and public services, but not cultural resources. Alternative 1 would not meet the identified project objectives. Alternative 2 would result in less impacts in all topical areas except Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards/Hazardous Materials and Land Use and Planning. Alternative 2 would not reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed DTSP Update development potential and would not meet the identified project objectives to the extent that the proposed project would, particularly those related to tourism since no hotel uses would be developed and office uses would increase. Alternative 3 would result in less impacts than the proposed project with the exception of Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards/Hazardous Materials and Land Use and Planning. While Alternative 3 may result in a reduction of most environmental impacts, mitigation would still be required in all of the same impact areas as the proposed project and it would not necessarily reduce the significance of the impacts below the proposed project. Alternative 3 would satisfy the identified project objectives but not to the extent that the proposed project would. The Draft EIR identifies Alternative 1 as the environmentally superior alternative. However, CEQA Guidelines require that if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Therefore, the environmentally superior alternative would be Alternative 3 — the Reduced Development Alternative. This is corrected in the errata of the Final EIR. Statement of Overriding Considerations Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant unavoidable impacts as described above in the Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Public Services sections, a Statement PC Staff Report—10/06/09 27 (09sr59EIR 08-001) of Overriding Considerations (SOC) is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The SOC is part of the companion report for this project. Public Comments on the Draft EIR and Errata Changes During the public review period,the City of Huntington Beach received a total of 21 comment letters from one state agency, four regional/local agencies, four organizations, and l l individuals. In addition, verbal comments were received at the public meeting held during the comment period. The most frequent verbal and written comments relate to traffic and parking, cultural resources and impacts from restaurant/alcohol- serving uses. The comments resulted in the need for changes to the EIR document itself to correct existing Citywide park acreages, the number of parking spaces in the downtown and the project alternatives. The corrections do not change the conclusions of the EIR analysis. All of the other comments are adequately addressed in the Response to Comments. The Final EIR includes a number of other revised text sections as a result of needed corrections as identified by staff or in response to comments from the Planning Commission at the September 9, 2009 Study Session. Notably, additional water demand analyses have been conducted by the Public Works Department and are included in the Final EIR. Clarifications regarding mitigation measures for air quality and utilities/service systems were also updated and corrected. Any written communication received subsequent to the preparation of this staff report will be forwarded to the Planning Commission under separate cover. SUMMARY: Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the Downtown Specific Plan Update project, alternatives that minimize those impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify EIR No. 08-001 because: ® The EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; ® The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project; and ® The EIR identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 1635 2. Final EIR No. 08-001, includes Draft EIR, EIR Appendices, Response To Comments and Text Changes (Not Attached - Available for Public Review at the Planning and Zoning Counter—3ra Floor, City Hall) SH:HF:MBB.jv PC Staff Report— 10/06/09 28 (09sr59EIR 08-001) RESOLUTION NO. 1635 - RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCI-I#2008011124) FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE PROTECT WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001, State Clearinghouse #2008011124, ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City")to address the environmental implications of the proposed Downtown Specific Plan Update Project (the "Project"). • On November 6, 2008, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies,trustee agencies and interested parties. • After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the public scoping meeting held on November 19, 2008, the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse on July 27, 2009. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from July 20, 2009 to September 2, 2009 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall, the Huntington Beach Main Street Branch Library, Rodgers Senior Center and the City's website; and WHEREAS, public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the Planning Commission as a section within a separately bound document entitled "Final Environmental Impact Report Downtown Specific Plan No. 5" (the "Responses to Comments"),dated September 2009; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code 21092.5(a) requires that the City of Huntington Beach provide a written proposed response to any public agency that commented on the Environmental Impact Report, and the Response to Comments included in the Final Environmental Impact Report satisfies this provision; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on October 6, 2009, and received and considered public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received 01-1 the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments (including a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR), the Text Changes to the Draft EIR (bound together with the Responses to Comments) and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments and references. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission finds and certifies that the Final EIR is complete and adequate in that it has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit "A"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Planning Commission finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR after circulation of the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the minor refinements that have e been made in the Project as a result of clarifications in the mitigation measures and additional water supply analyses do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the Planning Commission through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. 2 AT TriMET N0. . SECTION 8. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation as defined in each mitigation measure. SECTION 9. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, that the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002. SECTION 10. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 6th day of October 2009 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Scott Hess, Secretary Chairperson, Planning Commission Exhibit A—Mitigation Monitoring Program 3 ATTACHMENT NO. ., -.c . . . �� wa: � >�:« - a. 2 »: ° 2 ..z. � . .. .. . . . , �. zz« � . . _. . a . . . � . .. : ., } . ATTACHMENTIN ...... ...... City of Huntington Beach PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program HUNTINGTON BEACH DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLANUPDATE SCN: 2008011124 September 28, 2009 Lead Agency City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach Final Program Environmental Impact Report Downtown Specific Plan Update c, page 1 Contents 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ......................................................................................1-1 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix...............................................................................1-2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page ii Downtown } � ��HM 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.1 Introduction The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update project(State Clearinghouse#2008011124) identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project in the areas of. aesthetics,air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,hydrology and water quality, noise,public services,recreation,transportation and parking,and utilities and service systems. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires that agencies adopting environmental impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. Specifically,the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval.The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction,or operation(Public Resource Code §2108I.6). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) shall be used by the City of Huntington Beach staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update project.Monitoring shall consist of review or appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the party responsible for implementation or by field observation of the mitigation measure during implementation. The following table identifies the mitigation measures by resource area.The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation, monitoring activity,timing and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor,together with date of verification. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-1 Down f' 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix 0Ati 0 on 0 0 / °-1 0 ° 0 0 0 , Impleaw5don t orrq�lrance Verification Mi6gadonMeasum Documentation Monitori A rm' Respo kkMwift S'nature Date Air Quality MM 4.2.1; During construction activities, the following Best Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning Available Control Measure shall be implemented where feasible; notes on grading and contract prior to building plans specifications, issuance of a • Dust Control grading and building grading permit • Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas. plans for inclusion • Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed, • Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times per day, • Cover all stock piles with tarps. • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible, • Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. • Exhaust Emissions • Require 90-day low-NORxR tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and • heavy equipment. 0 Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if available. • Utilize diesel particulate filter on heavy equipment M where feasible, Z Utilize low emission mobile construction equipment. -�{ Utilize existing power sources when available, minimizing the use of higher polluting gas or diesel 0 Q:�*J Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-2 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Repot: _..g Matrix Mitigation:Monitorirfg; 1 ReportingProgram Impkrneotation Compliance Verification M" donAbasum Documentation Monitori Activity P Responsd>leMonitor S'nature Date generators. • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Plan construction to minimize lane closures on existing streets. • A full listing of construction emission controls is included in the Air Quality Assessment for Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan dated April 13, 2009(Appendix B). • Painting and Coatings • Use low VOC coatings and high pressure-low volume sprayers. MM 4,2.2:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning all diesel-powered equipment used would be retrofitted with notes on building plans contract prior to after-treatment products(e,g.,engine catalysts and other specifications, issuance of a ies available at the time construction commences to grading and building grading permit technologies � plans for inclusion the extent that they are readily available and cost effective when construction activities commence, Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.2-3:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning alternative fuel construction equipment(e.g.,compressed natural notes on building plans contract prior to gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline)would be specifications, issuance of a utilized to the extent feasible at the time construction activities grading and building grading permit plans for inclusion commence.Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents,which shall be M approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.2-4:The City shall require that developers within the Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning O project site use locally available building materials such as notes on building plans contract prior to —®5� City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-3 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Impkmenkdon complianceVerft6on mxgab'on Measure Documentation Mon. ' A ' ' Tim' Res,ponsibk Mo ibr Signature Date concrete, stucco, and interior finishes for construction of the specifications and issuance of a project and associated infrastructure. building plans for building permit inclusion MM 4.2.5:The City shall require developers within the project Construction Review and approve Plan check Planning site to establish a construction management plan with Rainbow management plan construction prior to Disposal to divert a target of 50%of construction,demolition, and management plan issuance of a site clearing waste, demolition,grading or building permit (whichever comes first MM 4.6.6:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction equipment engines will be maintained in good notes on building plans contract prior to condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for specifications, issuance of a the duration of construction. Contract specifications shall be grading and building grading permitplans for inclusion included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. MM 4.2.7;The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, notes on building plans contract prior to motor vehicles,and portable equipment, shall be turned off when specifications, issuance of a not in use for more than five minutes. Diesel-fueled commercial grading and building grading permit plans for inclusion .�� motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be turned off when not in use for more than C) five minutes. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. M zMM 4.2-8:The City shall require that any new development Notes and details on Review and approve Plan check Planning within the Specific Plan area provide signs within loading dock building plans building plans prior to areas clearly visible to truck drivers.These signs shall state that Implementation - issuance of trucks cannot idle in excess of five minutes per trip, prior to issuance of building permit Certificate of Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-4 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Repor�,,.g Matrix MitigationNonitorine . �rograrn Implementation Compliance Vedm6on MiVaftonMeasure Documentation MbnftMAch* Tim' Responsibkh1onitor S'nature Date Occupancy MM 4.2.9:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning electrical outlets are included in the building design of future notes on building plans approved contract prior to specifications and issuance of a Building& loading docks to allow use by refrigerated delivery trucks. Future building plans for building permit Safety project-specific applicants shall require that all delivery trucks do inclusion not idle for more than five minutes. If loading and/or unloading of perishable goods would occur for more than five minutes, and continual refrigeration is required, all refrigerated delivery trucks shall use the electrical outlets to continue powering the truck refrigeration units when the delivery truck engine is turned off. MM 4.2-10:The City shall require that any new development Notes and details on Review and approve Plan check Planning within the project site provide a bulletin board or a kiosk in the building plans notes and details on prior to lobby of each proposed structure that identifies the locations and building plans issuance of schedules of nearby transit opportunities. Implementation - building permit prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy MM 4.2.11:The property owner/developer of individual projects Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning within the DTSP will reduce operation-related emissions through notes on building plans approved contract prior to implementation of practices identified in SCAQMD's CEQA specifications and issuance of a Handbook and the URBEMIS v9,2.4, some of which overla building plans for building permit p inclusion Specific measures are delineated in the DTSP Air Quality Assessment(Volume ll,Appendix B). MM 4.2.12:The following measures, based on these sources, shall be implemented by the property applicant to reduce criteria_ ;Z pollutant emissions from projects associated with the DTSP ---i Update.Additionally,support and compliance with the AQMP for Z the basin are the most important measures to achieve this goal, The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-5 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigation,Monitoring,and Reporting • .g . Implementation Compliance Uerf tcatbn M'' ton Measure Documentation Monitofi A ' Tr Responsible Mondor S'nature Date implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally,energy conservation measures are included. • Transportation Demand Management(TDM)Measures 1. Provide adequate ingress and egress at all Site plan review Review and approval Prior to site Planning entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling of site plan plan approval at curbsides. Presumably, this measure would improve traffic flow into and out of the parking lot. The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required. 2. Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate and Improvement plans Review and approval Plan check Planning/ provide roadway improvements at heavily congested of improvement plans prior to roadways.Again,the areas where this measure issuance of a Public Works would be applicable are the intersections in and near building permit the project area. Presumably,these measures would improve traffic flow. Emissions would drop as a result of the higher traffic speeds,but to an unknown extent. 3. Synchronize traffic signals.The areas where this Capital improvement Periodic CIP budget Plan check Planning/ measure would be applicable are roadway Program budget and review and review prior to Public Works intersections within the project area.This measure individual improvement and approval of issuance of a would be more effective if the roadways beyond the plans improvement plans building permit project limits are synchronized as well. The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required 4. Ensure that sidewalks and pedestrian paths are Project site plan Review of site plan Prior to site Planning/ installed throughout the project area. plan approval Public Works M • Energy Efficient Measures � Building& ,4 Safety& 1. Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce Project building plans Review of building Plan check Planning thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant and specifications plans prior to ~ Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-6 Downtown Specific Plan Update x_ 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Repoi., ,. Matrix Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Imps me oibn cot oance Verification M" tbnMeasure Documentation MonibnriqAdyi TimiyResponshleWibr s'nature Date sensors. Reducing the need to heat or cool issuance of a structures by improving thermal integrity will result in building permit a reduced expenditure of energy and a reduction in pollutant emissions.The air quality benefit is unknown. 2. Install energy efficient street lighting. 3. Capture waste heat and reemploy it in nonresidential buildings. This measure is applicable to the commercial buildings in the project. 4. Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planning programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure.This measure reduces the need for cooling energy in the summer. 5. Introduce window glazing, wall insulation,and efficient ventilation methods. 6. Install low-emission water heaters, and use built-in, energy-efficient appliances. Biological Resources MM 4.14.1: Prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities, > the project developer shall implement the following mitigation c" measure which entails nesting surveys and avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and MBTA species,and appropriate agency consultation. M Nesting habitat for protected or sensitive species: Z 1. Vegetation removal and construction shall occur Developer shall submit Review schedule and Plan check Planning 0 between September 1 and January 31 whenever construction schedule field survey report, prior to (including grading and as necessary, issuance of a City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-7 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix o - o • .. . Imormiation corrPliance Verification MitgationMeasure Documentation Monibn A ' Tim' Responsbkhwibr Signature Date feasible. activities)as evidence review and approve grading permit of construction overlap plans indicating or demolition with breeding season. construction limits permit 2. Prior to any construction or vegetation removal If construction occurs Perform periodic field Prior to Planning between February 15 and August 31, a nesting during relevant check to ensure construction or survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of breeding,developer compliance site all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area. shall present a survey distrubance Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days report(prepared by a and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of consultant approved by construction activities and surveys will be conducted the City)to the City in accordance with California Department of Fish and Prior to issuance of a Game(CDFG)protocol as applicable. If no active grading permit. If nest nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the are found,developer construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. shall submit plans A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be identifying nest submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. If an locations and limits of construction activities active nest of a MBTA protected species is identified onsite(per established thresholds), a 250-foot no- work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity. This buffer can be reduced in consultation with CDFG and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist. Cultural Resources MM 4.3.1: If changes are proposed to properties or buildings Historic resources Review of site plan Prior to project Planning listed in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Historic and report prepared by and building plans approval RZ Cultural Resources Element and/or on any state or national qualified architectural M historian Z historic register,the City shall require preparation of a report " i from a qualified architectural historian regarding the significance Z of the site/structure.Based on the results of the report,further mitigation,such as preservation,restoration, or salvaging of z-- Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-8 Downtown Specific Plan Update - 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Repor Matrix d Rep orting;lProgrami ImP on CwoknmVerification otga6onmeasum Documentation Monitori A ' Tim' Respon i*Monibr Signature Date materials, shall be identified and implemented as recommended by a qualified architectural historian. MM 4.3-2: During construction activities, if archaeological and/or Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check Planning paleontological resources are encountered, the contractor shall grading plans for prior to be responsible for immediate notification and securing of the site inclusion issuance of a area immediately.A qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist grading permit approved by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Director shall be retained to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural resource finds. If major archaeological and/or Research design and Review and approve Throughout Planning paleontological resources are discovered that require long-term recovery plan,if research design and ground- halting or redirecting of grading,a report shall be prepared required recovery plan disturbing identifying such findings to the City and the County of Orange. activities Discovered cultural resources shall be offered to the County of Orange or its designee on a first-refusal basis. MM 4.3.-3: During construction activities, if human remains are Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check Planning discovered,work shall be halted and the contractor shall contact grading plans for prior to the City's designated representative on the project and the inclusion issuance of a grading permit Orange County Coroner until a determination can be made as to > the likelihood of additional human remains in the area. If the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who will ensure that proper treatment and disposition of the remains occurs. Geology and Soils Z MM 4.4-1: Future development in the DTSP area shall prepare a Notes on grading plan Review and approve Plan check Public Works/ grading plan,subject to review and approval by the City's and building plans grading and building prior to Building and plans for inclusion of issuance of a Safety Z development services departments,to contain the soils and grading permit recommendations of the required final soils and geotechnical geotechnical City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-9 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Implementation Corrow"Verification Mitigat on Measum Documentation Monitod A ' ' Tim' Respond 'na Monibr sture Dafe report.These recommendations shall be implemented in the recommendations design of the project,including but not limited to measures associated with site preparation,fill placement, temporary shoring and permanent dewatering,groundwater seismic design features,excavation stability,foundations,soils stabilization, establishment of deep foundations,concrete slabs and pavements, surface drainage, cement type and corrosion measures,erosion control, shoring and internal bracing, and plan review. Hazardous Materials MM 4.5.1; The City of Huntington Beach shall require a Phase Phase One assessment Review and approve Plan check Fire One assessment on properties within the Downtown Specific grading and building prior to Plan area,including properties utilized for oil production plans for inclusion issuance of a activities,proposed for development to assure that any grading or building permit hazardous materials/contaminated soils present on the property are identified and remediated in accordance with City specifications 422,429 and 431-92,All native and imported soils associated with a project shall meet the standards outlined in Hold route permit Review traffic Public Works City Specification No,431-92 prior to approval of grading and control/construction building plans by the Huntington Beach Fire Department, management plan Additionally, all work at a project site shall comply with the City's C) Public Works Department requirements(e.g.,haul route permits). M MM 4.5.2; In the event that previously unknown or unidentified Risk management plan Review and approve Plan check Fire soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat and site health and grading plans for prior to to human health or the environment is encountered during safety plan, if required inclusion issuance of a Z grading permit 0 construction in the project area,construction activities in the 6 immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-10 Downtown Specific Plan Update w„ Matrix 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Repor..__ • , e •nitorihg d Reporting Pro eram impte wtation Compliance Veri icalion Midgadon Measure Documentadon Mon6fingAcihIffil riffliv Responshk Mbnitor Signature Date be prepared and implemented that 1)identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post- development and 2)describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations,or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified(e.g., Huntington Beach Fire Department). If needed,a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. Hydrology and Water Quality MM 4.6.1: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits Water Quality Review and approve Plan check Public Works and/or prior to recordation of any subdivision maps,the applicant Management Plan WQMP and prior to of any new development or significant redevelopment projects (WQMP) documentation issuance of shall submit to the Department of Public Works a Water Quality grading permit Management Plan(WQMP)emphasizing implementation of LID principles and addressing hydrologic conditions of concern. C) WQMPs shall be in compliance with the current California Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) Santa Ana M Region,Waste Discharge Requirements permit, and all Federal, Z State and local regulations. --i Z MM 4.6.2: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, a Hydrology and Review and approve Plan check Public Works hydrology and hydraulic analysis shall be submitted to the hydraulic analysis analysis and prior to documentation issuance of J City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-11 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitig6tibh;M'Ohit6tingandRe.porting'P-rogram Implementation compliance Verification MhgabonMeasure Documentation MmADdngAcffi4 Tlmiy Responsl*bWiDr S'natire Date Department of Public Works for review and approval(10-, 25-, grading permit and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms shall be analyzed). In addition,this study shall include 24-hour peak back-to-back 100-year storms for onsite detention analysis.The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development,or deficient,downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100- year frequency. MM 4,6.3: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building Notice of Intent(NO1) Review Plan check Public Works permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance of one or and Waste Discharge documentation prior to more acres of land,the applicant shall demonstrate that Identification(WDID) issuance of a coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit grading or for Stormwater Discharges associated with construction activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NO1)submitted to the Storm Water Pollution building permit Prevention Plan, if State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the required subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID)Number, Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) �y requirements,which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. SWPPPs shall be in compliance with the current NPDES General Permit for Storm fi�'g�`^" Water Discharges associated with construction activity. 7 T Y ---� MM 4.6.4: Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the Landscape plans Review landscape Plan check Public Works/ developer or applicant shall submit detailed Landscape plans prior to Planning Architectural plans by a State Licensed Landscape Architect that issuance of a building permit Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1.12 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Report- s Matrix g and R60,ortffigl�rogram Impkrnentation compliance Verftion yffigatbn Measure Documentation Monapn Activity Tim' Rewsbk Monitor S"nature Dale shall include a designed irrigation system that eliminates surface runoff and meets the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MC-14.52)requirements and a detailed planting plan that specifies appropriate California Native and other water conserving plants materials. In addition, there shall be a maintenance program submitted that addresses the use of fertilizers and pesticides to meet the requirements of the City Integrated Pest Management, Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Guidelines,the Water Quality Management Plan, and the County Drainage Area Master Plan.These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works and Planning Departments.The landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with the approved plan, the maintenance program and the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. MM 4.6.5: Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the Tsunami risk Review plan and Plan check Planning developer shall submit to the City Department of Planning for management plan documentation prior to approval a plan outlining specific planning measures to be taken issuance of a to minimize or reduce risks to property and human safety from building permit tsunami during operation. Planning measures could include but would not be limited to the following: { Provision of tsunami safety information to all project residents and businesses, in addition to posting in public locations on site; Z a Identification of the method for transmission of tsunami watch and warnings to residents, business owners and Z people on site in the event a watch or warning is issued; City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-13 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigation:MonitoringandiReporting,Program Impkmenf96on Gwobm Vedcadon Midga6on Measure Documentation MonAbnngAdyky riming Responsrbk Monitor S"nature Date • Identification of an evacuation site for persons on-site in the event of a tsunami warning. Noise MM 4.8.1: Noise attenuation devices shall be used on all Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction equipment,and construction staging areas shall be notes on grading and contract prior to located as far as possible from any residences or other noise building plans specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit sensitive receptors. plans for inclusion MM 4.8.2: Prior to issuance of building permits for residences Detailed noise Review noise Plan check Planning located within the 65 CNEL noise contour, a detailed noise assessment prepared assessment and prior to assessment with noise reduction measures specified shall be by a qualified acoustical ensure measures are issuance of a prepared to show that noise levels in those areas will not exceed consultant incorporated into residentialsubmitted plans building permit the 65 CNEL outdoor noise criteria. Prior to issuance of permits, a detailed noise assessment with noise reduction measures specified shall be prepared to show that noise levels in the residences will not exceed the 45 CNEL indoor noise standard. The assessment will be based on the architectural plans for each specific project,The reports by a qualified acoustical consultant and shall document the sources of noise impacting the areas and describe any measures required to meet the standard.These measures will be incorporated into the project plans. The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of -� building permits. MM 4.8.3: Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed noise Detailed noise Review noise Prior to project Planning assessment shall be prepared for mixed-use and commercial assessment prepared assessment and approval projects within 50 feet of any residence to ensure that these by a qualified acoustical ensure measures are consultant ncorporated into —� i sources do not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance limits.The submitted plans 0 assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall document the noise generation characteristics of the Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-14 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Repor'�:.,g Matrix e . o Poe . Impkmeniation Cor dance Verftdon Midga6onMmsure Documentation MonibringA ' 7-arl ResponsdkMbnibr S'nature Date proposed equipment and the projected noise levels at the nearest residential use, Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance shall be demonstrated and any measures required to comply with the Noise Ordinance and reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels shall be included in the project plans.The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of project approval. Public Services MM 4.10-1: New construction within the Downtown Specific Plan Building plans notes Review and approve Plan check Planning/ Area shall be designed to provide for safety measures(e.g., and details building prior to Police alarm systems, security lighting,other on-site security measures issuance of a and crime prevention through environmental design policies)and building permit subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Department and Huntington Beach Police Department. MM 4.10.2: Subject to the City's annual budgetary process, Annual City budget Review budget and Annual City Police/Fire which considers available funding and the staffing levels needed staffing levels budget process to provide acceptable response time for fire and police services, needed for fire and the City shall provide sufficient funding to maintain the City's police services standard, average level of service through the use of General Fund monies. Transportation/Traffic MM 4.12-1: Prior to Year 2020,one of the following mitigation Mmeasure options shall be implemented if the pedestrian-only Z: phase is implemented: City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-15 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix 0. 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0• 0 Program 7 me Pon Compliance Verification Mdrgadw Measure Documentation Mo bn A rlmiy Responsible Monitor Signature Date • Implement time-of-day signal timing options that would Capital Improvement CIP budget review Prior to Year Public Works implement the pedestrian-only phase during peak Program budget and implementation 2020 or 2030, pedestrian flow periods, such as summer weekends whenever and special event days,and eliminate the pedestrian- improvement is only phases during the morning and evening commute implemented peak periods. (Note:While this option would have the benefit of facilitating peak pedestrian traffic flows during peak activity periods, it would also result in additional delay for vehicular traffic movements during these same peak activity periods.) • If the proposed pedestrian-only phase were to be CIP budget CIP budget review Prior to Year Public Works implemented,and operational at all times, including the and implementation 2020 or 2030, AM and PM commute peak periods, in order to achieve Caltrans encroachment whenever an acceptable Level of Service,a second southbound permit improvement is left-turn lane from Pacific Coast Highway onto 1 PstP implemented Street and a second southbound left-turn lane from Pacific Coast Highway onto 6PthP Street would be needed to mitigate the impact of the proposed pedestrian-only phases.This improvement at either intersection would involve roadway widening and right- of-way acquisition on Pacific Coast Highway, and would require Caltrans coordination and approval, and may be found to not be feasible. • Removal of the pedestrian-only phase altogether If neither (which would mean not implementing the DTSP mitigation recommendation)would improve the Level of Service option is implemented, at both intersections to LOS D or better in both peak removal of M hours. pedestrian— only phase altogether would eliminate Crj Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-16 Downtown Specific Plan Update _.,. 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Repo,. ,._. Matrix Monitoring and ReportingProgram, Impkrnentation Cw#ia=Verification mffigatonMeasum Documentation MmZn A Trm' ResponsbkMonKor Signature Date sig.impact MM 4,12.2: Prior to Year 2030,one of the following mitigation measure options shall be implemented; • Implement right-turn overlap signal phasing for Capital improvement CIP budget review Prior to Year Public Works southbound Goldenwest Street. This would bring the Program budget and implementation 2030 PM peak hour to LOS D.A right-turn overlap for Street Improvement southbound Goldenwest Street would require that u- plans turn movements on eastbound Pacific Coast Highway be prohibited. AND • Provide two eastbound and westbound through lanes Capital improvement CIP budget review Prior to Year Public Works on Orange Avenue.This would achieve Level of Program budget and implementation 2030 Service D in the evening peak hour.This improvement Street Improvement would require the removal of street parking on both plans sides of Orange Avenue on either side of Lake Street, AND/OR C� • Installation of a signal at this intersection would achieve acceptable Level of Service operation, M Z 0 Q City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-17 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigat�onNorkorfngand ''10 1 Nogram Impkmentatbn Compliance V16rft6 on tionMeasure Documentation Monitod 'A Tlm ResponsabkMonibr S'nature Date M" Utilities and Service Systems MM 4.13.1:To ensure that there are no adverse impacts Grading and building Review and approval Prior to start of Public Works associated with the future Downtown Specific Plan development plans notes and details of grading and construction projects during construction,Applicant/developer/ building plans builder/contractor shall coordinate with utility and service organizations prior to the commencement of construction.A Project water supply Review and approval separate water supply assessment will be required for individual assessment of water supply projects at the time the project is submitted to the City, assessment MM 4.13-2: Individual development projects within the Downtown Grading and building Review and approval Prior to start of Public Works Specific Plan Area will require connections to existing water, plans notes and details of grading and construction sewer,and utility lines in the City and may require construction of building plans new water pipeline facilities.All connections to existing water and wastewater infrastructure will be designed and constructed per the requirements and standards of the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. Such installation shall be coordinated, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate City departments and applicable agencies. MM 4.13.3: Each development project is required to implement Building plans and Review and approval Prior to Public Works > separate water conservation measures that support major water landscape plans notes of landscape plans issuance of conservation efforts.The following water saving technologies can and details and building plans building > be implemented on a project basis to comply with statewide permits Qwater goals and water conservation measures that can further assist in meeting the 20%reduction goal, • Waterless urinals should be specified in all public areas,including restaurants and commercial bathrooms. • Low-flush toilets should be installed in all new Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-18 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Repo r�._ .,"Matrix ProgramMiticiation,Monitoring add Reportiq ImpkmenOn Compliance Verification M69adon Measure Documentation Mombn A ' ' Tim' Respon bk Monitor skrmtum Date residential units and encouraged through rebates or other incentives in existing homes. • Low-flow shower heads and water faucets should be required in all new residential and commercial spaces and encouraged in existing developed properties. • Water efficient kitchen and laundry room appliances should be encourage through rebates for both residential and commercial units. • Landscaping should be completed with drought tolerant plants and native species. • Irrigation plans should use smart controllers and have separated irrigation meters. MM 4.13-4:As individual development occurs within the Hydraulic study and Review and approval Prior to Public Works Downtown Specific Plan area,additional hydraulic studies shall sewer study of hydraulic study issuance of be performed to verify that water pipes will adequately support and sewer study building each specific project. A sewer study shall be prepared for Public permits Works Department review and approval.A fourteen (14)day or longer flow test data shall be included in the study.The location and number of monitoring test sites, not to exceed three,to be determined by the Public Works Department. MM 4.13-5:As individual development occurs within the Proof of payment of fair Review and approval Prior to Public Works Downtown Specific Plan Area, each development shall be share of electrical of building plans issuance of required to a for the development's fair share of infrastructure systems infrastructure building q pay p improvements permits improvements to electrical systems per Southern California Edison requirements, 0 City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-19 ATTACHMENT NO , 2 FINAL EIR NOT ATTACHED Available for Review at the Planning Department City Hall — 3rd Floor And on the City's website: http://www.surfcity-hb.org r /Government/Departments/Planning/maj or/DTSP.cfm ATTACHMENT No. ATTACHMENT # 14 _- i - dtf i ti lag y art�n��a`x' qqq� y_ - UNTINGTCMI H max. .,=s.r 'C?,_` - j4 • - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess,AICP,Director of Planning& Stanley Smalewitz, Director of Economic Development BY: Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner DATE: October 6,2009 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-007/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM NO. 08-002/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5 -DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: The project site consists of the existing Downtown Specific Plan area. No changes to the existing specific plan boundaries are proposed. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ® General Plan Amendment(GPA)No_ 08-007 represents a request for the following: - To amend the General Plan Land Use Element by amending the Land Use Map and Land Use Schedule and the Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map within the 336-acre DTSP area to reflect the reconfiguration of the existing I l districts to seven districts and revisions to development standards, notably increases in allowable building heights and densities as well as the elimination of floor area ratio(FAR) requirements as follows: • To increase the allowable residential density from the currently allowed 25 -30 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) up to a maximum 50 du/ac (with limitations based on net site area) in areas of the District 1, with the exception of certain subdistrict areas. • To eliminate existing floor area ratio (FAR) in District 1. To increase the number of stories from the currently allowed from a maximum ranging from two stories/30 feet—4 stories/45 feet to a maximum of four stories/45 feet or 5 stories and 55 feet with a minimum height of 25 feet required in District 1, with the exception of certain subdistrict areas. - To amend the General Plan Circulation Element to revise Figure CE-9: Trails and Bikeways as a result of recommendations proposed in the DTSP Update and traffic study for the project. Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA)No. 08-004 represents a request for the following: — To update and amend the text of the existing Specific Plan No. 5 —Downtown Specific Plan. Local Coastal Program Amendment(LCPA)No. 08-002 represents a request for the following: To update and amend the text of the existing Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan and the Coastal Element reflecting the changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements in addition to clean- up items that would update the Coastal Element to reflect existing conditions and approved projects. Staff Resort Format—Text Changes(Matrix) °- Subsequent to the Planning Commission study sessions, RRM, the consultant for the project, made several changes to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update. A matrix of all the recommended changes is provided as Attachment No. I (Matrix of Final Recommended Changes). The majority of the changes include corrections to typographical errors as well as clarifications to tables, figures and standards that would make the document easier to read and interpret. However, several changes were made as a result of comments from the Planning Commission during the six study session meetings. These changes include: ® Changes to the proposed Cultural Arts Overlay, which is now named Cultural Arts Subdistrict lA— changes affect the level of review for permitted uses and revisions to development standards and open space requirements ® Reductions in the proposed maximum allowable density for District 1 ® Changes to parking standards, including office, hotel and assembly uses and clarification of tandem parking requirements ® Clarifications of permitted uses in District I & District 4, specifically new requirements for multi- family residential greater than four units to be subject to a CUP • Incorporation of the Resource Production Overlay • Additional standards for tiered beach parking structures ® Recommendations to encourage a beach theme as an overall design theme in Chapter 4 — design Guidelines of Book II for projects in the DTSP These changes are reflected as errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update(Attachment No.I —Matrix of Final Recommended Changes)and are incorporated by reference in the recommended action on page 4. The project proposal and analysis in this staff report are written to reflect the final recommended DTSP Update, which includes the June 2009 draft DTSP Update with the errata(Attachment No. I —Matrix of Final Recommended Changes) incorporated. During the study sessions, the Planning Commission requested that the consultant prepare an alternative proposal to the Cultural Arts Subdistrict 1A. The Planning Commission Alternative is also provided in Attachment No. I — Matrix of Final Recommended Changes and identified as Planning Commission Alternative — Subdistrict IA Main Street Library Site. The action to approve the Planning Commission Alternative is reflected in Alternative Action No. 1 on page 4. For the public hearing, staff will provide an outline of issues for the Planning Commission to consider when taking action on the project, specifically the zoning text amendment. This will provide a guide to breakdown the DTSP chapter by chapter and topic by topic. As an example,the first issue to consider would be Chapter 1 of Book I; next would be Chapter 2 of Book I; then Chapter 3 of Book I, which would be further broken down into sections; and so on. The main documents the Planning Commission should utilize as issues are being considered are: 1)The June 2009 draft DTSP Update; 2)The Matrix of Final Recommended Changes(Attachment No.l); and 3) Development Standards Matrix of Changes by District(Attachment No. 18). It is important to understand that The Matrix of Final Recommended Changes (Attachment No. 1) and The Development Standards Matrix of Changes by District (Attachment No. 18) are separate documents with PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 2 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) different purposes. The Matrix of Final Recommended Changes,(Attachment No.1),as mentioned previously, includes all of the changes that were made to June 2009 draft DTSP Update. They are recommended to be incorporated as errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update meaning that they should be construed as if the changes were made to the document itself. The reason the changes are provided in a matrix format, rather than providing an entirely new draft or new pages of the DTSP Update, is so that all of the changes can be found in one document, and the Planning Commission can see how the recommended change compares to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update as well as the existing Downtown Specific Plan. This is consistent with the way the Planning Commission requested the final changes to be presented during the study session meetings. The Development Standards Matrix of Changes by District (Attachment No. 18) is a tool for the Planning Commission to use when considering the changes to each of the seven districts. The Development Standards Matrix of Changes by District(Attachment No. 18) includes a comparison of the development standards of the existing DTSP district or districts with the development standards of the proposed district. The proposed district standards in each matrix include the June 2009 draft DTSP Update and the final recommended changes that are included in Attachment No. 1, if any. o Staffs Recommendation: Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 with the errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update (Attachment No. 1)based upon the following: - Facilitates new development in the DTSP area by proposing development standards and design guidelines that encourage development and redevelopment of underutilized parcels. - Facilitates the creation of a healthy mix of land uses that would serve as a destination to both residents and visitors. - Facilitates mixed use development that would increase housing opportunities in the downtown core to provide a larger population base that would utilize the businesses in the downtown on a year-round basis. - Encourages high quality,sustainable development in the DTSP area. - Implements the vision for the DTSP area to be a pedestrian-oriented urban village for both residents and visitors with a strong link to the ocean. - Encourages development to build upon the "Surf City" culture by utilizing ocean themes for both private and public projects through the proposed Design Guidelines and Streetscapes. - Compatible with existing commercial and residential uses in the DTSP area that were established under the development standards and policies of the existing DTSP. - Provides housing opportunities at densities that would provide housing options for diverse household types and would help to meet the City's housing goals, including goals for affordable housing. Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001 is processed concurrently with these legislative acts and is addressed under a separate staff report. It is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001 prior to action on the project entitlements. Based on the EIR analysis, following approval of these legislative acts, the CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. PC Staff Report—10/6/09 3 09sr64 GPA 08-007:ZTA 08-004,LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) RECOMMENDATION• Motion to: - A. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 by approving draft City Council Resolution No. (Attachment No.4)and forward to the City Council for adoption." E. "Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for approval (Attachment No. 3) by approving draft City Council Resolution No. (Attachment No. 6) and forward to the City Council for adoption." C. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 with the errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update (Attachment No. 1) with findings for approval (Attachment No. 2) by approving draft City Council Resolution No. (Attachment No. 5) and forward to the City Council for adoption." D. "Approve CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations - EIR No. 08-001 (Attachment No. 15)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: 1. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, Local'Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 with modifications to Subdistrict IA (PLANNING COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE) by approving the draft City Council Resolution Nos. „J) (Attachment Nos. 4, 5 and 6)and forward to the City Council for adoption." 2. "Continue General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 and direct staff accordingly." 3. "Deny General Plan Amendment No_. 08-007,Local Coastal Program Amendment No.08-002 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 with findings for denial." PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 4 09sr64 GPA 08-007-1 ZTA 08-004=LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) _ Garden L Westminster (s rowe. Se --BadOr # ': i" Unincorporated Sant 1 - na Edinger Warner - - Huntington Beach Fountain Valley �s,. _U,ntcOrporated t ti 6y" C 3 so 0 m m` costa Mesa uicorpporeted VICINITY MAP SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5 — DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PC Staff Report- 10/6/09 5 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) PROJECT PROPOSAL: Proiect Overview The Downtown Specific Plan Update is a joint effort by the Economic Development and Planning Departments to update Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The project proposes to reconfigure- the existing 11 Specific Plan districts into 7 districts, modify development and parking standards, incorporate design guidelines and provide recommendations for street improvements, public amenities, circulation enhancements, infrastructure and public facility improvements and parking strategies. The project also proposes revised parking requirements, including provisions for tiered beach parking structures, and modified parking ratios, the elimination of the Downtown Parking Master Plan, a Cultural Arts Subdistrict in the northern portion of the DTSP area on the site of the existing Main Street Branch library and a Neighborhood Subdistrict on 1 st and 2nd Street between Walnut Avenue and Orange Avenue. The changes to the DTSP resulted in re-formatting the document into two books. The format of the document is described in detail on pages 8 and 9 of this report under the Document Organization section. General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 represents a request to amend the Land Use and Circulation Elements to reflect the various changes in land use and development standards, including increases in allowable building heights and densities and elimination of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements proposed in the DTSP Update, as well as the reconfiguration of the districts. Changes to the General Plan include revisions to the Land Use Map and modifications to the Land Use Schedule and Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map in the Land Use Element. These changes consist of revisions to the subarea map and schedule as a result of deleting, creating and re-numbering.subareas: Due to these - revisions, subarea 3D, located outside of the DTSP area, is also proposed to be revised. This subarea would be re-numbered only and does not propose substantive changes in terms of standards, principles or permitted uses. The amendment to the Circulation Element includes a revision to Figure CE-9: Trails and Bikeways as a result of recommendations proposed in the DTSP Update and traffic study for the project. Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 represents a request to amend the existing text of the Downtown Specific Plan. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 represents a request to amend the Implementation Program (IP), specifically the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Land Use Plan/Coastal Element of the City's certified Local Coastal Program. Amendments to the Coastal Element will involve changes that are consistent with the changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements in addition to several policies that are proposed to be updated based on proposed changes to the DTSP. The LCPA also includes some clean-up revisions to the text of the Coastal Element to include approved projects or changes that have occurred in the Coastal Zone but have not been updated in the Coastal Element. The proposed LCPA is also subject to certification by the California Coastal Commission. Background The DTSP was originally adopted on November 16, 1983 to encourage revitalization of the downtown area by promoting a mix of commercial, residential and recreational uses that would be able to take advantage of the area's proximity to the ocean. At the time, the goal of the DTSP was to change the image of the downtown area and establish the framework for both public and private improvements to create a vibrant and viable downtown. The document has been amended several times over the past two PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 6 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004:LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) and a half decades, most recently in 2007. The last comprehensive update of the DTSP was in 1995, which introduced the "Village Concept" for downtown development. The 1995 "Village Concept" amended development standards and regulations to scale back the intensity of development in the DTSP area and encourage more pedestrian-scale development. The 1995 "Village Concept" also encouraged a balance between serving the residential uses within and surrounding the downtown while allowing for the expansion of visitor activities. The 1995 update of the DTSP adopted the Downtown Parking Master Plan (Section 4.2.14 of the existing DTSP) that established shared parking regulations and identified development thresholds (maximum - 500,000 square feet) based on parking supply for the downtown core area. The Downtown Parking Master Plan provided a strategic approach to parking for development in the downtown area. The Downtown Parking Master Plan utilizes shared parking concepts and reduced parking ratios for the nine- block core commercial area along Main Street in the DTSP. The shared parking concept allows one parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict due to variations in peak parking demands (e.g., seasonal uses, days of week, hours of day). The Downtown Parking Master Plan identifies development thresholds for various land uses that must be monitored in order for the Plan to work effectively. Initially, the Downtown Parking Master Plan identified an overall development threshold of 500,000 square feet. In 2000, the Downtown Parking Master Plan of the DTSP was revised to establish the development thresholds (maximum - 715,000 square feet) for the downtown .core area that are currently identified in the DTSP today. The development thresholds established within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area were established based on existing available parking. This allowed new development to occur without the provision of additional parking, provided that the proposed development did not exceed established thresholds. The Downtown Parking Master Plan is discussed further in a subsequent section of this report. In 2006, the City Council, in accordance with adopted Strategic Plan goals and objectives (Refer to Attachment No.11), directed staff to initiate an update to the DTSP because current development in the DTSP has reached the established thresholds constraining development and redevelopment in the DTSP area. In July 2007, the Redevelopment Agency approved a contract with RRM Design Group to provide consulting services for the preparation of the DTSP Update. In addition, Kimley-Horn was contracted as the City's parking and traffic consultant on the project. The resulting DTSP Update was prepared by RRM and includes the recommendations of RRM and Kimley-Horn for future development and redevelopment in the DTSP area to meet the goals and objectives of the Council. Process A series of key stakeholder interviews and community workshops were held prior to the drafting of the proposed DTSP Update. The community workshops were held on the following dates: • November 27, 2007—Workshop 41 • February 20, 2008 —Workshop#2 • April 23,2008—Workshop #3 • December 4, 2008 —Workshop#4 The Draft Specific Plan was made public on December 4, 2008. A public comment period on the Draft Specific Plan document was held for a 50-day period from December 5, 2008 to January 23, 2009. PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 7 09sr64 GPA 08-007-1 ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) During and subsequent to the public comment period, staff from the Planning and Economic Development x = Departments continued to meet with various Downtown stakeholders and groups including members from 't the Chamber of Commerce and the Marketing and Visitors Bureau(MVB) in refining the draft Downtown Specific Plan Update. The smaller group meetings were held on the following dates: ® January 15, 2009—Small Group Workshop with Downtown development community January 29, 2009—Small Group Workshop with Downtown development community,members of Chamber of Commerce and MVB ® - March 31, 2009 — meeting with Downtown development community to go over comments received during comment period In addition to the above-referenced meetings, staff members from the Planning and Economic Development Departments have met with various members of the public and downtown groups to discuss the proposed DTSP Update throughout the process. The Planning Commission has conducted six study session meetings on the project to date. The study session occurred on the following dates and focused on the following topics: ® June 23, 2009 — An overview of existing conditions and reasons why an update to the Downtown Specific Plan is proposed as well as an overview of the organization of the Downtown Specific Plan document and major changes proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan Update were discussed. ® July 14, 2009—The provisions of Book I - Chapter 2: Administration and the recommendations of 4 Book H: Downtown Specific Plan Guidelines and Strategies were discussed. m July 28, 2009 — The elimination of the Downtown Parking Master Plan and proposed codified parking requirements of Book I — Chapter Three and parking recommendations of Book II — Chapter Five were discussed. ® August 11, 2009—Changes in land use and development standards in Districts 2—7 (Chapter 3 of Book 1) of the draft DTSP Update were discussed. ® September 1, 2009 — Changes in land use and development standards in District 1 (Chapter 3 of Book I) of the draft DTSP Update were discussed. ® September 9, 2009—The draft EIR for the project was presented to the Planning Commission. Net New Development Potential The build-out summary presented in the following table illustrates the maximum net new development potential within the DTSP area that could potentially occur over a 20-yeas period. This maximum net new development potential was determined based on a study (provided to the Planning Commission with the June 23, 2009 study session report) that analyzed market demand of a range of land uses that could potentially be developed in the DTSP area within the 20-year period. Based on the market study, new development potential is anticipated to occur within the reconfigured District 1 — Downtown Core area and does not account for unique constraints on individual parcels- PC Staff Report— 10/6109 8 09sr64 GPA 08-007;Z.TA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) TABLE 1.—Net New Develo went Potential Retail 213,467 square feet Restaurant 92,332 square feet Office 92,784 square feet Cultural Facilities 30,000 square feet Residential 648 units. minimum 324,000 square feet Hotel 235 rooms (approx. 160,000 square feet *Net new development includes potential square footage beyond existing development square footage and other planned/approved projects(Pacific City, The Strand,3`a Waterfront Hotel) in the DTSP area. The net new maximum development potential was utilized in determining reconfiguration of the districts, specifically in establishing the boundary for the proposed downtown core area (District 1), as well as appropriate densities and revised development standards that would accommodate the projected development potential. While the DTSP Update does not propose a development threshold, the identified net new development potential provided a development threshold for analyzing environmental impacts in the EIR for the project. document Organization The document is organized into two books: Book I: Downtown Specific.Plan and Book H: Downtown Specific Plan Guidelines and Strategies. The first book contains the Introduction, Administration, and _ Land Use and Development Standards chapters. This book outlines the required elements of the Downtown Specific Plan and provides the regulatory framework for development in the DTSP area. The chapters of Book I are described below. Book I • Chapter 1. Introduction provides an introduction to the Specific Plan effort and contains a summary of existing conditions, community outreach, and a vision for the future. ® Chapter 2. Administration gives detailed direction for the proper administration of the Specific Plan regulations and developments and provides definitions for terms used within the Specific Plan. • Chapter 3. Land Uses and Development Standards sets forth general provisions for development within the Specific Plan Area and details the permitted land uses and development standards for each district within the Specific Plan Area. Book II includes the Design Guidelines, Circulation and Parking, Streetscapes and Public Amenities, Infrastructure and Public Facilities and Implementation chapters as well as the Appendices. Book II provides guidelines and strategies to facilitate development and successful growth in the DTSP area, but does not include requirements for any particular guideline or strategy to be implemented. The chapters of Book B are described below. PC Staff Report— 1016/09 9 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Book II ■ Chapter 4.Design Guidelines gives design guidelines for development within the Specific Plan on topics such as site planning and design, landscaping,building design,utilities, signs,and special design considerations. ■ Chapter 5. Circulation and Parking details current circulation and parking conditions within the downtown. Enhancements for all modes of transportation, including vehicles, transit,bicycles, and pedestrians,are addressed. Parking strategies for improved parking opportunities are presented. • Chapter 6.Streetscapes and Public Amenities discusses streetscape improvements for all portions of the Specific Plan Area. Street and sidewalk design,paving patterns,streetscape furnishings,and landscaping materials are detailed. ■ Chapter 7.Infrastructure and Public Facilities addresses essential infrastructure upgrades and improvements for future development within the Specific Plan Area. ® Chapter 8. Implementation provides implementation strategies and direction for achieving the goals set forth within this Specific Plan. ■ Appendix. Contains supplemental documentation and technical studies. Book I As discussed in the previous section, Book I contains the introduction to the DTSP, which includes a description of existing issues and the vision for future development in the DTSP area. Chapters 2 and 3 include the administrative provisions and regulatory framework for development in the DTSP area. The development standards of Chapter 3 are discussed in a separate section of this report. Chapter 2—Administration , . The existing DTSP requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for all new construction as well as certain uses subject to review by the Planning Commission. As discussed at the June 23 study session,the DTSP Update streamlines this requirement in District 1 by establishing a threshold for development projects subject to a CUP from the Planning Commission- The DTSP Update would require projects with 100 feet or more of street frontage to obtain a CUP from the Planning Commission. Projects with less than 100 feet of street frontage would require a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator. Also, in 2005,the level of review for certain uses in the DTSP was reduced as part of a Citywide streamlining effort. Uses that would require a CUP from the Planning Commission such as restaurants and theaters would now require a CUP from the Zoning Administrator. The proposed DTSP Update reflects the streamlining that was done in 2005 in the permitted uses section of each district. Chapter 2 of the proposed DTSP Update provides administrative procedures required for projects within the DTSP. The DTSP Update proposes to streamline aspects of the development review process that are established in Chapter 2. The existing DTSP requires all development proposals and improvement projects to be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB). The proposed DTSP Update provides some relief from this requirement for smaller projects such as additions to existing developments that do not exceed 50% of the existing floor area and signs that comply with the proposed Design Guidelines in Book II. In addition, the proposed DTSP Update establishes procedures for administrative permits to be granted for waivers of development standards, accessory dwelling units, additions (<10%) to nonconforming structures/uses and certain uses, such as personal enrichment services, as established in each proposed district. Procedures for administrative permits are established in the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 10 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) (HBZSO), but are not currently applicable in the DTSP area. Administrative permits generally reduce processing times for applicable requests since they do not require public hearings. However, in most cases administrative permits are subject to the neighborhood notification process(minimum 300' radius). Chapter 2 also provides definitions that are applicable to projects within the DTSP. In an effort to create a more comprehensive and up-to-date document, the definitions section has been revised to incorporate applicable definitions from the HBZSO and Design Guidelines. This section also proposes to add new definitions as well as delete existing definitions that are obsolete or no longer applicable in the DTSP and do not appear within any of the standards or provisions in the DTSP. The following terms are proposed to be deleted from the definitions section (Section 2.7) of the proposed DTSP Update: build-to line, full block,half block, physical obstruction,residual parcel, street level,timeshares and townlot. As the DTSP Update aims to be a more comprehensive document than the current DTSP, existing City requirements and standard conditions are proposed to be incorporated into the development standards.of the proposed DTSP Update. As such, new definitions have been added to define some of the terms found in those requirements. These new definitions include the following: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), entertainment, patron, rakers, redevelopment project area, roof scuppers, special sub-surface construction, shoring, tieback, storm water best management practices (BMPs) and storm water management. Other new definitions result from proposed new uses or requirements that are introduced in the DTSP Update. These terms include: commercial parking facility, fly tower, live/work and performing arts theater. Book H { As previously mentioned, the Downtown Specific Plan is formatted into two books. Although the recommendations in Book II do not contain standards required to be implemented for individual development projects; strategies, design guidelines and recommendations for public and private improvements are established. In addition, all future projects will be reviewed for compliance with the Design Guidelines established in Chapter 4 of Book II. The following provides an overview of some of the strategies and recommendations in Book II, some of which would result in physical changes within the DTSP area if implemented. Chapter 4—Design Guidelines The proposed design guidelines of the DTSP incorporate Chapter 5 —Downtown/Main Street Commercial and other applicable sections of the Citywide design guidelines, which were adopted by Council in 2000. It should be noted that design guidelines for downtown have been effective since 1985 and were incorporated into the Citywide Design Guidelines in 2000. However, some of the guidelines proposed in the DTSP Update have been modified to provide for a more practical application in the DTSP area. In addition, the proposed DTSP design guidelines provide for more flexibility in terms of architectural style and design than current design criteria. The most relevant example of this is the elimination of adherence to a Mediterranean-style architectural design in the DTSP area. In place of the Mediterranean theme, the final recommended changes to the draft DTSP Update include an overall design concept for the Downtown, which encourages the incorporation of ocean themes while building upon the "Surf City" culture. Another new feature of the design guidelines is the notation of"green" design elements. The general provisions section of Chapter 3 includes a requirement for all projects to incorporate sustainable practices or "green" elements. As such, the design guidelines note "green" design features by inserting a PC Staff Report—10/6/09 11 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) leaf symbol next to the guideline. This provides a developer or architect with a menu of"green" design elements for possible inclusion in a project. It should be noted that sustainable practices would not be limited to those identified in the design guidelines. Chapters 5 & 6—Parking, Circulation and Streetscapes Chapters Five and Six of Book II propose a number of circulation and streetscape recommendations to Main Street and other downtown. streets to implement streetscape improvements and circulation enhancements. The following describes the proposed circulation and streetscapes recommended for the DTSP area. ■ Streetscape Improvements The most significant changes would be on the first three blocks of Main Street, which would be maintained as a two-Iane roadway through the downtown. From Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to Orange Avenue, the DTSP Update proposes a 28-foot roadway with two 14-foot-traffic lanes, and an additional 26 feet on both sides for sidewalk and outdoor dining, for a total of 80 feet of streetscape between building frontages. To achieve the additional width for wider sidewalks and to maintain the outdoor dining areas, 55 existing on-street parking spaces along Main Street would need to be removed from PCH to Orange Avenue, and additional sidewalk width would be constructed in its place. The removal of parking spaces on Main Street would be required to be replaced prior to any removal of parking at a one to one ratio in accordance with the provisions of Section 231.28 of the HBZSO. North of Orange Avenue, the Specific Plan Update recommends retaining the existing street width, . parking, and sidewalk configuration on Main Street, with 12- to 14-foot travel lanes in each direction, on-street parking in the form of parallel or angled parking on both sides of the street,and existing sidewalk widths, for a total of 75 feet of streetscape between building frontages. The Specific Plan Update recommends widening the sidewalks along 5 h Street for the two blocks between Walnut Avenue and Orange Avenue. This can be accomplished by converting the current 90-degree parking, which requires 18 feet of street width, to parallel parking, which requires eight feet, resulting in an additional 10 feet of sidewalk width on each side of the street. The reconfiguration of parking on 5th Street would result in a net loss of 50 on-street parking spaces, which would be required to be replaced prior to any removal of parking at a one to one ratio in accordance with the provisions of Section 231.28 of the HBZSO. For other streets within the downtown core that will serve a mix of existing and new uses, the DTSP Update indicates a 60-foot cross section, with two 12-foot travel lanes,an eight-foot parallel parking lane on both sides of the street, and 10-foot sidewalks. Recommendations for reclassifying certain roadway segments to provide two travel lanes_ and either bike and/or parking lanes are presented in Chapter Five. Recommendations for the total roadway width and right-of-way width needed for each segment as well as proposed streetscape recommendations are presented in Chapters Five and Six of Book II. Right-of-way widths would vary between different roadway segments, depending on the width of the travel lanes, whether the PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 12 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) segment is to include bike lanes and parking lanes, and the width of the sidewalk and parkway. The recommended street classifications and accompanying cross-sections would require amendments to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) through the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) prior to changing the classification on the City's Circulation Plan. ■ Roadway Realignments 6' Street If the Cultural Arts Subdistrict area is redeveloped, it may be desirable to realign 6th Street north of Orange Avenue to connect with Pecan Avenue. The existing curved segment of 6th Street between Orange Avenue and Main Street could be vacated,creating more opportunity for public open space in the area. The portion of Pecan Avenue between 6th Street and Acacia Avenue would be reopened to traffic to connect with 6th Street. The intersection of Acacia Avenue, 6th Street and Main Street would need to be reconfigured so that 6th Street would intersect Main Street at a perpendicular angle directly across from Acacia Avenue. It should be noted, however, that this realignment would not be required for implementation of a development within the Cultural Arts Subdistrict area, but could provide additional green space in the area. Walnut Avenue Walnut Avenue would be realigned to intersect with Ist Street at a right angle to align with the extension of Pacific View Avenue. This alignment is consistent with current adopted City plans. The existing diagonal portion of Walnut Avenue between 1st Street and 2nd Street would be vacated, although the City would need to acquire the land for the public right-of-way between lst and 2nd Streets. ■ Bicycle Improvements The DTSP Update recommends the addition of bicycle lanes and/or bicycle routes on some streets in the downtown. The DTSP Update proposes to add a Class II bicycle lane to 6th Street from PCH to Main Street, connecting to the existing bicycle lane on Lake Street via Acacia Avenue. On- street parallel parking is provided along both sides of 6th Street from PCH to Main Street, and along Acacia Avenue. A recommended cross-section for 6th Street to accommodate both street parking and bike lanes is included in Chapter Five. The DTSP Update also recommends extending the existing Class 11 bicycle lane on Lake Street from its current terminus near Pecan Avenue down to Orange Avenue, and then along Orange Avenue to connect with the Class 11 bike lane planned for Atlanta Avenue east of 1st Street. Lake Street narrows from an approximately 90-foot right-of-way to a 60-foot right-of-way between Pecan and Orange Avenues. The bicycle lane is dropped, and the on-street parking remains through the narrower section of the street. The same is true of Orange Avenue, between Lake/3rd Street and 2nd Street. East of 2nd Street, sufficient width on Orange Avenue exists to provide an on-street bicycle lane without impacting parking or requiring widening. PC Staff Report— 1016/09 13 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) The DTSP Update recommends that additional bicycle racks be dispersed throughout the -- downtown in areas where available space permits without impeding pedestrian movement or . requiring the removal of parking. Pedestrian Improvements The DTSP Update provides recommendations for the implementation of pedestrian-only phases for the signal operation at the intersections of PCH at Is' Street and PCH at 6' Street to facilitate the movement of pedestrians across PCH to and from the beach. An exclusive pedestrian phase signal would stop traffic on all approaches to the intersection and allow pedestrians to cross the street in all directions at once. An exclusive pedestrian-only phase exists at the intersection of PCH and Main Street. This type of signal can provide a safer crossing zone for pedestrians as no traffic would be entering the intersection while pedestrian movement is occurring, but would also result in additional delays for vehicular traffic. These improvements were also analyzed in the traffic study for the EIR. The traffic study and EIR recommend mitigation measures if these improvements are implemented. ■ Transit Improvements PCH Bus Layover Zone Facility improvements are planned for the bus layover zone on PCH between I" and Huntington Street. This zone accommodates stops for all five of the existing OCTA bus routes that serve the downtown. The improvements can include street furniture amenities and trash cans. Trolley System A downtown trolley service may be provided to circulate between the hotel developments closer to Beach Boulevard, Pacific City, the downtown core and the residential neighborhoods surrounding downtown. The trolley is envisioned to be a bus-like vehicle that would allow nearby residents who work in or visit downtown to do so without driving and parking. It would also allow visitors to move easily between the hotels, Pacific City;the Cultural Arts area,the downtown core and the Strand, by allowing these visitors to park their vehicles once and access the other areas of the downtown through a trolley system- s Parking Strategies Chapter Five contains strategies for addressing parking needs in the DTSP area. The recommendations are intended to represent a "toolbox" of strategies that can be implemented based upon opportunity. Some of the strategies, such as implementing a valet program, could be easily and quickly achieved. Other strategies, such as constructing temporary lots and forming business-to-business agreements, will require additional effort and time to achieve. One of the most important aspects to consider is that most of the strategies are, and should be, interconnected. Parking strategies proposed in Chapter Five of Book II are listed below. PC Staff Report—10/6/09 14 09sr64 GPA 08-007;z"rA 08-004,LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Residential Parkinl7 — Visitors to the beach and Downtown and employees of downtown businesses often park on residential streets. On a typical day, this is an issue primarily on the streets closest to the downtown commercial businesses. On.high demand days, such as summer weekends and downtown event days, parking encroachment into the neighborhoods extends further. Implementation of a parking meter/residential permit system would preserve the spaces for residents as long as they have a permit. Implementation of a residential permit system in the coastal zone would require a Coastal Development Permit(CDP). Valet Parking Program—A valet parking program could increase the parking capacity by as much as 40%, due to the ability of attendants to park more vehicles more efficiently. Valet parking could be useful in any new or existing parking structure and might be especially beneficial for hotel uses. Any request for a valet parking program would require a CUP from the Planning Commission. Commercial Parking — Commercial parking is a pay Iot operated by a private entity. This use is allowed in some parts of the DTSP Area, including the core downtown area of District 1. Depending upon the size of the property, the facility could be conventional surface parking, an automated parking structure, or a conventional parking structure. Any request for a commercial parking facility would require a CUP.from the Zoning Administrator. Parking Fees — The rates (fees) currently charged to park downtown do not reflect the variable demand. Rate modification would help the City manage the demand by influencing where people park and for how long and improve parking conditions for all users. Rate changes will likely also increase revenues, which would allow the City to better manage the parking assets by providing _y 9 for long-term maintenance and increasing parking supply. Any rate changes are subject to City Council review and approval and may be subject to California Coastal Commission review_ Shuttle Service—Access to parking spaces outside the downtown area could increase the available parking supply on the days that have been defined as the highest demand. There are approximately 1,300 existing parking spaces north of downtown that have been identified for potential use as remote parking sites. A shuttle service or a trolley service could be provided between these locations and the DTSP Area. Public/Private Partnerships — The City/Agency could partner with developers of larger parcels to provide additional public parking in excess of the needs for the developer's project. The recently constructed Strand project is an example of how this system could work. Employee-Only Parking — Designated employee-only parking spaces could be provided in the downtown area- Some employers currently provide parking validation for their employees, but those employees often utilize the most prime public parking spaces for long periods of time. Businesses could also enter into agreements with each other, with those with more spaces than needed being compensated in some way by businesses needing spaces for their employees. New parking lots constructed on vacant parcels could also serve employees only. Utilize Vacant Parcels—Small parking lots should be constructed on currently vacant parcels as an interim use until that property is developed. This could include City-owned and private properties. PC Staff Report—10/6/09 15 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Lots located on the downtown periphery could be designated for employee-only parking, and ,_.. employers could be required to purchase or provide validations. ti Parking Structures — Additional new conventional or automated parking structures will likely be needed within the downtown to accommodate the future parking demand. Tiered Beach Parking — Additional parking could be provided in an automated parking structure on the seaward side of Pacific Coast Highway on the existing surface beach parking lots. The area would need to be graded, and retaining walls would need to be installed to retain views from town. All parking would be located below the adjacent height of Pacific Coast Highway. Parking Wayfinding_Signage—A series of static and electronic parking wayfinding signs should be installed throughout the downtown. The signs would direct users to harder-to-find spaces,manage the parking supply more efficiently,and minimize vehicle circulation. Parking Information and Guidance System — A system that provides real-time information regarding parking space availability should be developed and implemented for all of the existing and future large parking facilities. The system would help users identify spaces faster, spend less time driving to look for spaces and better understand the practical parking capacity — the perception as it relates to the operational efficiency and accessibility of a parking supply. Currently, only the Main-Promenade parking structure provides real-time parking supply information in the form of a small digital sign over both entrances. A parking information and guidance system should be provided for the parking structures, plus other select locations, in downtown to assist users in finding parking and maximizing the use of available parking. Chapters 7 & 8 —Public Services and Implementation Chapter Seven (Public Services and Facilities)-provides an overview of existing infrastructure and public services/facilities in the DTSP area and identifies elements of infrastructure and public facilities that would require improvements or upgrades to accommodate future development in the DTSP area. Chapter Eight (Implementation) provides a review of existing economic conditions influencing development potential in the DTSP area, a description of economic development implementation approaches available to achieve the specific plan objectives and a review of potential funding mechanisms for implementation of the DTSP. These chapters are required elements of a specific plan pursuant to Section 65451 of the California Government Code. Major Chanties Most of the major changes to the Downtown Specific Plan are a result of the reconfiguration of the different districts in the DTSP as recommended by RRM. The general vision and major changes for each of the seven proposed districts is discussed below. General Provisions The General Provisions section of Chapter 3 of Book I includes development standards that are applicable to all districts. Major changes in this section include requirements for all development projects to incorporate sustainable/green building practices, provisions specific to mixed use projects, residential buffer requirements for projects adjacent to single-family residential uses and revised parking requirements including the elimination of the Downtown Parking Master Plan, which is discussed PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 16 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) in a separate section of this report, modified parking ratios for commercial uses in the expanded downtown core (District 1)and sign standards. District I — Downtown Core Mixed-Use. Part of the recommendation of RRM, the consultant that prepared the DTSP Update, includes expanding the downtown core further north on Main Street as well as on the streets surrounding Main Street,particularly 5d'Street. In doing so, District 1 proposes to combine Districts 1, 3, 5 and portions of Districts 4 and 6 from the existing DTSP. The purpose of this is to re- establish the area as the downtown core for the City and create a more urban atmosphere by encouraging relatively higher intensity development with viable commercial, office and residential uses. The district promotes mixed use development of visitor-serving and neighborhood-serving commercial uses as well as office and residential developments. The maximum density for District l is proposed to increase from 25 —30 dwelling units per acre in most areas to 50 dwelling units per acre, for projects with a net site area of 25,000 square feet or greater and a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre for projects with a net site area less than 25,000 square feet. Additional revisions that are proposed for District 1 include increases in allowable building heights up to 55 feet and five stories for projects with 25,000 square feet or greater of net site area, elimination of floor area ratio (FAR) requirements and streamlining the development review process by requiring a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission only for new developments with 100 feet or more of street frontage. Projects with less than 100 feet of street frontage would require a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator. However, it should be noted that certain uses and other factors may trigger review of a project by the Planning Commission even if a project does not have 100 feet of street frontage. Finally, the draft DTSP Update proposes to simplify the current requirement that establishes maximum ratios for different types of uses within a single development. For example, development in District 3 of the existing DTSP requires the following: the ground floor/street level of all buildings fronting PCH and Main St. shall be devoted to visitor-serving commercial uses;all development must include visitor-serving commercial with a minimum requirement of the entire street level or one- third of the total floor area devoted to visitor-serving commercial; residential uses are permitted only in conjunction with visitor-serving commercial developments of one block or greater and shall not exceed one-half of the total floor area. The intent of these ratios is to ensure that a sufficient amount of visitor- serving commercial is provided in each development. The draft DTSP Update proposes to require visitor- serving commercial on the ground level street frontage of all developments. Any other permitted use is allowed above or behind the ground level street frontage. This proposed change is intended to simplify the existing requirements while still ensuring that visitor-serving commercial is provided in the Downtown Core. ■ Cultural Arts &Neighborhood Subdistricts District I also includes two subdistrict areas. Subdistrict IA, located in the northern portion of the district, is intended to promote continued enhancement of the cultural arts within Huntington Beach by building on existing cultural facilities within the downtown. Subdistrict IA currently contains the Main Street Branch of the Huntington Beach Public Library, the Huntington Beach Art Center and properties north of Acacia Avenue. It should be noted, however, that no development is proposed at this time. In addition, any proposal for development on the existing library site would be required to comply with City Charter Section 612 (Measure Q to the extent that it applies. The Cultural Arts Subdistrict area has some of the same development standards as the rest of District 1, but does call for greater open space requirements and restricts building heights to three stories and 35 feet. The requirements of this subdistrict area also restrict PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 17 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) development such that there would be no net loss of green space from that of the existing library site. The properties within the Cultural Arts Subdistrict area are currently located in District 6 of the existing DTSP,which allows for mixed-use (commercial/office/residential)developments. The.second subdistrict area is Subdistrict 1 B - Neighborhood Subdistrict, which is located on 0 and 2"a-Streets, between Walnut Avenue and Orange .Avenue, and is intended to provide a transition zone between the existing residential uses in this area and the commercial Main Street corridor. Properties in the Neighborhood Subdistrict are currently located in Districts 4 and 5 of the existing DTSP. The Neighborhood Subdistrict allows single- and multi-family residential uses as well as office/"residential mixed use developments, similar to the permitted uses in District 4 of the existing DTSP. Permitted uses in District 5 of the existing DTSP, which is the area that encompasses properties on 1st Street within the Neighborhood Subdistrict, include mixed use (commercial/office/residential) developments. Proposed building heights in the Neighborhood Subdistrict of the draft DTSP Update are restricted to three stories and 35 feet,which is the current maximum height allowed in District 4 and District 5 of the existing DTSP, except for developments within the existing District 5 that encompass a full block or greater, which are permitted at a height of four stories and 45 feet. ■ Permitted Uses Permitted uses in District 1 generally reflect existing permitted uses of the consolidated districts that make up the'proposed District 1 — Downtown Core. Also, in 2005, the level of review for certain uses in the DTSP was reduced as part of a citywide streamlining effort. Uses that would require a CUP from the Planning Commission such as restaurants and theaters were reduced to - require a CUP from the.Zoning Administrator. The proposed DTSP Update reflects the streamlining '.. that was done in 2005 in the permitted uses section of each district, and, in some instances, further streamlines the review process for uses such as for commercial parking lots (from CUP: PC to CUP: ZA) and restaurants that do not serve alcohol (from CUP: ZA to Administrative Permit and 300-foot radius Neighborhood Notification(NN )). The existing DTSP separately lists uses such as clothing stores, bookstores, marine supplies, drug stores, shoe stores and similar retail uses. The draft DTSP Update generally classifies these uses under retail sales and would permit these uses by right, which is how they are permitted in the existing DTSP. In addition, the proposed DTSP Update adds personal services and personal enrichment services to the list of permitted uses in District 1. Personal services generally include uses such as barber shops, nail salons, tailors, dry-cleaners, beauty salons and other similar services that are listed separately in the existing DTSP. These uses are permitted by right under the existing DTSP and are proposed to remain permitted by right in District 1. Personal enrichment services, which are not currently permitted in the existing DTSP, include instructional services such as yoga and fitness studios, music schools, martial arts studios, diet centers and other similar uses and are proposed to be subject to approval of an Administrative Permit with NN. This is the current citywide approval process for personal enrichment services in commercial districts. With respect to restaurant uses, the proposed DTSP clarifies the level of review for certain types of restaurants. Currently, the existing DTSP differentiates between restaurants and live entertainment/dancing. Restaurants are subject to a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator, whereas requests for live entertainment and dancing are subject to a Conditional PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 18 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;I-CPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Use Permit from the Planning Commission. The proposed DTSP Update refers to restaurants as eating and drinking establishments, which is consistent with how they are referenced in the HBZSO and differentiates the types of restaurant uses even further. For instance, eating and drinking establishments with less.than 12 seats are permitted by,right: This is similar to a delicatessen use, which is currently permitted by right in the existing DTSP. Eating and drinking establishments that do not propose to serve alcohol require an.Administrative Permit with NN, which is consistent with current requirements of the HBZSO, while,requests for eating and drinking establishments with alcohol require a Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator. Requests.for dancing and live entertainment require a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission, as currently required. Other uses that are introduced in District 1 include livetwork units,religious assembly and cultural institutions. District 2—Visitor-Serving Mixed-Use. Designated as District 7 in the existing DTSP,the area of District 2 represents the visitor-serving commercial portion of the approved Pacific City project, a 31-acre mixed use project consisting of retail, office, restaurant, cultural and entertainment uses. There, is also a residential component of the Pacific City project, which is designated in District 5. The principal purpose of District 2 is to provide commercial facilities to serve seasonal visitors to the beaches as well as to serve local residents on a year-round basis. This district also provides a continuous commercial link between the Downtown core and the visitor-commercial/recreation district near Beach Boulevard. The development standards of District 2 represent the approved Pacific City project and no changes are proposed for this district. District 3 — Visitor-Serving Recreation. District 3 covers the area along Pacific Coast Highway between Huntington Street and Beach Boulevard. The area of District 3, generally referred to as the "hotel district,"consists of the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort and Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach Resort and Spa hotels. The Waterfront site (commercial and residential) is also governed by a Development Agreement with the Robert L. Mayer Corporation that was approved in 1988 and amended in 1998. Completed in 1990, the Hilton Waterfront is a resort hotel with ballroom and meeting space, restaurants, and a fitness center. The Hyatt Regency opened in 2003 and, in addition to hotel amenities, includes a conference center, retail and restaurant uses and a spa and fitness center. A third hotel is also planned for District 3. This district encourages large, coordinated development that is beach-oriented and open to the public for both commercial and recreational purposes. The existing developments described above are consistent with the intent and development standards for District 3. Designated as District 9 in the existing DTSP, development standards are not proposed to change with implementation of the DTSP Update. District 4 — Established Residential. District 4 is composed entirely of established existing single and multi-family residential uses. This district includes three separate areas: the area between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue from Seventh Street to Goldenwest Street, except for the area included in District 1; the area along Sixth Street between Walnut Avenue and Orange Avenue; and.all of the area between Acacia Avenue and Palm Avenue, except for the area included in District 1. This district is proposing to allow greater densities on smaller lots. For instance,the DTSP currently allows one dwelling unit on lots with less than 50 feet of street frontage and up to four units on lots with 50 feet of street frontage. The updated DTSP would allow one dwelling unit on lots with 25 feet or less of street frontage _ and up to four units on lots with 26 — 50 feet of street frontage. Lots with more than 50 feet of street PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 19 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) frontage can be developed at a density of 30 units per net acre in both versions of the Specific Plan. While allowing higher densities; the proposed DTSP Update continues to employ requirements for upper ', story setbacks in this district and maximum height limits would remain 35 feet and three stories. This District allows residential development exclusively and encompasses all of District 2-and portions of District 4 and 6 that are already developed with residential uses from the existing DTSP. Development standards,for this District remain relatively unchanged with the exception of the following: elimination of FAR restriction for multi-family residential, requirement for a front porch element for single-family dwellings, and minor changes in front and side yard setbacks to simplify the requirements. District 5 — Established Multi-Family Residential. District 5 represents the Pacific City residential component and the Waterfront Residential development. The Pacific City residential component is approved for 516 condominium units and outdoor recreational amenities including a 2-acre Village Green public park: The Waterfront Residential development was constructed in 2004 and consists of 184- residential units located north of the Waterfront hotels in District 3. In addition,a portion of District 5 has been designated with a conservation overlay. This overlay is identified in the existing DTSP and reflects a designated wetlands area that was restored in 2004 in conjunction with the Waterfront Residential project. The intent of this district is to provide new residential development that will provide a population base to help support the commercial and office uses in the downtown area. This district is designated as District 8 (A&B) in the existing DTSP. No changes to the existing development standards are proposed. District 6 — Pier. Designated as District 10 in the existing DTSP, this district is intended to continue to provide for commercial uses on and alongside the pier that will enhance and expand the public's use and enjoyment of this area. Uses that capitalize on the views available from the pier and the unique recreational and educational opportunities the pier affords are encouraged. At the same time,care must be exercised to ensure that the major portion of the pier will remain accessible to the public at no charge,for strolling, fishing,or observation. No changes to the existing development standards are proposed. District 7—Beach. Designated as District 11 in the existing DTSP, this district is intended to continue to preserve and protect the sandy beach area within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries while allowing parking and auxiliary beach-related commercial and convenience uses. Approximately half of the beach frontage in the District is City beach;the remainder is owned by the State of California. No changes to the existing development standards for the beach district are proposed. However, the DTSP Update is proposing to explicitly prohibit storage containers and similar structures from being utilized in the beach district. Also, the interpretation of an existing permitted use is proposing to change. Currently, the beach district allows parking lots provided that recreational sand area and coastal views are protected. The provisions of this district permit tiered parking such that the top of any structure (i.e. — a wall) is located a minimum of one foot below the maximum height of the adjacent bluff. One example of this would be the existing beach parking lots adjacent to Pier Plaza and the restaurants next to the Pier- These parking lots are tiered surface lots that are below the adjacent street level. In order to provide more opportunities for parking in the DTSP area, the proposed DTSP update provides a figure in District 7 that would expand the interpretation of tiered parking in the beach district to include parking structures or "tuck under" parking with the same requirements for protecting recreational sand area and coastal views as the existing DTSP. Per the final recommended errata to the draft DTSP Update, the area where this concept would be permitted is limited to the parking lot north of the pier that extends to 6t'' Street. The PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 20 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) final recommended standards for this type of parking require that views to'and from Pacific -Coast Highway shall be maintained. The General Provisions section, which consists of requirements applicable to all districts, establishes provisions for automated parking structures. Automated parking structures utilize automatic lift systems to store and retrieve vehicles; they allow more cars to be parked in smaller structures by eliminating the need for delineated parking spaces, ramps; driveways and vehicular back-up areas. Because the DTSP Update is clear in that parking structures would be permitted in District 7, and automated structures are included in the General Provisions section, the proposed.DTSP Update would effectively permit automated parking structures in the existing parking area north of the pier within the beach district subject to a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission- ' The final recommended standards for this type of parking would require that views to.and from Pacific-Coast Highway shall be maintained. Currently, there is no proposal for a tiered beach parking_structure and further analysis and environmental review would":be—required if a tiered beach. parking structure is proposed in the future. Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) The 1995 update of the DTSP adopted.the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) that established shared parking regulations and identified development thresholds (maximum-500,000 square feet)based on parking supply for the downtown core area, a nine-block area along Main Street from Pacific Coast Highway to Acacia Avenue. The Downtown Parking Master Plan provided a strategic approach to parking for development in the downtown area. The DPMP utilizes shared parking concepts and reduced parking ratios for the core commercial area in the DTSP. The "park once, shop.twice"philosophy allows one parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict due to variations in peak parking demands (e.g., seasonal uses, days of week, hours of day). The Downtown Parking Master Plan identifies development thresholds for various land uses and is based on a detailed block by block analysis of land uses and development potential in the downtown core area, which requires careful monitoring and a yearly status .report subject to review and approval by the City Council and California Coastal Commission. Initially, the DPMP identified an overall development threshold of 500,000 square feet. In 2000, the Downtown Parking Master Plan of the DTSP was revised to establish the development thresholds (maximum - 715,000 square feet) for the downtown core area that are currently identified in the DTSP today. The development thresholds established within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area were established based on existing available parking. This allowed new development to occur without the provision of additional parking, provided that the proposed development did not exceed established thresholds. Presently,the established thresholds have been reached. TABLE 2—EXISTING DPMP DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS Restaurant 100,000 s.f. 144,000 s.f- Retail 250,000 s.f. 300,000 s_f. Office 100,000 s.f_ 126,000s.f. Miscellaneous 50,000 s.f. 145,000 s.f. PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 21 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Parking an the Proposed DTSP Update The DTSP Update provides an opportunity to adopt a new strategy for parking in the downtown area that i will accommodate future development in the DTSP while eliminating cumbersome implementation and monitoring requirements. As such, the Downtown Parking Master Plan, as currently codified, is proposed to be eliminated in the DTSP Update. Downtown Parking Study In order to assess the existing parking conditions in the downtown, a Downtown Parking Study was prepared by Kimley-Horn, Inc. in March 2009 and subsequently revised in September 2009. The study provides background information on existing parking supply, an analysis of existing parking demand,and recommendations for codified parking standards and requirements, parking improvements and strategies to support existing and future parking needs in the DTSP area. The recommendations in the parking study are reflected in Chapter 3 of Book I as codified parking requirements and Chapter 5 of Book H as parking strategies of the DTSP Update. According to the parking study, peak parking demand occurs during the summer season with the heaviest demand on summer weekends and special events. The study notes that it is difficult to find parking 35 days per year, and an actual parking deficiency exists on 15 of those days. The study recommends that supplemental parking measures be implemented on those days and provides a list of strategies that could be implemented. In terms of future development,the study finds that the identified net new development potential (refer to Table 1) will increase parking demand in the DTSP area and adds that future residential and hotel 3, - development would be required to provide all required parking on-site, while new commercial (retail, office, restaurant) development would be required to either provide parking on-site or satisfy the parking requirement through payment of in-lieu fees. As such, the parking study recommends that parking needs for future development in the DTSP area be accommodated by continuing the parking in-lieu fee program in which the City should evaluate how the fees can be utilized to increase and manage the parking supply, building new parking structures(conventional or automated)and allowing tandem parking. Parking is addressed in two places of the proposed DTSP Update. Parking strategies to support existing and future parking needs in the DTSP area are presented in Chapter 5 of Book II. These strategies represent recommendations to increase and manage the parking supply in the DTSP area. The strategies in Chapter 5 of Book II were discussed in the Book N section of this staff report and are not required to be implemented with any one development. The proposed parking requirements for new development in the DTSP area are incorporated in Chapter 3 of Book I. Each new development that is proposed in the DTSP area would be required to provide parking in accordance with the standards specified in Chapter 3 of Book I. Parking Requirements of Chapter 3 The current Downtown Parking Master Plan encompasses an area that is generally regarded as the existing downtown core, a nine-block area along Main Street from Pacific Coast Highway to Acacia Avenue. As stated on page one of this report, the recommendation by RRM was to expand the downtown core north on Main Street and on the outlying streets such as P and 5th Streets. The DTSP Update provides an opportunity to adopt a new strategy for parking in the downtown area that will accommodate future PC Staff Report—10/6/09 22 09sr64 GPA 08-007; ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) development in the DTSP while eliminating cumbersome implementation and monitoring requirements. f_.� As such, the Downtown Parking Master PIan, as-currently codified, is proposed to be eliminated in the DTSP Update. Since the proposed DTSP Update would eliminate the Downtown Parking Master Plan, Chapter Three of Book I of the proposed DTSP Update includes a section that specifies distinct parking standards for District 1, the expanded downtown core area. The standards require all residential and hotel developments to provide parking on-site. All net new commercial development would be required to provide parking on-site, subject to the reduced parking ratios referenced above, but could apply for a CUP (Planning Commission)to provide parking off-site through payment of in-lieu fees. hi addition,the DTSP Update establishes provisions for shared parking agreements between two or more uses that have different hours of operation (i.e. — a theater vs. office). Shared parking agreements.are subject to a CUP from the Planning Commission and would allow up to 50% of the required parking to be shared, provided the shared parking spaces are within a 350-foot radius of the subject use and, if on a separate parcel, a covenant or other agreement is recorded subject to review by the City Attorney. Other standards for District 1 include provisions for intensification of an existing use, which would only require parking for any net new development (existing square footage would not have to provide parking beyond what is already existing) and a requirement that all parking within the proposed Cultural Arts Subdistrict shall be underground. The table below shows a comparison of existing DTSP Downtown Parking Master Plan ratios, ratios specified in the HBZSO and the proposed District 1 parking reduced parking ratios. TABLE 3 -COMPARISON OF PARKING RATIOS Retail 3 s aces per 1,000 s.f. 3 spaces per 1,000 s.f. 5 s aces per,1,000 s.f. Office 2 s aces er 1,000 s.f. 2.s aces r 1,000s.f. A spaces per 1,000 s.f. h Hotel/Motel* 1.1 spaces per room + Not specified (subject to 1.1 spaces per room + 1 1 space per passenger HBZSO) space per passenger transport vehicle + 2 transport vehicle + 2 spaces spaces for any for any manager's unit manager's unit ... ail: Cultural Arts 1 space per 300 s_f. Not specified (subject to 1 space per 300 s.f. Facilities HBZSO * The final recommended changes to the June2009 Draft DTSP Update revise the standards for hotel/motel, bed& breakfast and assembly uses to be consistent with the existing parking standards of the DTSP and HBZSO. PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 23 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) The reduced parking ratios would be applicable in the reconfigured District I (Downtown Core),-with the exception of the subdistrict zones. Other districts within.the DTSP area are subject to the same parking requirements specified in the HBZSO. The proposed parking requirements of Chapter 3 that are - applicable in all districts establish standards for live/work units (a new use proposed in the DTSP Update) and would allow a tandem parking configuration for residential uses. Commercial uses could provide up to 40% of the required parking in a tandem configuration with an attendant subject to a Conditional Use Permit. ISSUES: Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use,Zoning, and General Plan Desi'-nations: The 336-acre DTSP area is zoned SP5-CZ (Specific Plan No. 5 - Coastal Zone) and consists of 11 districts within the specific plan area. The General Plan land use designations for the existing I I districts are shown on Attachment No.9 and:listed in Table 4 as follows: TABLE 4-Existing DTSP General Plan Land Use Designations Existing DTSP District General Plan Land Use Designation 13 j wit'. 'A n e cal U. a:==, ,�;'(:.n.., _. v -:1 0.172 S. c1-S District 2-Residential Residential High Density-30 units per acre-design overlay- specific.plan overlay R_H-30-d-s s`R�.�-.s.�.,,,-`5"�y„�- ,�azw �. •+. _ .�." 1F �;n-� F ���� .�IiN;��,�s,��' �. -- 's District 4-Mixed-Use; Office Mixed Use Horizontal-1.25 FAR-30 du/acre-specific"plan Residential overlay-pedestrian overlay (MH-F4/30-sp-pd) =01,11101-046WO - - ,� f�,r .�<�.�'— an _"i f etl� �<-_ -� _ Amy,L -�-...Y��`>i.:v�?�'-c� ,..t„-- - -, _;f-A` 5� �'',t��':�.:... .7;, nx" ��.-�....� -r District 6'-Mixed-Use; Mixed Use- 2.0 FAR (MU)-2.0(C)/25 du/acre-specific plan Commercial/Office/Residential overlay-pedestrian overlay(M-F1 1/25-sp-pd); Public(P) _��:: -_ - �•-- �• :.�.v.>� -- - - ��. -,�-':��: -- _ �.;� - - - .fey - ..�� :�. :.� rts�- ._ ; Or1711er C[ District 8-High Density Residential High Density-30 units per acre-specific plan Residential overlay(RH-30-sp) :vets r _ Wife rra#} sfaT>-3 0„Floor Acee_Ra#roFR) pecifpiari h ^ WO District 10- Pier-related Commercial Visitor-design overlay (CV-d) Commercial eacl3�en Spaceiet�Space Shore ((4S S) i i"..3'a,��-j C.�,�Y���-(�. .�_ '[ •`ei3 `L"'i;K/ _ -F -1". PC Staff Report—10/6/09 24 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) General Plan Conformance: The current General Plan Land Use Map designations within the DTSP area are shown in Table 4 above. The proposed project includes General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning Text Amendments-that would change the land use designations to reflect the reconfiguration of the existing I 1 districts to seven districts and changes to the development standards such as increases in allowable densities and building heights as well as the elimination of FAR requirements in the reconfigured District 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Circulation Element Objective CE 3.2:. Encourage new development that promotes and expands the use of transit services. Policy CE 6.1.6: Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments,schools,and public facilities. The DTSP Update project includes recommendations for transit improvements in the DTSP area to facilitate and improve upon circulation throughout the downtown area. The recommended improvements include a bus layover zone on PCH between 0 and Huntington Street. This zone accommodates stops for all five of the existing OCTA bus routes that serve the downtown. A downtown trolley service may be provided to circulate between the hotel developments•closer to Beach Boulevard, Pacific City, the downtown core and the residential neighborhoods surrounding downtown. It would also allow visitors to move easily between the hotels, Pacific City, the Cultural _-. Arts area,the downtown core and the Strand,by allowing these visitors to park their vehicles once and access the other areas of the downtown through a trolley system. The DTSP update also recommends pedestrian improvements through proposed streetseapes that would provide for greater sidewalk widths to encourage and enhance pedestrian activity. Pedestrian- only phased signalized intersections are also recommended as another option to enhance pedestrian circulation at the intersections of PCH and 1st Street and PCH and 6tn Street. Finally, the.DTSP Update includes bicycle parking requirements for all commercial and multi-family developments as currently required by`the HBZSO. Potential bicycle parking locations are provided in chapter 5 of Book II. In addition, Chapter 5 of the Book 11 recommends the addition of bicycle lanes, which are included in the general plan amendment request. B. Coastal Element Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Objective C 1.1: Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. PC Staff Report—10/6/09 25 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Policy C 1.1.1: With the exception of hazardous industrial development, new development shall be _. encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate - public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively,on coastal resources. Goal C 3: Provide a variety of recreational and visitor commercial serving uses for a range of cost and market preferences. Objective C 3.2.4: Encourage the provision of a variety of visitor-serving commercial establishments within the Coastal Zone, including, but not limited to, shops, restaurants, hotels and motels, and day spas. The proposed LCPA reflects the changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements as a result of changes that are proposed in the DTSP Update. The changes proposed in the DTSP Update would not substantially alter the existing land use pattern of the area and would encourage the same type of uses that are currently permitted in the DTSP, including provisions that require visitor-serving commercial uses in accordance with Coastal Element goals and objectives. The proposed development standards would incentivize development and redevelopment, which would result in the continuation and intensification of visitor-serving uses in the DTSP area. The reconfiguration of the districts results in changes to the Land Use Plan that would amend the land use designation on approximately four acres within the DTSP from mixed-use to high density ,;,:-, residential in areas that include properties on 6 h Street from Walnut Avenue to Orange Avenue.and properties on Main Street and Lake Street north of Acacia Avenue. Although these areas carry mixed use designations, the district provisions in which they are located currently allow for neighborhood commercial and office uses in conjunction with residential uses as well as single-family residential uses rather than mixed use developments that integrate visitor-serving commercial with residential uses. In addition, the change from mixed use to high density residential is more reflective of the current residential uses in these areas. These areas include residential uses that include relatively newer units that are unlikely to redevelop under the proposed DTSP Update. The DTSP Update does not propose changes to the existing districts of the DTSP that encompass the beach and pier. However, the DTSP does propose to allow a tiered beach parking structure, or"tuck- under" parking on the existing beach surface parking lot north of the pier. The provisions of the DTSP require that any tiered beach parking or parking structure shall not result in the loss of recreational sand area and the top of such structures shall be located at the same elevation of the sidewalk adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway or a minimum of one foot below the maximum height of the adjacent bluff to ensure that coastal resources are protected. The EIR for the DTSP Update; which is described in detail in a companion report, concludes that incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels for the majority of the issues analyzed. The EIR identifies four areas in which impacts, with mitigation, would be significant and unavoidable. The EIR recommends mitigation measures that would reduce adverse impacts to the greatest extent feasible in accordance with Coastal Element Objective CLI. PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 26 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) However, the EIR identifies four areas in which impacts, with mitigation, would_ be significant and unavoidable. The EIR analyzes environmental impacts from net new development that is anticipated to occur over a 20-year period. The DTSP area is generally built-out and net new development would occur on scattered vacant lots, underutilized parcels and redevelopment of existing parcels. Based on the conclusions of the EIR that was prepared for the project adequate public services would be available to serve the new development that is anticipated, with the exception of Fire services, which may require upgrades to existing facilities and staffing levels as new development occurs. Because the extent of needed upgrades is unknown at this time, impacts to Fire services were determined to be significant and unavoidable. In addition, future projects would be required to connect to existing infrastructure and, if necessary, upgrades would be required at the time development is proposed. Each project would be reviewed to determine if upgrades or improvements would be required. Finally, a water supply assessment was prepared for the DTSP Update, which concluded that water supply is available to accommodate the net new development anticipated in the DTSP area. C. Historic and Cultural Resources Element Objective HCR 1.1: Identify all the historically and archeologically significant resources in Huntington Beach. Policy HCR 1.3.7: Explore alternatives that enable a property owner to sensitively add to the existing -�, structure, or develop an accompanying building on site that allows property development rights to be realized. Deviation to setbacks, heights and parking requirements should be considered to make the preservation of an existing historic building feasible when no other feasible alternative exists. Goal HCR 5: Establish a wide range of arts and cultural programs and facilities that address the needs and interest of residents, workers, and visitors. Objective HCR 5.2: Facilitate the growth of the arts and cultural community. The proposed DTSP Update includes a Cultural Arts Subdistrict that includes the Main Street Library site and the Huntington Beach Art Center in addition to properties north of Acacia Avenue. The subdistrict promotes the establishment of cultural institutions, such as libraries, museums and art galleries in the northern area of the DTSP by limiting the allowable uses while maintaining allowances for the continuation of existing uses in the subdistrict including the library. The Cultural Arts Subdistrict reduces the number and type of uses that are currently permitted in this area to ensure that cultural arts uses would be implemented in this area in the future. The library site as well as 23 other sites in the DTSP area is identified in the Historic and Cultural Resources Element as a local landmark and would require further study by an architectural historian in the event a development is proposed for the site. The required study would determine the historical significance of the structure and provide recommendations for further treatment of the structure such as preservation or restoration as appropriate. PC Staff Report—10/6109 27 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) D. Economic Development Element ,< Goal ED 2: Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial, and visitor:serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. Obiective ED 3.2: Maximize the environmental quality and recreational opportunity of the beach visitor destination to continue to attract conference attendees and visitors. Policy ED 3.2.2: Encourage mixed-use (retail/office/residential) structures in the downtown area and at the visitor-serving nodes along Pacific Coast Highway. The DTSP Update would encourage and facilitate future development in the downtown area through the recommended changes to the development standards, including proposed increases in allowable densities and building heights. The proposed increase in allowable residential densities also encourages mixed-use projects in the downtown core area. The DTSP Update requires that all ground-level street frontage in District 1,the downtown core,provide visitor-serving commercial uses. In addition, the DTSP Update provides recommendations for streetscape and public amenity improvements, which would provide a quality environment to continue to attract visitors to the downtown area. Implementation of the recommendations in-Chapter 5 of Book II for parking and circulation strategies would enhance the visitor experience by providing better management of parking facilities for visitors and residents. E. Housing Element Policy H 2.2: Facilitate the development of mixed use projects in appropriate commercial areas, including stand-alone residential development(horizontal mixed use) and housing above ground floor commercial uses(vertical mixed use). Establish mixed use zoning regulations. Policy H 3.1: Encourage the production of housing that meets all economic segments of the community, including lower, moderate, and upper income households, to maintain a balanced community. The DTSP Update would continue to allow mixed use developments in the DTSP area, and further facilitates the development of mixed use projects through the proposed changes to the specific plan. These changes include increases in allowable building heights and residential densities, elimination of FAR requirements and the continuation of reduced parking ratios and the parking in-lieu fee program for the downtown core area, which is proposed to be expanded. All projects would be required to provide affordable housing pursuant to existing City requirements. These requirements include the provision of 10 percent of the units, or 15 percent if proposed in a redevelopment area, in a project to be provided to low and moderate income households. PC Staff Report—10/6/09 28 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) F. Land Use Element Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking,supporting functions,open space, and other pertinent elements. The DTSP Update proposes development standards, design guidelines and streetscapes that, if and when implemented, would enhance the visual image of the downtown._ The design guidelines and recommended streetscapes encourage public and private projects to promote the "ocean" theme and build upon the "Surf City" culture. Public open space is required for all commercial and mixed use projects and would include, but not be limited to, a combination of landscaping, shade trees, planters, water features, decorative paving and seating areas. Public art would also be required for commercial and mixed use projects meeting certain criteria. All development would be required to meet the requirements of the DTSP Update, which includes provisions for access, parking and utilitarian aspects. Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Objective L U 8.1: Maintain the pattern of land uses while providing opportunities for the evolution, including intensification and re-use, of selected subareas in order to improve their character and identity. The DTSP Update will accommodate new development and redevelopment in the DTSP area through changes proposed to existing development standards. These changes include increases in allowable building heights and residential densities, elimination of FAR requirements and the continuation of reduced parking ratios and the parking in-lieu program in the expanded downtown core (District 1). The proposed changes would facilitate development and redevelopment in the downtown area over the next 20 years. Although the DTSP Update would allow more intense development in the downtown area, the land uses that would be permitted are similar to those that are currently permitted. In addition, residential buffer requirements, upper story setbacks and standards for mixed use development would ensure that new development is compatible with the scale and character of existing development in the DTSP area. The range of permitted uses would serve the existing residential base in and around the downtown,by allowing uses such as personal services and retail stores, while required visitor-serving uses would further ensure the economic viability of the downtown area. As new development occurs in the downtown, the proposed design guidelines encourage project design that would utilize"ocean"themes and build upon the "Surf City" culture creating a stronger connection to the beach and ocean. PC Staff Report—10/6/09 29 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Therefore, the resulting Iand use pattern as development moves forward under the DTSP Update would preserve and enhance the identity of downtown. Goal LU 11: Achieve the development of projects that enable residents to live in proximity to their jobs,commercial services,and entertainment,and reduce the need for automobile use. Policy LU 11.1.4: Require the incorporation of adequate onsite open space and recreational facilities to serve the needs of the residents in mixed use development projects. Policy LU 11.1.5: Require that mixed use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between the commercial and residential uses; considering such issues as noise, lighting, security, and truck and automobile access. Preparation of the DTSP Update was based on design concepts such as smart growth and sustainable design. The DTSP Update would allow for mixed use, high density development thereby increasing housing options, promoting alternative modes of transportation, creating a local sense of place and allowing for more efficient use of land resources. The DTSP area has a variety of existing uses that are complementary to the proposed update such as commercial and office uses, recreational opportunities at the:beach and Pier Plaza, an arts center,'hotels and restaurants. In addition,the DTSP Update would add to the concentration of living, shopping, entertainment, and employment opportunities within the existing DTSP area. Because the DTSP area combines different activities and uses in close proximity to one another, the DTSP Update will provide more opportunities and convenience for many households to use alternate travel modes such as walking and biking to #=- complete their daily routines and errands as well as access existing recreational resources such as the beach. - The DTSP Update proposes separate standards for mixed use development to ensure that the commercial and residential components will be compatible. The requirements for mixed use projects require.all buildings to be sited such that odor, noise, tight and glare and other conflicts are reduced between commercial and residential uses. Mixed use developments require public open space, but also require private open space for the residential portion. Loading areas and trash enclosures are required to be located away from residential uses. In addition, parking for the residential portion must be distinguished from commercial uses- G. Noise Element Policy N 1.3.10: Require that mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning units or pool equipment, comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Policy N 1.5.1: Require that commercial and residential mixed use structures minimize the transfer or transmission of noise and vibration from the commercial land use to the residential land use. The design measures may include: (1)the use of materials which mitigate sound transmission; or (2)the configuration of interior spaces to minimize sound amplification and transmission. s PC Staff Report—10/6/09 30 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) In addition to mitigation measures that are required to be implemented to mitigate noise impacts for projects in the DTSP area, Chapter 3 of Book I contains requirements that would ensure that projects = are designed .to reduce .noise and vibration from adjacent commercial uses and -commercial components of mixed use developments. The requirements include locating noise generating equipment such as refrigeration and air conditioning units,trash enclosures and loading areas away from residential uses. The requirements also require noise-reducing screens and insulation if equipment has the potential to create a negative impact on residential uses. H. Urban Design Element Goal UD 1.1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach The DTSP Update proposes development standards, design guidelines and streetscapes that, if and when implemented, would enhance_the visual image of the downtown. The design guidelines and recommended streetscapes encourage public and private projects to promote the "ocean" theme and build upon the "Surf City" culture. The recommended streetscapes call for wider sidewalks to enhance and improve the pedestrian experience. The design guidelines help ensure maximum compatibility of design within the DTSP area, promote pedestrian-friendly development, and promote the use of high quality exterior materials. Structures within the DTSP area would vary in height depending on use and site area in order to provide variety in rooflines and building form. Development standards ensure that form, height, and treatment of future developments convey an overall high level of quality with minimal interference on existing and surrounding uses. The requirements of the DTSP Update also include provisions for public art and public open space in projects. Zoninr?Compliance: The proposed zoning text amendment associated with this project is to amend the current development standards of the DTSP. One of the efforts of the proposed zoning text amendment is to incorporate,where applicable, references to other documents such as the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Urban Design Guidelines so that the DTSP will be a more all-inclusive document. Future development will be required to comply with the adopted changes to the DTSP. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: The project is proposing to incorporate design guidelines as Chapter 4 of Book IL The proposed design guidelines of the DTSP incorporate Chapter 5 —Downtown/Main Street Commercial and other applicable sections of the Citywide Urban Design Guidelines, which were adopted by Council in 2000. However, some of the guidelines proposed in the DTSP Update have been modified or updated to provide for a more practical application in the DTSP area. Environmental Status: The project's potential environmental impacts are analyzed and discussed in a separate staff report. Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 31 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) and Zoning Text Amendment,No. 08-004 it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Environmental.Impact Report No. 08-001. Staff, in its initial study of the,project, is recommending that Environmental Impact Report No..08-001 be certified as adequate and complete with mitigation measures, findings of fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Although the project results in.adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided,the Planning Commission may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impact to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Public Services. The adverse impacts are unavoidable because it has been determined that no feasible mitigation is available or the mitigation that could be implemented at this time. Currently, development in the DTSP area is primarily constrained by the development cap of the Downtown Parking Master Plan of the existing DTSP. Approval of the project would provide more opportunities for future development and redevelopment in the DTSP•area.:, In addition,the project would have the following benefits: 1. The project would create a healthy mix of land uses that are geared toward creating an urban village that serves as a destination to both residents and visitors. 2. The project would involve the implementation of development standards and design guidelines necessary to develop of underused parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture. 3. The project would involve the incorporation of environmentally sustainable development practices into new development proposals,- including those recommended by the US Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program Certification, or Build it Green's Guidelines and Rating"Systems. 4. The project provides for a diversity of..iransportation opportunities, such as walking, bicycling and expanded transit use. 5. The project would result in the incorporation of more public open space areas in key locations and in conjunction with new development. 6. The project will maintain and enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development consistent with the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan 7. The project will provide the equivalent of 10 — 15 percent of new residential units as affordable housing, consistent with City requirements and California Redevelopment Law. PC Staff Report—10/6/09 32 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Following approval of the General Plan,Local Coastal Program and zoning text.amendments the Planning. 4 Commission must approve the CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 15). Coastal Status: The entire DTSP area is in the Coastal Zone. The entitlement requests for the DTSP Update include Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002, which is analyzed as part of the project in this staff report. Upon final local action by the City Council, the Local Coastal Program Amendments, which include the subject General Plan and Zoning Text Amendments will be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for final action and certification. The changes proposed in the DTSP Update will not be effective until the Coastal Commission takes action on the project. Redevelopment Status: The majority of the DTSP area is located in the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project area. The Economic Development Department is the lead department and co-applicant of the project and has reviewed and recommended the changes proposed in the DTSP Update. In addition, the Economic Development Department has forwarded recommendations from the Downtown Image Ad Hoc Committee for consideration. The recommendations are included in Attachment No. 22. Design Review Board: a` The Design Review Board (DRB) held a special meeting on January 15, 2009 in which the proposed Design Guidelines (Chapter 4) and Streetscapes (Chapter 6) were reviewed. The DRB had the following recommendations: Design Guidelines ® A design guideline should be incorporated to encourage minimizing the amount of lettering on monument/multi-tenant signs. This was incorporated as a development standard in Book I, Chapter 3,Section 3.2.22.2—Monument Signs. A design guideline or development standard should be incorporated, as appropriate, to require that all monument signs have one uniform background color for sign panels. This was incorporated as a development standard in Book I, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.22.2—Monument Signs. A development standard should be incorporated to either increase the minimum 10' wide pedestrian walkway requirement or require that the required walkway remain free from obstructions including street trees, outdoor displays and signage. This is addressed in several sections: Book I, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.24.2 (3 & 4) — Outdoor Dining and Section 3.2.25 (M) Outdoor Display Areas and Sales. t PC Staff Report—10/6/09 33 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) StreetsMes&Public Amenities i - The newsrack image in Chapter 6 should be updated to reflect the approved design for Downtown. This is incorporated in the sample streetscape furnishings table in Chapter Six (Figure 6-19). • Street tree specifications should be reconsidered based on recommendations submitted by the DRB. This is incorporated in the street trees section of Chapter Six(Figure 6-20). • Specifications for streetscape furnishings should be revised to include the following details: o Trash receptacles: aluminum and powder-coated; o Bicycle racks: stainless steel and powder-coated;and o Bus shelters: stainless steel and powder-coated. Although the specifications in Chapter Six are provided only as examples, these recommendations are incorporated into the streetscape furnishings table in Chapter Six(Figure 649). The six DRB recommendations were incorporated into the June 2009 draft DTSP Update. Therefore,the DTSP Update as proposed is consistent with the recommendations of the DRB. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Building,and Safety, Community Services, Police and Economic Development have reviewed the project and recommended approval. Some of the applicable standard J j, code requirements have been identified in EIR No. 09 M3. As-the DTSP Update does not propose development,there are no unique conditions of approval or code requirements to identify. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on September 24, 2009, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within the DTSP area and a 1,000 ft. radius of the boundary of the DTSP, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), interested parties, and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental document. The Planning Commission has received all public comments on the DTSP Update as attachments to the study session reports or late communications. Several public comments have been received since September 1, 2009, the last Planning Commission study session on the project. All public comment letters received as of September 29, 2009 are included in Attachment No. 14. All public comments received prior to September 1, 2009 are on file and available for review at the Planning Department. d PC Staff Report—1016109 34 09sr64 GPA 0"07;ZTA 08-004;LCPA OM02(DTSP Update) Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATES Draft EIR: April 10,2009 Within 1 year of complete application; May 20,2010 General Plan Amendment; Not Applicable Zoning Text Amendment; Local Coastal Program Amendment: May 20, 2009 ANALYSIS: Although the DTSP Update proposes many changes to the existing DTSP, many of these changes are consistent with existing standards of the HBZSO, project code requirements, existing DTSP policies and recently approved projects. The primary factors to consider when analyzing the proposed changes to the General Plan and DTSP are the increase in allowable residential density in District I and District 4, increase in allowable building height in District 1, the elimination of the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP), land use compatibility and the Cultural Arts Subdistrict IA. The following is a detailed discussion of these issues. Increase in Allowable Densities District 1 The existing permitted density for the districts that make up the reconfigured District 1 ranges from 25 — 30 dwelling units per acre. Per the final recommended errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update, the proposed amendments would allow a density of up to 50 units per acre for projects with 25,000 square feet or greater of site area. Projects with less than 25,000 square feet of site area would be permitted to develop at a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. In addition, projects within Subdistrict 1B - Neighborhood Subdistrict and projects that are proposed with only residential uses would be limited to a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. The proposed increase in maximum allowable density for District I is consistent with the intent of the specific plan and the following goals,policies and objectives(Attachment No. 11) adopted by the Council for the DTSP Update: ■ Goal 1: Establish the vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that the next phase of community investment and improvements can begin. ■ Objective 1: Create a healthy mix of land uses that are geared toward creating an urban village that serves as a destination to both residents and visitors. ■ Objective 2: Implement development standards and design guidelines that encourage development of underutilized parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture. • Policy 2.a.: Implement development standards that encourage mixed-use development ■ Policy 2.b.: Establish standards and design guidelines that encourage upgrading/ redevelopment of existing properties. PC Staff Report—10/6/09 35 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Similar to the proposed increase in maximum allowable building heights, the proposed increase in allowable density in District 1 would facilitate development in the downtown core and incentivize lot consolidation. Project applicants would be able to take advantage of the increased density to maximize development opportunities on their sites, which would create an incentive to redevelopment or improve their properties. The increased maximum densities would also encourage development of mixed-use projects to further the objective for the downtown to become an"urban village". The increase in density would be greater than currently permitted and developed densities throughout the DTSP, which range from approximately 13 dwelling units per acre to 35 dwelling units per acre. However, the increased density is consistent with the "urban village" objective of the Council goals, objectives and policies for the DTSP Update. An increase in housing units in the downtown core would provide a larger population base that would utilize the attractions and services in the downtown on a year- round basis. The increased density would also contribute to the pedestrian environment of the downtown core since residents of future residential units would be able to walk to shops, restaurants, cultural facilities, services,the beach,and possibly work. The increase in density.is also consistent with the design concepts that were utilized in preparation of the DTSP Update such as smart growth,and sustainable design. Citywide, there has been a shift toward allowing higher densities as part of mixed-use developments in urban areas as evidenced by the recently approved Amstar/Red Oak (formerly Ripcurl) and Village at Bella Terra projects. Based on the above.analysis, staff supports the recommendations of RRM to increase maximum densities in Districts 1 and 4. District 4 The provisions of District 4 would allow a slight increase in density for lots ranging from 26—50 feet in . frontage. Currently a maximum of two units is permitted for lots within this range of frontage in the ,, existing DTSP. The proposed DTSP Update would allow up to four units to be developed on properties within this range of lot frontages. This would allow more opportunity for residential inf Il development on smaller lots and create turnover of older housing units. During the August I Study Session on Districts 2 — 7, the Planning Commission expressed some concern that allowing four units on lots with frontages within the lower end of this range would result in poorly designed projects. However, staff reviewed the lots widths within District 4 and, in general, lots are either 25 feet wide or 50 feet wide and greater. Therefore, the increase in density of up to four units would really only be applicable on 50-foot wide lots. Given that lots within District 4 have an average depth of 115 feet, the resulting density on a 50-foot wide lot with four units would be approximately one unit for every 1,437 square feet of lot area, which equates to approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. The allowable density per the existing and proposed DTSP for District 4 on lots greater than 50 feet wide is 30 dwelling units per acre. If a lot were less than 50 feet wide, the density would incrementally increase as lot width decreases. However, based on a review of existing lot widths, it is unrealistic that this condition would occur. Also, it is unlikely that a project would be able to get four units on a less than 50-foot wide lot and meet all of the development standards and parking requirements without design measures that may be cost prohibitive- According to RRM, the proposed increase in allowable density in District 4 would provide an incentive for property owners to consolidate 25-foot wide lots to take advantage of the increase in the number of units that could be constructed on 50-foot wide lots from two units to a maximum of four units. PC Staff Report— 1016/09 36 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Increase in Building Height The changes to the DTSP include an increase in allowable building height to a maximum of 55 feet and five stories in District 1. This building height would be permitted for sites that have 25,000 square feet or more (equivalent. to approximately ten 25-foot wide lots). Current maximum building heights would permit 35 feet and three stories or 45 feet and four stories depending on street frontage and whether the project consists of a full or half block. The most substantial change in allowable building heights would occur on PCH from 6th Street to 9th Street where maximum building heights are 35 feet and three stories. However, the maximum building height could only be achieved if all of the lots along the PCH street frontage from street to street were consolidated. The proposed increase in allowable building height for District 1 is consistent with the intent of the specific plan and the following goals,policies and objectives(Attachment No. 11) adopted by the Council for the DTSP Update: ■ Goal 1: Establish the vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that the next phase of community investment and improvements can begin. ■ Goal 2: Create an environment that promotes tourism to increase revenues to support community services and transform the City's economy into a destination. ■ Objective 2: Implement development standards and design guidelines that encourage development of underutilized parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture. ■ Policy 2.a.: Implement development standards that encourage mixed-use development ■ Policy 2.b.: Establish standards and design guidelines that encourage upgrading/ redevelopment of existing properties. The decision to eliminate the full and half block requirements was to allow maximum building heights to be achieved with different potential lot consolidations and site layouts. The proposed increase in allowable building height is one of the important revisions to the DTSP that would facilitate development in the DTSP area and incentivize lot consolidation .to get larger more cohesive development projects. Conversely, projects with site areas less than 25,000 square feet would be permitted at a maximum building height of 45 feet and four stories, which would facilitate development for potential projects that' are unable to consolidate many parcels. The increased building height would allow projects to maximize development opportunities on the site. The increased building height would also encourage mixed-use development since project applicants could design projects to achieve the maximum residential densities permitted. In terms of compatibility,the proposed increase in building height would be consistent with other large- scale developments in the DTSP area. Examples of existing building heights in the downtown core are listed below. Plaza Almeria Second Block Parking Structure -54 feet to the highest average roof pitch -35 feet to the highest average roof pitch -64 feet to the peak of the highest tower - 60 feet to the peak of the highest towers PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 37 09sr64 GPA 08-007-1 ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Pierside Pavilion Oceanview Promenade(Abdelmuti Project) -71 feet to the highest average roof itch -67 feet to the peak of the fourth floor P - 84.5 feet to the top of the tower - 85 feet to the top of the clock tower The Strand -49.5 feet for hotel - 70 feet to the top of the'architectural tower These projects were granted special permits to increase the allowed height in the.Downtown, in addition to Town Square, Main Street Promenade, and the Team (Starbucks) building. The proposed maximum building height of 55 feet would be within the range of existing building heights listed above. To ensure that the proposed building height increase would not impact adjacent residential uses, or existing one-, two- and three-story buildings, projects would be required to provide upper-story setbacks on the fourth and fifth floors and comply with the design guidelines of Chapter 4, Book H. The design guidelines encourage preservation of view corridors, variation in wall planes and rooflines, articulation and architectural treatments at building facades and design details that would make structures appear to have a more pedestrian scale. Although the most substantial increase in allowable-building height will occur on PCH from 6tn Street to 9th Street where the existing maximum allowable building height is 35 feet and three stories, this increase would be consistent with the existing development pattern along PCH. Existing projects in the DTSP along PCH include large-scale developments such as the Waterfront hotels, the approved Pacific City - project, Pierside Pavilion, Oceanview Promenade and The Strand. Building heights reaching up to an \ a average of 55 feet would be compatible with the existing building heights along PCH. Residential uses north of these properties would be afforded protection from shade/shadow impacts and building massing through the residential buffer requirements in Chapter 3 of Book I, which require additional upper-story setbacks from adjacent residential uses. While private views of existing residential uses north of these properties may be affected by potential increases in building heights, neither the Coastal Act nor the Coastal Element protect private views. However, the proposed design guidelines encourage new structures to be designed to respect the views of existing buildings when possible. Over the next 20 years, building heights in the DTSP area will increase as properties are developed and redeveloped. Future projects will take advantage of the allowable increased heights and, overall, structures will be taller. However, compliance with the development standards and design guidelines will result in high quality, attractive projects that are compatible with existing surrounding building heights. That being said, the analysis above substantiates the increase in building height as a development standard for District 1 in the DTSP. Each project should be reviewed based on the specific site layout, design details, location and nature of the particular project. Given that all projects would require a conditional use permit (CUP), the opportunity to conduct this type of review is afforded through the CUP process. Therefore, staff supports the recommendations of RRM to allow increases in maximum building heights in District 1. PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 38 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Elimination of the Downtown Parking Master Plan- The proposed DTSP Update proposes to;eliminate the Downtown Parking Master Plan(DPMP), which is described in detail.in a previous section of this report. The DPMP utilizes shared parking concepts and reduced parking ratios for.the core commercial area in the DTSP.The shared parking concept allows one parking-space to erne two or-more-individual-tand-uses without conflict-due to variations-in peak-parking demands (e.g., seasonal uses, days of week, hours of day). The Downtown Parking Master Plan identifies development.thresholds for various,land uses and is based on a detailed block by block analysis of land uses and development potential in the downtown core area,which requires careful monitoring and a yearly status report subject to review and approval by the City Council and California.Coastal Commission. Initially, the DPMP identified an overall development threshold of 500,000 square feet. In 2000, the Downtown Parking Master Plan of the DTSP was revised ".to establish the development thresholds (maximum - 715,000 square feet) for the downtown core area that are currently identified in the DTSP today. The development thresholds established within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area were established based on existing,�available parking. This allowed new development to occur without the provision of additional parking, provided that the proposed development did not exceed established thresholds. Presently,the established thresholds have been reached. The City Council goals, policies and objectives of the DTSP Update include the following statements related to parking in the downtown area: ■ Objective 3: Ensure that adequate parking is available and is integrated into the framework of pedestrian pathways within the downtown, taking into account Pacific City and the Strand. ■ Policy 3.b: Expand boundaries of the DPMP to encourage consolidation and development of underutilized parcels. ■ Policy 3.c: Consider all available options for additional parking within the downtown core. ■ Policy 3.d: Enhance directional signage to inform motorists of available public parking structures. ■ Policy 3.e: DPMP shall be simplified to be easily understood by decision-makers, the public,and development community. ■ Policy 3.f Development of a tracking mechanism that can be modified to track shifts in land use that affect the parking model. The DPMP, which was adopted in 1995, is a cumbersome document to implement because it requires close monitoring of development and uses in the DPMP area on a block and parcel level. The DTSP Update provides an opportunity to eliminate the cumbersome DPMP and implement new parking strategies and requirements. A Downtown Parking Study was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates in March 2009 and revised in September 2009. Revisions to the parking study that were done in September 2009 do not change the recommendations of the study but provide more analysis on the utilization of shared/reduced parking ratios, incorporate data for The Strand development and clarify the existing issues related to parking conditions in the downtown. The results of the Parking Study indicate that the downtown and beach PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 39 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) parking demand are seasonal in nature with significant fluctuations throughout the year. According.to the parking study, a parking deficiency occurs when there are special events at the beach or downtown. The- special event parking demand encroaches into the downtown parking "supply as well as the surrounding. residential neighborhoods. To this end, parking measures to manage the parking demand during special events and summer holidays are recommended in the Parking Study. These-measures were also described in-a previous section of this report. -The parking study also.states that the shared parking supply currently serving the existing downtown core accommodates the typical parking demand for the downtown businesses. As such, the study recommends the continuation of reduced parking ratios and the in-lieu fee program in the expanded downtown core. Chapter 3 of Book I includes parking standards that:are required of all development projects. The parking requirements for District 1 represent standards for parking that are at reduced ratios from the parking requirements for the HBZSO, similar to the DPMP. These reduced ratios are applicable to restaurants, retail uses and office uses. The DTSP Update proposes to utilize the same reduced ratios that currently exist for the DPMP for retail and office uses,but restaurant ratios are proposed to be further reduced from fen spaces per 1,000 square feet to eight spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area According to the parking study analysis, the anticipated peak summer season parking requirement for the existing DPMP area plus the net new development potential that was identified for the DTSP Update would be 4,291 spaces. It should be noted that this analysis only addresses the peak demand for development and does not address the identified shortages during beach events and summer holidays. The parking supply that would be provided, based on existing parking inventory. plus parking required for the net new development at the proposed reduced ratios, is 4,508 spaces. This indicates the proposed continuation and further reduction of reduced parking ratios would adequately meet the parking needs of new development in the downtown core. t Another important aspect of the existing DPMP is the in-lieu fee program. Development and uses that cannot provide all the required parking on-site may pay in-lieu fees to pay for the cost to provide those spaces elsewhere in the DPMP area. Participation in the in-lieu fee program requires a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Per the recommendations of the parking study, the DTSP Update proposes to continue the in-lieu fee program in District I (downtown core), which is an expansion of the DPMP(existing downtown core). The parking requirements of the DTSP Update are consistent with the Council goals, objectives and policies for the DTSP Update as listed above because reduced parking ratios and in-lieu fee program would be applicable in the District 1, the expanded downtown core area. The utilization of reduced parking ratios and in-lieu fees would incentivize development and redevelopment in the DTSP area. Also, the parking study does not recommend a development cap or close monitoring of parcels. Instead, the parking study recommends monitoring the parking supply within District 1 as a whole and adjusting policies and implementing parking strategies as needed based on parking conditions as development moves forward. The elimination of the DPMP would simplify the process for decision-makers, the public and development community to understand as well as implement parking strategies and requirements in the downtown. PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 40 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) g- Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses Reconfiguration of DTSP Districts The issue of land use compatibility is primarily a consequence of the proposed reconfiguration of the 11 existing . specific plan districts into seven districts. The reconfiguration is largely due to the consolidation/reconfiguration of existing Districts 1, 3, 5 and portions of 4 and 6 to create one large District I- The purpose of the consolidation/reconfiguration of these districts is primarily to expand the existing downtown core area. The most significant changes in development standards, i.e. —increases-in maximum allowable building height and residential density,parking-standards, and permitted uses occur in District 1 so that the expansion of the downtown core area, through new development and redevelopment,maybe realized. As discussed in the various sections of this analysis,the reconfiguration of the districts is necessary to meet the goals and objectives that were adopted by the City Council for the DTSP Update as well as to implement the vision for the DTSP. General Plan Land Use Desigpations The proposed land use designations would revise land use designations for District 1 (downtown core) and District 4 (established residential). Currently, the proposed District 1 is subject to six different land use designations mostly consisting of various ranges of mixed use designations, floor area ratios and densities, except for the Main Street Library site, which is part of the proposed Cultural Arts Subdistrict and currently has a P (Public) land use designation.. The Public land use designation is reflective of the existing use of the site as a public library. The proposed Iand use designation for District 1 would consolidate the various mixed use designations and one public designation into one mixed use designation, although the existing District 6 designation for the site allows mixed use developments- Revisions to the land use designations in the proposed District 4 would revise existing mixed use and residential-high density designations to residential high density_ This revision would reflect the existing land uses that are currently developed and would be consistent with the permitted land uses and development standards of the proposed District 4. The land use designations for the remaining districts are not proposed to change from current designations. The changes proposed to the subarea designations reflect the consolidation of the DTSP districts and the resulting General Plan Land Use designations- The changes are largely a result of re-numbering and re- organizing the subareas. There are no significant changes in the principles or permitted uses proposed in the subareas since there are no major differences in proposed land uses for the DTSP area. i PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 41 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) ABLE 5 —Proposed Land Use Designations -- 1� P,fdt1F�'ltS@:r 1 —Downtown Core Mixed- MV F8-d-sp, M->30-d-sp-pd Use MV-F12-sp-pd MV-F6/25-sp-pd MH-F4/30-sp-pd ,P • M-1711/25-sp-pd 2—Visitor-Serving Mixed-Use CV-F7-s CV-F7-s 3—Visitor-Servin Recreation CV-F7-s CV-F7-s 4—Established Residential RH-30-d-sp RH->304-sp MH-F4/30-sp-pd M-1711/25-s - 5—Multi-Family Residential RH-30-s RH-30-s 6-Pier CV-d CV-d-s 7-Beach OS-S OS-S Y: I ME The changes to the General Plan Land Use designations are necessary to implement the reconfiguration of the DTSP districts, particularly the expansion of the downtown core area (District 1) and the proposed development standards that would promote development,and redevelopment-of the DTSP. Given that the Council goals and objectives of the DTSP Update encourage changes to the DTSP so that new development and redevelopment will occur,-staff supports the proposed amendments to the General.Plan. Net New Development Potential Although, the 20-year net new development potential was identified through a market demand analysis, the General Plan amendments, which include some of the more significant changes to development standards, i.e. — increases in maximum allowable building height, residential density and elimination of FAR requirements, provide the direction and guidance for development in the DTSP area so that the identified net new development potential may be attained. The DTSP Update provides the framework to implement the general plan direction and the identified net new development potential. As discussed in the companion report for the EIR for the DTSP Update, the environmental impacts associated with the net new development potential would, for the majority of impacts, be mitigated to a less than significant level. There are four impact areas that result in significant and unavoidable impacts. However, as discussed previously in this report, staff believes the economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impact to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Public Services. It should be noted that the City has historically supported projects with significant and unavoidable impacts that are either temporary in nature during construction or that do not have feasible mitigation measures available to eliminate the impacts. Both of these scenarios are applicable to the DTSP Update. PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 42 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Permitted Uses The land uses proposed in the DTSP Update will not substantially change from the permitted and specified land uses of the existing DTSP. Permitted uses are only proposed to change for the reconfigured District 1, which includes Districts .1, 3, 5 and portions of 4 and 6 from the existing DTSP.. The changes in District 1 are reflective of uses that are currently permitted in.each of the existing districts and the consolidation of use classifications consistent with the HBZSO..""For instance, the existing DTSP lists individual retail uses separately such,as bookstores and clothing.stores.- The DTSP Update consolidates those uses under one retail classification. These'changes would not alter,the established land use pattern in that visitor-serving commercial and mixed use developments would continue to be permitted and the primarily developed uses in these areas. No changes to the permitted uses in Districts 2—7 are proposed, with the exception of,tiered-beach parking structures or `.`tuck-under"-parking, which is described in a previous section. The reconfiguration of the districts, including the changes to the permitted land uses as well as the allowance for tiered beach parking structures or"tuck-under"parking,are consistent with the intent of the specific plan and the following goals,"policies and objectives(Attachment No. 11)adopted by the Council for the'DTSP Update: ■ Goal 1: Establish the vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that the next phase of community investment and improvements can begin. ■ Goal 2: Create an environment that promotes tourism to increase revenues to support community services and transform the City's economy into a destination economy. ■ Objective 1: Create a healthy mix of land uses that are geared toward creating an urban village that serves as a destination to both residents and visitors. ■ Objective 2: Implement development standards and design guidelines that encourage development of underutilized parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture. ■ Policy 3.c: Consider all available options for additional parking within the downtown core. The proposed permitted land uses would continue to require visitor-serving commercial as a priority land use in the DTSP area. The flexibility in proposed development and parking standards, which are analyzed in subsequent sections of this report, would encourage development and redevelopment of the DTSP, resulting in further development and intensification of the established land uses. The allowance for mixed-use development at higher densities within the reconfigured District 1 - Downtown Core, would achieve a healthy balance of land uses so that the downtown would be a destination for residents as well as visitors. The allowance for tiered parking structures or "tuck-under" parking on the north side of the pier in District 7 would provide more beach parking for visitors and residents as well as potentially free up parking in the downtown core area that is utilized by beach-goers. By providing more parking opportunities, more residents and visitors can continue to take advantage of the all that downtown has to offer as a destination place with the beach and downtown businesses, events and attractions. However, any future proposals to implement a tiered parking structure or "tuck-under" parking should be analyzed carefully to ensure that the beach as a coastal resource is not adversely impacted. Therefore, staff supports the recommendations of RRM for permitted land uses in the DTSP. PC Staff Report—10/6/09 43 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) Cultural Arts Subdistrict The Cultural Arts Subdistrict (Subdistrict IA) consists of the Main Street Library site, the Huntington Beach Art Center and-properties north of Acacia Avenue. The proposed development standards for this subdistrict, with_the recommended-errata to the June 1 2009 draft DTSP Update incorporated, establish separate standards for the Main Street Library site. The separate standards require substantial green space that currently exists on the site to be maintained-if a,development is proposed on the site in the future. -As requested by the Planning Commission, an alternative to the proposed Cultural Arts Subdistrict has been prepared by the consultant. The alternative would delete the Cultural Arts Subdistrict and instead,would establish separate standards for the Main Street Library site and would result,in the potential for less development and change from the existing use of the site. In either case,the type and amount of permitted uses for the site would be substantially reduced from the current DTSP. Table 6 below provides a summary of the development standards for the Main Street library site under the proposed Cultural Arts Subdistrict and the Planning Commission Alternative. TABLE 6—•Develo rnent Standards Com nson _ _�_`t_'_ 6?n n_ 3_ _9;ir7'.9��_��o�.'_-. -- -.AMA Min.25'street frontage and`2;500 N/A N/A _ }���:•�`:,s4 s.f. net site area None Max. 50% Max.50% �= Max.25 du/ac N/A(residential not NIA(residential not permitted) permitted) Max. <100'frontage: 2 stories/30'; Max.35' Max.315 v , 100'but<full block: 3 stories/35'; == .r full block:4 stones/45' r D 15% 5'on 9, 3 and Main Streets one one -- non-residential: none 20'from adjacent residential 20'from adjacent residential .7= 15'from ROW None None 3' None None Mixed Use: Cultural Arts related uses Cultural Arts related uses Commercial/Office/Residential 10'from 2no story facade(covered None(residential buffer None(residential buffer area) requirements adjacent to requirements adjacent to r{ - _`�' <_ single-family) single-family) �- .- <half block: 1.5; >_half block: 2.0 None 0.6 100 frontage; non-residential No net loss of green space No net loss of green space : ts_ uses-5% net site area; (equivalent to approx.27,944 (equivalent to approx. Full block—public plaza re square feet 27,944 square feet The changes to the development standards that are identified in the errata(Attachment No. 1)were refined based on the Planning Commissioners concerns at the September 1 study session on District 1 that the open space requirements were editorialized and inconsistent with one another. To that end, the requirement for 30 percent of the site area to be open space with 70% of the open space area to be PC Staff Report— 1016/09 44 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) landscaped has been deleted. This is due to the fact that the requirement for no net loss of green space (,--)would result in substantially.more_open space than those provisions, even if the reconfiguration of 6th Street were to occur. The-language requiring a cultural arts plaza and asserting that it would become the largest public open space in.the downtown has also been deleted. The other properties in the Cultural Arts Subdistrict would be subject to the development standards for District 1, which allows cultural institutions. The Planning Commission alternative includes essentially the same development standards as the Cultural Arts Subdistrict, but proposes a FAR requirement to limit the square footage of development on the site. The Planning Commission alternative also deletes the concept of a Cultural Arts Subdistrict entirely and is geared more toward development standards and permitted uses that would result in minimal changes to the existing library site in the future. A comparison of potential development scenarios under both actions is provided below for informational purposes only. Subdistrict 1 A-Proposed Cultural Arts Subdistrict Subdistrict 1 A-Main St. Library (Recommended Action) (PC Alternative Action) ■ Site Area: approx.41,000 square feet(s.f.) Site area:approx. 41,000 square feet ■ Maximum Building Area: approx.39,168 s.f. Maximum Building Area: approx. 25,000 s.f ■ Net New Building Area:approx.29,268 s.f. Net New Building Area: approx. 15,100 s.f. ■ Building Footprint: approx. 13,056 s.f (32% of Building Footprint: approx. 13,056 s.f (32% of site area) site area) \ Green/Open Space: approx. 27,944 s.f. (68% of Green/Open Space: approx. 27,944 s.f. (68% of - site area) site area) It should be noted that the scenarios above assume the reconfiguration of 6th Street would not occur. As such, the building footprint in both scenarios would be limited to the existing building footprint plus paved areas on the existing library site to achieve the requirement for no net loss of green space. However, if the reconfiguration of 6th Street were implemented, the site area would increase to approximately 62,609 square feet (1.44 acres). In both scenarios, the development footprint could increase, although there would not be a difference in the maximum building area as listed above. The amount of green/open space that would be required to achieve no net loss of green space if the 6th Street reconfiguration were implemented would be equivalent to approximately 44 percent of the site area. Since the nature and type of a future development proposal on the site is not known,the reconfiguration of 6th Street is a valuable option in Chapter 5 of Book 11 that would allow more flexibility in site layout and building design that could potentially achieve a more compatible project in the future. The permitted uses have also been refined in the recommended errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update. Table 7 provides a summary of the permitted uses under both the recommended action and the Planning Commission alternative. PC Staff Report—10/6/09 45 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) TABLE 7 — Permitted Uses on,Main Street Library Site 4 St OFF N-J", -CMIJ. Carts&Kiosks* Admin. Permit Admin. Permit Cultural Insitutions CUP PC CUP PG Library CUP(PC) CUP(PC) Museums CUP(PC) CUP(PC) Performing Arts Center' CUP(PC) Not permifted Art Gallery CUP(PC) CUP(PC) Accessory Uses* CUP(PC) CUP(PC) Eating and Drinking Establishments Admin Permit. Not permitted w/less than 12 seats Eating and Drinking Establishments CUP(PC) Not permitted *These uses must be accessory to the primary use and associated with cultural arts uses. "Although the Planning Commission alternative would not allow a performing arts center, 'a community theater would be permitted as an accessory use to the existing or proposed cultural institution,i.e.—library. The recommended changes require that the majority of the uses obtain a CUP from the Planning Commission, whereas the June 2009 draft DTSP Update, prior to the Planning Commission study sessions,permitted most of the uses by right. In addition, eating and drinking establishments with alcohol service have been deleted from the list of permitted uses. The Planning Commission alternative reduces the permitted uses even further in that eating and drinking establishments and a performing arts center would not be permitted, although carts and kiosks and accessory uses would still be permitted so that a coffee cart, gift shop or other ancillary use could operate at a future development/use or within the existing library use. Improvements for the area surrounding the Main Street Library site have been contemplated since the late 1970's prior to implementation of the DTSP. A concept to have a cultural arts node at the north end of Main Street in the DTSP area was contemplated in the early 1990's when the Huntington Beach Art Center was constructed. The concept included facade improvements at the existing library,the Art Center and Celebration Plaza. The Celebration Plaza project was proposed to enhance and highlight the comer of Main Street and Acacia Avenue as an entry node to downtown as well as provide a link for cultural facilities in this area. Celebration Plaza envisioned a public plaza and outdoor amphitheater that included new landscaping, lighting,water features and public art. The Cultural Arts Subdistrict is consistent with the intent of the specific plan and the following goals, policies and objectives (Attachment No. 11) adopted by the Council for the DTSP Update: • Goal 1: Establish the vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that the next phase of community investment and improvements can begin. • Goal 2: Create an environment that promotes tourism to increase revenues to support community services and transform the City's economy into a destination economy. • Objective 1: Create a healthy mix of land uses that are geared toward creating an urban village that serves as a destination to both residents and visitors. • Objective 2: Implement development standards and design guidelines that encourage development of underutilized parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture. PC Staff Report— 1016/09 46 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) The proposed Cultural Arts Subdistrict would function to build upon existing cultural arts uses in the area and provides an opportunity to enhance the north end of Main-Street and create an entry node to the downtown from the north,which is consistent with the vision of the DTSP Update. Implementation of the Cultural Arts Subdistrict would be a draw for both residents and visitors and could be a catalyst for redevelopment of Main Street, north of Orange Avenue. Cultural Arts uses would contribute to the existing commercial core, which consists primarily of retail, restaurant and office uses in achieving a healthy mix of land uses for residents and visitors. In terms of land use compatibility,the proposed Cultural Arts Subdistrict proposes development standards that would reduce impacts to surrounding residential uses as well as preserve significant green space on the Main Street library site. The no net loss of green space standard would result in a development site with 40 - 68 percent open space, which is significantly greater than existing standards that require five percent open space area and other open space requirements in the DTSP and throughout the City. The 35- foot maximum building height is compatible with the existing three-story Townsquare development and maximum 35-foot building height,allowances for adjacent residential uses to the east and northeast. The uses that would be permitted are limited to cultural arts related uses that would be compatible with the existing library use. The potential for a performance center at the site would likely be the most intense use of the site and could result in intermittent traffic and noise impacts from people entering and exiting an event. Parking proposed for this site-would be required to be underground to minimize parking lot noise and allow preservation of green space. Finally, any future development would require a conditional use permit (CUP) from the Planning Commission as well as additional environmental review, depending on the nature of the project proposed, that would analyze specific project details and,environmental impacts of the particular project Therefore, staff supports RRM's recommendations for a Cultural Arts - Subdistrict in the DTSP. SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the DTSP Update (General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004)with the recommended errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update incorporated therein because it would encourage and facilitate development in the downtown and carry out the goals, policies and objectives that were directed by Council for the update to the DTSP. With implementation, the vision for the DTSP area to be a pedestrian-oriented urban village for both residents and visitors with a strong link to the ocean can be achieved. Projects under the DTSP Update would be high quality, aesthetically appealing projects with sustainable design features that are compatible with existing uses and structures. The proposed amendments will ensure the continued success of DTSP area as a destination place for residents and visitors. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Errata to June 2009 Draft DTSP Update,dated October 6, 2009 2. Suggested Findings for Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 3. Suggested Findings for Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 4. Draft City Council Resolution No. for General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 5. Draft City Council Resolution No. for Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 PC Staff Report—10/6/09 47 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) 6. Draft City Council Resolution No. for Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 7. -Map of existing DTSP districts 8. Map of proposed DTSP districts 9. Map of existing General Plan Land Use designations 10. Map of proposed General Plan Land Use designations 11. City Council Goals and Objectives,dated August 15,2007 12. Project Objectives-Excerpt from EIR No. 08-001 (page 6-1 of the Draft EIR) 13.City Attorney's position letter on the status of Main Street Library site, dated September 14,2009 (all documents available.for public review at the City Attorney's office.—40 Floor,City Hall) 14.Public Comments received since September 1; 2009 (all public comments.received prior to September 1,2009 are on file at the Planning Department) 15. CEQA Findings of'Fact with Statement of Overriding Considerations—EIR No.08-001 16.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program—EIR No.08-001 17.Environmental Impact Report No. 08-001 —not attached,previously-provided under separate cover (available for public review at the Planning and LonaneCounter—3r1 Floor,City_Hall) 18.Development Standards Matrix of Changes by District,dated September 29,2009 19.Parking In-lieu Fee Information 20.Natelson Dale Market Study, dated July 23, 2008 — not attached, previously provided under separate cover(available for public review at the Planning and Zoning Counter—3`d Floor, City Hall) 21. Downtown Parking Study, revised September 2009 — not attached, previously provided under separate cover (available for public review at the Planning and Zoning Counter—3`d Floor, City Hall) 22.Downtown Image Ad Hoc Committee Downtown Specific Plan Recommendations, dated .._ September 28, 2009 SH:HF:MBB jv PC Staff Report—10/6/09 48 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZTA 08-004;LCPA 08-002(DTSP Update) DTSP Up"=.d—Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 dfa�DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. I r. Specific Plan Page I —Boundary in existing Page 1-1 Section 1.2—Project Page 1-1 Section 1.2—Project Boundary - Boundary DTSP is a legal description Boundary—"...where it connects "...where it connects over to Main Street and over to Main Street and along along Pecan Avenue to link down along 0 Pacific View Avenue..." Street."—(correction) ""d Jf Definitions Page 5 —Ultimate Right-of- Ultimate Right-of-Way DELETED -Page 2-19—ADD: "Ultimate Right-of- Way: The most lateral edge of Way: The most lateral edge of the area the area dedicated for streets, dedicated for.streets, utilities or alley utilities or alley purposes. purposes." (correction—added previously deleted definition C 4,gpter-Y' �Qeher` *00slo'ilt S, Encroachments N/A (not addressed existing Page 3-4 Section 3.2.4— Page 3-4 Section 3.2.4—Encroachments— DTSP) Encroachments—"No private "No permanent private encroachments shall encroachments shall occur..." occur..." (clarified) Vacations Page 17 Section 4.2.16 - Street Page 3-4 Section 3.2.5 — Street Page 3-4 Section 3.2,5 — Street Vacations— Vacations - "The following Vacations—The following The following conditions will apply to City conditions will apply to City conditions will apply to City vacation of streets and alleys due to lot vacation of streets and alleys vacation of streets due to lot consolidations." (consistent with existing for consolidation..." consolidations." DTSP) > Vacations N/A (not addressed existing Page 3-4 Section 3.2.5 — Street Page 3-4 Section 3.2.5 —Street Vacations—2. DTSP) Vacations—2. "A General Plan "A General Plan conformance analysis shall q > conformance analysis shall be be completed." (delete: "and submitted to the completed and submitted to the City") City." M Alleys/Access Ways Page 18 Section 4.2.17— Page 3-4 Section 3.2.6 Alleys Page 3-4 Section 3.2.6 Alleys and Access zAccess Ways Ways (combines existing and proposed zI DTSP) 0 Page 1 of 20 DTSP Update—Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. I i _i,k t PM Alleys Vacations N/A (not addressed existing Page 3-6 Section 3.2.6.1 —Alley Page 3-6 Section 3.2.6.1 —Alley DTSP) Vacation/Relocation—2. "A Vacation/Relocation—2. "A General Plan General Plan conformance analysis conformance analysis shall be completed." shall be completed and submitted to (delete: "and submitted to the City") the City." Neighborhood N/A (not required in existing Page 3-15 Figure 3-9—dashed line Page 3-15 Figure 3-9—relocate dashed line Subdistrict— I B DTSP) on 3,d Street to alley(between 2nd and 3" Streets' Boundary (correction) Outdoor Dining Page 23 Outdoor Dining -i 3) Page 3-23,Section 3.2.24.4— Page 3-23 Section 3.2.24.4—Parking for Parking Parking—"Any outdoor dining Parking f6r Outdoor Dining—"Any Outdoor Dining—"Any outdoor dining that area which exceeds these standards shall provide 100% outdoor dining that exceeds.these exceeds these standards shall-provide 100% of the required parkin for the standards shall provide- 1006/o of the of the required parking for the area in excess entire area." 9 required parking for the area in of the above standard. Parking shall be excess of the above standard. provided at a ratio of one space per 125 Parking shall be provided at a ratio square feet of restaurant area." (corrected to '. of o he space per 100 square feet of reflect proposed restaurant ratio of 8 restaurant area." spaces/1,000 st), Parking Requirement N/A—parking requirements of Page 3-27 Figure 3-15 —"Office— Page 327 Figure 3-15 —"Office-,All Other for Office HBZSO referenced All Other Districts—Busin6ss & ;.Districts—Businidss & ProBissibnal: 4 spaces > Professional: 3 spacej per 1;000 per 1,000 sX' s.f;'Meditial/Dental: 4spadbs per (correction—intended to reflect HBZSO - I > 1,000 ss," office requirement; delete Medical/Dental 0 3: requirement—use not permitted in All Other Districts) Z. -41, z Page 2 of 20 DTSP L,__,tte —Final Recommended Changes —Errata to the June 2009'-aft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. I is _0 2*00' UP Parking Requirement N/A—parking requirements c f Page 3-27 Figure3-15 — Page 3-27 Figure 3-15 —"Hotel/Motel—All for Hotel/Motel HBZSO referenced "Hotel/Motel—District 1: 1.1 Districts -.1.1 space§ ver1rom, plus 1 spaces per room; All Other Districts space per v.assenger,trit 1.666ft"vihicle spaces per room,plus I space (minimum of 2 stalls) andlsuaos for any per passenger transport vehicle manager's unit and parking for other uses (minimum of 2 stalls) and 2 spaces as reguired by this Section" (new standard for any manager's unit and parking —no reduction in hotel/motel parking for other uses as required by this requirement in District 1) Section Parking N/A—parking requirements of Page 3-27 Figure 3-15 —"Assembly Page 3-27 Figure 3-15 —'.'Assembly Uses7- Requirements for HBZ. SO referenced Uses—All Districts— 10 spaces per All Districts—,veilSO"(correction) Assembly 1,000 st" Parking for N/A (not addressed in existing Page 3-27 Figure 3-15 Page 3-27 Figure 3-15 " *Excluding Subdistrics DTSP) *Excluding Overlay Zones" Subdistricts" (Neighborhood and Cultural overlays changed to subdi8iricts-thr6ughout document) Tandem Parking N/A (not addressed in existing Page 3-29 Section 3.2.26.7 Page 3-29 Section 3.2.26.7—Tandem DTSP) Tandem Parking— 1) "Up to 40% Parking— 1) "Up to 40%of the required on- of the required on-site commercial site commercial parking.may be provided as parking may be provided as a a tandem parking with an attendant upon tandem parking upon approval of a approval of a Conditional Use Permit..." Conditional Use Permit..." new standard) > Parking Structures N/A (not addressed in existing Page 3-31 —413) "Where Page 3-3 1 —#13) "Where.subterranean DTSP) subterranean parking occurs, parking occurs, antennas.*shall be antennas shall be installed...structure. beveloller/Annlican.t M installed..,structure. shall coordinate-installation wjfh,._.-tiubIIC safety departments and shall be responsible for installation and z 01 maintenance:" new standard) (JI) Page 3 of 20 DTSP Update—Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. I W"F District 1 Parking N/A (not addressed in existing Page 3-32— Section 3,2.26.11 — Page 3-3 2— Secti o* n 3.2.26:11 —District 1 Requirements DTSP) District I Special Parking Standards Special.Parking St*andards'—.6) "All parking —6) "In the Cultural Arts Overlay shall be provided underground on the Main area, all parking shall be provided Street library yr0R6K1X-"'(correcti0'n—other underground." properties in Cultural Arts!Subdistrict would not require parking underground) Resource Production Page 67—69—Resource Page 3-35,Section 3.2.20— Page 3-35 section 3.2.20.—Resource Overlay Production Overlay (entire Res6urce Production(overlay was Production—delete entire sect.ion and include section) deleted and new provisions were Resource Production Overlay as currently placed in this'section) exists as new, section "3.3.8 Resource 9,roduction'.0yerlay"after District 7 Permitted Uses Page 47 Section 4.8.01 — Page 3-39 Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Page 3-39 Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses—a) District 6—Permitted Uses— Uses—a) "Lake Avenue where Within4he Lake Street overlay, all uses Commercial, Office, Mixed Use, Residential on 3rd and single-fariiily residential, multi- permitted on the ground floor of District I Lake Street family residential..." are allowed. In addition, single-family residential, multi-farn ily residential..." (clean-UP of language, no major changes in > permitted uses from existing DTSP and June '09 draft) Permitted Uses Page 47 Section 4.8.01 — Page 3-39 Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Page 3=39 Section 33.1.3 Permitted-Uses— District 6—Permitted Uses— Uses—b) "Within the Cultural Arts b) "Within Cultural Arts Subdistrict IA..." Commercial, Office, Mixed Use, Residential on 3rd and Overlay.,." (changed overlay to subdistrict) M z Lake Street 4 z Page 4 of 20 DTSP U� .e—Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009'a�DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. 1 „ ..,, ,•.5., '+ 1d Y1VV ; ,r., r Y .j{�J .4' Y�1 �+; .� 1 VYa '7.. Permitted Uses Page 38 Section 4.6.01 District Page 3-39 Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Page 3-39 Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses—c) 4—Permitted Uses— Uses—c) "Within the "Within Neitzhborhood Subdistrict 1B — Residential & Mixed Use: Neighborhood Overlay—Office, Permitted Uses are limited to residential, Office/Residential single-family residential and multi- office, personal enrichment.and.personal family uses are permitted at ground service." (clarified) floor." Permitted Uses N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3-39 Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted, Page 3-39 Section 3.3.1.3 Permitted Uses.— DTSP) Uses—2) ".,.above the ground 2) "...above the ground floor in any portion floor in any portion of District L" of District 1 except Subdistricts 1A,- and 1B." clarified Permitted Uses Various pages—residential Page 3-41 Figure 3-24 Permitted Page 3-41 Figure 3-24 Permitted Uses uses subject to CUP, except Uses District 1 —"Residential Uses District 1 —"Multi-family housing, single-family residential in —permitted" apartments, condoininiui6i,,and stock certain districts cooperatives (up to 4 units)—permitted; Multi=family housing, apartments, condominiums and stock cooperatives (more than 4 units)—CUP from ZAI' (new standard-reclassified.residential uses to require CUP for more than 4 units Development N/A—(not applicable to Page 3-43 Figure 3-25— 1$ column: Page,343 Figure 3=25 — 1s 'column: "All Standards Table existing DTSP) "Commercial Mixed Use/All District 1"; 2„d column"Lake St,"new 1" District" 1; 2"d column: row: "Allowable Uses"— l"column under 3y "Residential Only/Lake" All District 1: "See Figure 3 24"; 2"d column C� under Lake St.:"See Figure 3-24 plus = Residential/Office on ground floor" (clarified development standards table) Z Z� 3 Page 5 of 20 DTSP Update—Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. 1 M1 Tsstr� �5 p.�J_,"d'ate �oa'int�i�n��i��,-•�h�n es; Residential Density Varies upon district 25 — 30 Page 3-43 Figure 3-25 — 3"row Page 3-43 Figure 3-25 — I column under All du/acre Maximum Density— 1s' column: 60 District 1: "<25,000 s.f netisite area—30 du/ac; 2nd column: 60 du/ac du/ac;->_25,000.s.tnet site'area-7,50 du/ac"; 2° column under Lake St. du/ac", (new,standard,—reduced density in District 1 Building Height N/A - (not applicable to Page 3-44 Figure 3-26—reference Page 3-44 Figure 3-26—DELETE figure 3- existing DTSP) to building height standard 26 (error.in figure does not reflect proposed DTSP building height standards for District 1) Existing Figure 3-27 shall be re-numbered figure 3-26 Front Yard Setbacks Page 17 - 10' landscaped Page 3-45 Section 3.3.1.10 Ptont Page 3-45 Section 3.3.1.10 Front Yard for Parking Lots incorporated by reference to Yard Setback#5) "10' minimum Setback#5) "A 10' minimum landscaped HBZSO setback fdr parking lots," setback shall be<reguired where a parking lot is adiaceait id a public.right'of way." ADD: Figure 3-27 to depict this standard. (new standard to reflect existing HBZSO requirement) ; ail4 - aVO �.: Name N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3-50 Section 3.3.1.20 Page 3-50 Section 3.3.1.20 "Cultural Arts DTSP) "Cultural Arts Overlay" Subdistrict IA" (changed overlay to subdistrict) Page 6 of 20 DTSP t "' Ate-Final Recommended Changes-Errata to the June 200 ,"- 'ft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No, I V ".0. .0"64'. 'T 0 j T NOW* Purpose N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3.50 Section 3.3.1.20 #1) Page 3-50 Section 3.3.1.20 #1) Purpose- DTSP) Purpose-"The purpose of the "The purpose of the Cultural Arts Cultural Arts Overlay..."; "The Subdistrict IA..."; "Uses within this area Cultural Arts Overlay area currently include the Main Street Bianch...";"'This contains the Main Street subdistrict requires parking on,-the Main Branch..."; "This overlay provides Street treet library site to be provided ' udder,the potential to implement around.11; This portion of District underground parking."; "This 1...that will make the subdistrict area a portion of District I...that will public space..." (changed'16verlay to make the overlay area a public subdistrict, clarified*parking requirements for space,.." Main St. library site,not applicable to other properties,in subdistrict) Boundary N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3-51 Figure 3-35 -shows Page`3-5 1,Rgurel=35-,ADD-idefitificati6n* DTSP) overlay area of Main Street..Library:site.on figure Permitted Uses Table N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3-51 Permitted Uses b) Page 3-51 Permitted Uses;b) "Figure 3-36 DTSP) "Figure 3-36 presents uses presents uses pe*rm,itted..within,the.CulturaI permitted with the Cultural Arts Arts Subdistrict 1A.11'(changed overlay to Overlay of District L" subdistrict) M z 0 Page 7 of 20 DTSP Update—Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. 1 >Csue Ex�strugDi ` PJ�e ,Oq, k'd'rafL M1 5 ty��•' �'� ' ,y � Wj 4 Permitted Uses Page 47 Section4.8.01- Page 3-52 Figure 3-36— library, Page 3-52 Figure 3-36—library, museum, Permitted uses of District 6— museum,.performing arts center, art performing arts center, art gallery, eating and commercial/office/residential gallery, eating and drinking drinking establishments ADD: cultural establishments with less than 12 institutions, accessory-use s—shown as CUP seats—shown as permitted;eating rom PC,• eating and drinking establishments and drinking establishments— with less than 12 seats—shown as admin shown as admin permit; eating and Perm il;_DELETE: eating and drinking drinking establishments with establishments With-alcohol; ADD: alcohol shown as CUP from.ZAootnofe 3 :"accessory uses,.to.primary use .inch as giffsh6g or retail!uses" - Development Pages 48 & 49 - Development Page 3-52 #4) Summary of page 3--52 #4) Summary of Development Standards on Main standards of District 6 Development Standards—"Figure Standards—"al All properties with the St. library site applicable to site 3-37 presents a summary of the Cultural Arts Subdistrict'IA excluding the development standards for the Main Main Street Library site shall-be subiect to Street library site within the the commercial and mixed-use Cultural Arts Overlay portion of development standards of District l and all District 1. This figure is only a other applicable sections of this Specific summary,.,requirements of each Plan, b)Figure 3-37 presents a summary of standard" "All other properties the development standards for the Main within the Cultural Arts Overlay Street Library property only. This figure is district shall ...standards of District only a summary...requirements of each 1 and all other applicable sections standard." (clarified applicability of standards of this Specific Plan." in this section to Main Street library site only), 0�1 Page 8 of 20 DTSP Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009`dteC DTSP Update , 10/06/09 Attachment No, 1 'r 6 j! e' a � a.r,r•,err rssu :1 ry M4��t ��ld'ec�h• '�'.,, Parking on Main St. Page 1- Section 4.2.13 - Page 3-52 - 5) Maximum Site Page 3-52—indent and change numbers n library site Parking permitted on grade Coverage 6) Maximum Building Maximum Site Coverage 2),,Maximum Height 7) Setbacks Building Height 3) Setbacks,ADD.- 4) Parking a) S611,be provided-be- low grade. (new standard-previously!,included only in General Provisions Open Space on Main Page 49 Section 4.8.10 - 5% Page 3-53 — 8) Public Open Space Page 3-53.5),Public Open.Space—"P� Shall St. library site open space required - "a) 30%minimum of the net site have no net loss of green space'eauivalent to area...""b) The Cultural Arts approximately 27,944 s f.,";b.)Shall Overlay shall have no net loss of incorporate the following amenities: open green space" "c) 70%minimum of , green space for pedestrian uses and public the public open space area shall be events; shade and accent trees; benches; trash landscaped with drought tolerant receptacles; decorative jighting; bicycle landscaping.""d) 1,000 st cultural parking;,'and a variety of public art elements." arts plaza will serve as the DELETE: a, c, ,-revise e:(new standards to primary...a destination for the clarify open space requirements) downtown." "e) Shall incorporate the following amenities: open green space for pedestrian uses...a variety of publicart elements." Development N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3-53 Figure 3-37 "Summary Page 3-53 Figure 3-37 "Summary of Standards Table DTSP) of Development Standards Cultural Development Standards for,the Main. treet Art9 Overlay of District 1"; Library Site""CulturaLArts Subdistrict > "Cultural Arts Overlay" IA" (changed overlay to subdistrict) T7 0 Page 9 of 20 DTSP Update— Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No, 1 '._Ils 5 G'` '� („ X'13t121' .;�d"1A'-IJ I, ,•M1 G 1 ,Fr .3,� '.•t: fir.• ,4.ti 1 y . t .t,:.•:•e' •.v• .� gF I' '�ti'rie 2:OU9 draft Sly� date, dh:` iy,} (n }' ey " - {} .. 1� •�tR:.�i„f.r��a.r F'1..^:'h^i i�i t �cona�c�dedr�}tu>q' Nd bg orh""A'Siub jstrict 1B Name & Purpose N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3-54 Section 3.3.1.21 Page 3-54 Section 3.3.1.21 "Neighborhood DTSP) "Neighborhood Overlay" Subdistrict 1B" (changed overlay to subdistrict throughout a e Permitted Uses - Permitted Uses - District#4 Page 3-55 Figure 3-38 —"General Page 3-55 Figure 3-38 "Office" (combined Office (2"d Street) - Mixed Use: Business Office" "Non-profit all three descriptions of use—still listed as Office/Residential, Single- Office" "Professional Office" all permitted) family residential; Distriet 5 listed separately as permitted (1 Street)—Mixe&Use: Comercial/Office/Reside m ntial Permitted Uses - Permitted Uses - District #4 Page 3-55 Figure 3-38 "Residential Page 3-55 Figure 3-38 ADD: "Multi-family Residential (2°d Street) - Mixed Use: Uses" listed as one combined housing, apartments, condominiums, and Office/Residential, Single- category as permitted; stock cooperatives (up to 4,units) family residential; District 5 (1" Street)—Mixed Use: footnote 4— Pursuant to Section permitted; Multi-family housing. Commercial/Office/Residential 3.1.1.3 Permitted Uses items 1) and apartments, condominiunisLand stock 3) cooperatives(more than 4 units)--"CUP from ZZA" (new standard -reclassified residential uses to require CUP for more than 4 units); ADD: "single-family detached.dwellings— permitted"with footnote 4-"T'haf comply with the standards provided in Section 3.3.4 District 4—Established Residential and the standards contained.in the Residential Ifitill Lot j2gLy Wghients Ordinance in-Section.230.214 the. HBZSO" (clarified sirigle-family'as a permitted use consistent with existing policy and add infill language) , d Page 10 of 20 DTSP lir.:.ate—Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 ='�t DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. 1 ffss�te ;, a i8't it ', '"s'SP.: ;+ g 2 tY 00 daft ' S)P; date a s, l� t 1tr:' ta ., ' ipi1'7E,!u'JAa�tM�4V. c;VrN4 +AI !! `;ti 1'. Chapter 3 'Ditrict'..2 Purpose N/A—reconfigured district Page 3-59 Section 3.3.2.1 "Pacific Page 3-59 section 3.3.2.1 "Pacific City is a description reflects approved City is a 31-acre mixed use project 31-acre mixed use project consisting of 516 Pacific City development consisting of seven commercial residential units and seven commercial buildings with retail,.." buildings with-retai'l..." (clarified that entire Pacific City is within 31 acres not just commercialportion) Street frontage— N/A—not required in existing Page 3-83 Section 3.3.4.15 #1) Page 3-83 Section 3.3.4,15 #1) "Single- porch element DTSP "Single-family dwelling units shall family dwelling units riot fronting Pacific have a front porch element that Coast Highway shall have a front porch faces onto the primary street element that faces onto the�primary-street frontage. The front porch shall be frontage. The front porch shall be allowed to allowed to encroach into the front encroach-5 into the front.setback area." setback area." (clarified- Single-family on P,CH required to have front setback landscaped; 2°d`sentenced - clarified maximum of encroachment :Chapter 3A�'lDYsti���t�,5:• :_; Purpose N/A—reconfigured district Page 3-85 Section 3.3.5.1 "The Page 3-85 Section 3.3.5.1 "The Pacific City description reflects.approved Pacific City residential component residential component is approved for 516 Pacific City residential is approved for 516 condominium condominium units and outdoor recreational development units and outdoor recreational amenities,including a 2-acre Village Green amenities including a 2-acre Village park." (deleted: public) Green public park." M z r --._ Page 11 of 20 DTSP Update—Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. 1 . lA,.v_ . ,,,,,,,,,,,,,;.t;,...c.f y tr,..a:�"";9 :4.'.l.;e •`' w,y.A .,�,' ..;. ;r, .,... �.,,:,;,;7.':;;,+;,,.., ..,. ..., .-•c;•d. �i r �' ' xr� .,,t: •' •r (y,[vC1��yay)y ;�lpY.};�,i�y(}�v.v 'C3',' ]�'� .'t I, ,, f G' .Y{. '.iY''i.J;l J '.) T,, f`n^iV�•V�:M MY��� FyF�'. Chapter 3' distr yet 7 Tiered Parking Page 64 Section 4.13.01 Page 3-96 Section 3.3.7.5 Tiered Page 3-96 Section 3.3.7.5 Tiered Parking Permitted Uses—"Parking lots Parking , "Enhancement of existing parking that will not result in the loss "#1) Tiered parking shall be limited capacity located north of the pier between of recreational sand area. . to the area identified in Figure 3- PCH and the-beach is,intended to enhance Tiered parking is permitted within the Downtown Specific 63". (Figure 3-63 identifies the pedestrian connectivity.and:experience Plan area on existing lots existing beach parking lots north along the west side-of PCH and.provide seaward of Pacific Coast and south of the pier.) additional "tuck-under" narking Highway provided the parking "#2) Parking shall not result in the opportunities. An expansion of the is designed so that.the top of loss of recreational sand area. The existing landscaped parkway reflecting the structures including wall, top of parking structures shall be at similar design concepts and amenities etc., are located a minimum of the same elevation of the Pacific found north of this area.could be created one foot below the maximum height of the adjacent bluff'. Coast Highway sidewalk or located by covering the existing upper tier:of one foot below the maximum parking. In addition. "tuck-under" height of the adjacent bluff'. parking opportunities may,exist by excavating versus expansion of the existing tiered parking height' "The precise design of additional"tuck- under" parking must adhere to the following standards: a) Tiered parking shall be limited to the area identified in'F'igure 3-62." (]Figure 342 identifies the existing beach parking lot north of the pier.) b) Parking shall not result in the loss of recreational sand area. c) The top of parking structures shall be at the same elevation of the Pacific Page 12 of 20 DTSP Uj� --e -Final Recommended Changes-Errata to the June 2009 ai-A DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. I 1$ OF0",4Lo Coast Highway sidewalk or located one foot below the maximum height of the adiacent bluff". d) Views from and toward,PCH shall be maintained. ADD: Figures 3-63 & 1-64� to show existing tiered surface Raiklng,con'ditiowand. potential "'tuck-under, VaWng' configuration T Name N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3-50 Section 33.1.20 Page 37-50 Section 33.1.20 "Subdistrict 1AI' DTSP) "Cultural Arts Overlay" (changed overlay to subdistrict throughout) Purpose N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3-50 Section 3.3.1.20#1) Page 3-50 Section 3.3.1.20 #1) Purpose- DTSP) Purpose-"The purpose of the "The purpose of the Subdistrict.IA is to Cultural Arts Overlay..."; "The provide uses that are compatible with Cultural Arts Overlay area currently existing and surrounding,uses on and contains the Main Street surrounding the Main Street Library-site Branch..."; "This overlay provides While promoting the enhancement of the cultural the potential to implement arts Within Huntington-Beach by underground parking."; "This building 6dexisting cultural facilities portion of District 1...that will within the do'Wilto'WIii U is within-this make the overlay area a public area include the Main"Street of the space... Huntington Beach Public Libfgi "This portion of District 1...that Will make the subdistrict,area a vqblic space..."-(changed overlay to subdistrict, removed cultural arts subdistrict and create standards for Main' Street library site Page 13 of 20 DTSP Update —Final Recommended Changes —Errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. 1 4 is u' :f s to.. F" t ,.r'i,�lk Ys f� ",1;. 4'„•�i'^,j,'M,� 4 f;.'R\i,.fix.✓,� Boundary N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3-51 Figure 3-35 — shows Page 3-51 #2) Boundary—"Subdistrict 1A DTSP) overlay area consists-of the triangular-shavedIarea bound by Main Street andi6"'Street, as illustrated in]Figure 3-35.7 . Figure 3-35 —DELETE all.areas other than Main Street Library,site.on figure Permitted Uses Table N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3-51 Permitted Uses b) Page 3-51 Permitted Uses -DELETE a) DTSP) "Figure 3-36 presents uses "Cultural facilities are required .at the ground permitted with the Cultural Arts floor..." al"Figure 3-36 presents uses Overlay of District L" permitted within Subdistrict 1A.":(changed overlay to subdistrict)" Permitted Uses Page 47 Section4.8.01- Page 3-52 Figure 3-36 —library, Page 3-52 Figure3-36—library;museum, art Permitted uses of District 6— museum, performing arts center, art gallery ADD: cultural institutions, commercial/office/residential gallery, eating and drinking accessory uses, com inunity theater=-shown establishments with less than 12 as CUP from PQ DELETE: performing seats—shown as permitted; eating arts center, eating and dries' and drinking establishments— establishments ( ncludific less"than 12 shown as admin perrrtit; eating and seats), eating.and drinking!establishments drinking establishments with with alcohol: ADD: footnote 1-to.accessory alcohol shown as CUP from ZA uses,—llaccessory,uses to jptiimary use such as gift shop.or retail uses":.footnote:2.to community theater—"inust.be associated with a cultural institution which includes libraries, museums,and art galleriW? Page 14 of 20 DTSP UpL-- —Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 dfrwrbTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No, I s It .�04s�x 0 J W R-6 Development Pages 48 & 49 - Development Page 3-52 #4) Summary of Page 3-52 #4) Summary of Development Standards on Main standards of District 6 Development Standards—"Figure Standards—"Figure 3-37 presents a summary St, library site applicable to site 3-37 presents a summary of the of the development standards for Subdistrict development standards for the Main IA. This figureis only a Street library site within the summary...requirements of Oach,-standard." Cultural Arts Overlay portion of (changed overlaysubdistrict, removed. to subdistr c District 1. This figure is only a cultural arts reference) s I urnmary...requirements of each standard" "All other properties within the Cultural Arts Overlay district shall ...standards of District I and all other applicable sections of this Specific Plan." Parking on Main St. Page I- Section 4.2.13 - Page 3-52 - 5) Maximum Site Page 3-52—indent and change numbers jj library site Parking permitted on grade Coverage 6) Maximum Building Maximum Site Coverage Q Floor Area ratio Height 7) Setbacks —0.6 maximum-LMaximurn Building Height 4) Setbacks ADD: 5),Parking a) Shall be provided below grade. (new standard for PAR and'parking) 0 M z z 0 Page 15 of 20 DTSP Update— Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. 1 :T-.S'Slllxlstln a g .s , &t rid a. c`umri�ended;cl--n`es Open Space on Main Page 49 Section 4.8.10 - 5% Page 3-53 — 8) Public Open Space Page 3-53 Public Open Space—"Al Shall St. library site open space required - "a) 30% minimum of the net site have no net loss of green space equivalent to area..." "b) The Cultural Arts approximately 27,944 s.f." b) Shall Overlay shall have no net loss of incorporate the following amenities: open green space" "c) 70%minimum of green space for pedestrian uses and public the public open space area shall be events; shade.and accent trees; benches; trash landscaped with drought tolerant receptacles; decorative lighting; bicycle landscaping." "d) 1,000 s.f. cultural parking; and a variety of public art elements." arts plaza will serve as the DELETE: a, c, d, revise e (new standards to primary...a destination for the clarify open space requirements) downtown." "e) Shall incorporate the following amenities: open green space for pedestrian uses...a variety of p ublic art elements." Development N/A (not applicable to existing Page 3-53 Figure 3-37 "Summary Page 3-53 Figure 3-37 "Summary of Standards Table DTSP) of Development Standards Cultural Development Standards for the Main Street Arts Overlay of District I"; Library Site" "Subdistrict IA" (changed "Cultural Arts Overlay" I overlaX to subdistrict '13 k--,=I'I--- Downtown Design Chapter 5 —Citywide Design Chapter 4 Page 4-1 —No design Chapter 4 Page 4-1 "Incorpo'rating an Theme Guidelines call for theme is dalled for. ocean theme into proieets will unifv the Mediterranean-style downtown and~create a visual reminder of architecture the City's "Surf City" culture and create An iconic downtown environment" (new guideline to encourage ocean/beach theme in project design) Page 16 of 20 vw.. i DTSP U1 Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 L—ec DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No, I 9, t.a 4,_ f All &-c �,`44"" ""24 *00 , h " Trash and Recycling Page 4-8 —General Page 4-66 Section 4.4.4.2 Trash and Page 4-66 Section 4.4.4.2 Trash and Enclosures Commercial —general Recycling Enclosures—does not Recycling Enclosures—"3)iThe Huntington guidelines do not address address coordination of businesses Beach Business Improvement District coordination of businesses with service providers should help to facilitate coordination with service providers between the Downtown business owners and commercial trash service providers to ensure placement and size,of bins and level of service provides for a'safe and clean environment downtown." (new guideline— 1 re-number from 4—9) , :Book.II:'.Ch' r�'5 Introduction N/A —not applicable to Page 5-1 Section 5.1 Introduction— Page 5-1 Section 5.1 Introduction— existing DTSP "Improvements will "Improvements will include,...strategies to include...strategies to better better manage the parking demand and manage the parking demand and increase the parking supply," (correction— increase the parking supply.." delete double-period at end of sentence) Tiered Beach Page 64 Section 4.13.01 Page 5-24'Section 5.6.3.9—Tiered 'Page'5-24 Section 5.6.3.9—Tiered Beach Parking Permitted Uses —"Parking lots Beach Parking—"Additional Parking,—"Additional parking could be that will not result in the loss parking could be provided in an provided in an auto-mated lot or as "tuck- recreational sand area. Tiered parking is permitted automated lot or as podium parking under" parking on the seaward side of within the Downtown Specific on the seaward side of Pacific Coast 'Pacific Coast Highway in,the existing beach > Plan area on existing lots Highway in the'existing beach parking lots." seaward of Pacific Coast parking lots," "All parking would be located below the . o Highway provided the parking "All parking would be located adjacent height 'f Pacific C 6ast Highway, > is designed so that the top of below the adjacent height of Pacific Ref'er,to Section 3.3.7.5." (deleted podium the structures including wall, etc., are located a minimum of Coast Highway." and added "tuck-under", referenced codified K one foot below the maximum in Chapter 3 of Book 1) section M .Z- height of the adjacent bluff', z 0 Page 17 of 20 _J DTSP Update—Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. I s. ng d"i -)'4.`ira a, L' enrmieaidtaft #94" d b"' Chapter`..? Water Supply N/A (not addressed in existing Page 7-2 Section 7.2.1.1 Water Page,7-2 Section 7,2.LI Water Supply DTSP) Supply (continued from page 7-1) — (continued from page 7-1)—'!'The wells have "The wells have a total pumping a total pumping capacity of 2 gallons ga Ions could normally supply and su p capacity of 25,050 gallons (gpm) (gpm) a , p- and normally supply 21,400gpm..." 21,400g2m..." (correction) � Water Supply N/A (not addressed in existing Page 7-2 Section 7.2.1.1 Water Page 7-2 Section 7.2.1.1 Water Supply DTSP) Supply (continued from page 7-1)— (continued from page 7-1)—"'The combi I ned i "The combined capacity of the capacity of the service connections is 22,000 service connections is 22,000 gpm. gpm." (deleted sentence starting with"Recent Recent statewide initiatives... 30 statewide initiatives—already stated in next percent in the near future." paragraph) Water Demand N/A (not addressed in existing Page 7-2 Section 7.2.1.2 Water Page 7-2 Section 7.2.1.2 Water Demand— DTSP) Demand—"The water supply "The water supply availability for each availability for the project will be project will be based on...recently adopted based on...recently adopted UWMP.11 UWMP.11 "The water supply analysis has been "The water supply analysis will be analyzed'under the Water Supply Assessment analyzed under the Water Supply and Wet Utilities,Study." Assessment and Wet Utilities "In addition, the City shall...can be provided Study." as each development proceeds.":(clarification "In addition, the City shall...can be —this section has applicability to each project provided as development that is developed under DTSP Update) > proceeds." M Z 'Z Page 18 of 20 DTSP Upau.;; —Final Recommended Changes—Errata to the June 2009 dra`x DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. 1 l��s�11�'. '.''�''xlstin' '��T��'� i� $�'�Q���'tlr�f���`+y ,��; .;, r;- , . •y +„y ,', eco Yne . 11 11i1' Xl � dh'alt.;x�S Water Distribution N/A (not addressed in existing Page 7-3 Section 7.2.1.4 Water Page 7-3 Section 7.2.1.4 Water Distribution— DTSP) Distribution—"The additional "The additional demand produced by each demand produced by development development within the Specific Plan Area, within the Specific Plan Area, along along with the ical fire flow required by with the 4,000 gpm fire flow the Huntington Beach Fire typically required by the Department...pipelines within the Specific Huntington Beach Fire Plan Area." (clarification—do not want to Department...pipelines within the specify a number for typical fre flow since Specific Plan Area." this number may change over 20-year life of Specific Plan Water Distribution N/A (not addressed in existing Page 7-3 Section 7.2.1.4 Water Page 7-3 Section 7.2.1.4 Water Distribution— DTSP) Distribution—last sentence - "To last sentence—"Additional hydraulic water meet fire flow requirements, most studies will be required as individual pipelines within the Specific Plan development occurs to verify the pipeline Area, specifically along the major diameter required to adequately support streets such as Beach Boulevard each specific proiect." (clarification - and Pacific Coast Highway, will deleted last sentence and added last sentence require a 12-inch diameter." from first paragraph on page 7-4 since it is not known the size of pipeline required in future ro'ects Water Distribution N/A (not addressed in existing Page 7-4 Section 7.2.1.4 Water Page 7-4 Section 7.2.1.4 Water Distribution DTSP) Distribution (continued from page (continued from page 7-3)—"This 7-3)—"This arrangement would arrangement would minimize impacts to minimize impacts to traffic flow by traffic flow by avoiding the need to cross S avoiding the need to cross these these major arterials to construct.and major arterials to provide water maintain water services to each M services to each development." development." (correction) �llZ ----� Page 19 of 20 DTSP Update _Final Recommended Changes —Errata to the June 2009 draft DTSP Update 10/06/09 Attachment No. 1 ?slssue E istiri u t g tad t 0 "ar f �b-`pSP CJ date. :ittaX drat`.. P.:>�7 dat l arata '� �ocam�i�erided,�liain e� Book It- Appendix.A Legal Description Page 1 — Boundary in existing Appendix A—reflects existing Appendix'A—ADD: replace existing DTSP is a legal description 1983 DTSP legal description inadequate legal description with undated legal description provided by Public . Works De artment Book II°=Appe.a4,; :' IDowntown.Pa' king Study re 'ased Sept�mb.er.20.09. Parking Study Pages 10— 16 Sections 4.2.13 Downtown Parking Study not ADD: Downtown Parking Study, Revised and 4,2.14 —Parking and currently included as DTSP September 2009 as Anpendix,D to Book II Downtown Parking Master Appendix of the DTSP Update Plan and Kaku Report 0 M Z Z Page 20 of 20 v.FT 5) The design of adjacent buildings shall not present blank walls JO, the paseo but should be architecturally detailed to complement the front of therilding. Businesses adjacent outdoor di to paseos are allowed to create window and ays,outdoor dining,and appropriated designed outdoor vendor kiosks alon paseos. .6) Secondary entrances to adjacent businesses,wh possible,are permitted off of paseos. 7) Shall allow safe passage by avoiding confi tions that allow for concealment or blind n�fL ry� �s MMUM"I % P pim M- 4 e Mvuo Z_ g. "fo, con 4 MW M Ya,Snrnt, M, x ERB- M Lda���- .......----- 1) 2 dedics space. kS b 2) wide , on y I 9 ti 01 d 3)-, Shall,.b e5�s!e from di I dliey .4151ja block Vehiculartraffic in the alley or emergency access. 0 r -Ccess,s, a be-from am a ey,where analle 'exists. y bm�.-'. ain Street: ..... ..... The Zur�ose of the CuCturaj Arts Sr ......................... t ijs Jc"t� 5, o_-,Promotg__continued bwex it U, the 00 t 5eswithinx,t%�areb t�nc(ude tie aim-StreetBr4ric M M -'eh p 4A e, -','OfM t -th" n -ir Z A h -IJ Affift t A d6i d h _p �Al f e,.,d tsiq -ef e Pir S5 p AR m Z Af -__ Z2 C. Wa F 1-al ... Y V", J I ...... *76 xt, L _0 Awaff a'o kiosks l,wh possible, sLAN'I� USES - Tial�t i311T:5 DARUS zl Boundary The Cultural Arts Subdistrict 1A consists of -- Legend the trianglular-shaped area ®cunwai Ads Subdistrict,n - and a portion of the blocks ®speaRe PW Bounder - immediately north and Psi: _ tit.of Acacia Avenue Acmkila 00 Main Street Library Site - -- g�% - �` m.>Ta,7``M:.�-_±2v-:."��.r�%• �"+f`a�..-�; .s::�Cr.� g,. - - Si'" �. � '_ ,cc ..<-�.�r.,,•`a.� a-l.K�' s' �::.-::. ���.:.:�_ � �"g^x='tom.<�"*.s _ -<g� ..� x" .i���-'`.-�t=. �'_s`��•:H = - ....:,'. ..�'�'rc .'.- b) Figure 3 36 presents uses permit#ed within f ie � ', details:permrtted uses. #aul�ty-related uses that av a sam .; detand as the existing use-not specified herein,as well as a change of use,maybe V T � lloedssulijec#totfiepprovafofthe.D�rec#or t SLY^^'�:'.�'�,�'a�" u',k`e«.t�?.""`f•���Y+ff�.' .-. t _ �i. f x`;: v;;�=':�� SS,`'" t r - •,`F* _y�Y:X, �'4 '("%'y a-'>i� v~'^"�''�- - rif - _ - -f _ -'_. w9xH�Ni', r-s,(•-' c� y`i-�,`") .,u.'F,_ ,�,y,,�? :�r,'3:��y,`�`�bP,.,-�-::.� - •3:�<.-Y;.�..>,��V, ��Yr .9", ��+p �-fa� �3 M�,"<P'y.•-`_-c,,; �•e:-Wa tli' 1. 3 D USfS 8c D WELOPME-f, AID D"S Permitted Uses Cultural Arts Subdistrict 7A Admin . CUP CUP Use Permitted Permit from PC from ZA Accessory Uses' Carts and Kiosks Z Cultural Institution Library ' ,x Museum Performing arts center ;.�._ Art gallery f Eating and drinking establishments 3 f }> Eating and drinking establishments,with less than #2 seats 'Accessory uses to primary uses such as a gift shop or retail uses Z Must be associated with the adjacent cultural arts uses "= 3 Pursuant to Section 3.2.24 Outdoor Dining - . ° 6 erm, ed ses.Culftk6l Arts S[itialis(iict:lA f DisStct f ., -_'};-_`ems�<" = - �- - '-- - ' =- -Surhtar of Devefopcnent Standards' c i 4 � OC'Irt%Qircf # ifiuralr#s Subd_stnc t�A e u intheMai xcldii,Street Library sK02, ,l N'TUR'. ��fi�cn tnerc�atKand iced us e de-.1gpm nt standards ofaF : .2n :" =>-- '+`i`�"`- .,,; _ ,sn>:-•ri:Fr-'"'",r1P' ;,'.:_: - - Y v c�t�ois of thisac � n - � f� es a Y #bekdevetcQtads for the �Iain-Stree# .LL '=T %r0a _3r vv - ,. Or .: c-t#(3 F F'' � - �� -�",�-- ..e:.,....•��.:t-..X= ,�.�.x,:. .',�-:"s'- _ - -< : i i, tw fpy :_ryt �F Y�A rr ^y w a>ve yj - ' - $°'",y,:'�'vs°'"- ', 's-, ` '. �5 `•�i'r ' f;'3' cd'i rfi*ra S{i. s F.. 3-$ - - - - _ -- . ;tom`s=���, M�_-ar� :��y �,>�;,.: ;r�,-v�+,�s.,�, xm,-,..Y �:. _�'' >z Y, i r = • ' ���� ..� .°�,r,.. -�.�v± gY<jr�+,^�.�`a`<�"r.5�.r."-�'�,�'�- 2�.".`��5:^?k^i`e';t3�'�:d�+o'"-'-.�'-_`>.�„`-,x••:- -s•; - �'>� _ .v�' ��:•',5' - „�` .�_%..'-"iNs.,- :?.'. .r€,S.r�r. �.�.s;w�.:a:'%-<_ .Y>:,-� -:,y2+{t,..`:`��:` _ - -x'n`="� _-- 4�_ _ _3'C'���YJLJ"I f�h,�C:'��At�'hI YJ^,,>P•"v_k: -:l:v �Y.' _ •—�^ - I.Lp 'N F,-�A. _ _..:��3��--�� _^C.:i�.!�_.4'=':,-la:J-.i3;-',-.^.:i..:}z ax 1=12,2{lQ9 # i55$� 1E� OPIII�EAff'STAAIDARDS:. Parkin a) Shall be provided below grade. 5) Public Open Space a) Shall have no net loss of green space equivalent to approximately 27,944 sf. b) Shall incorporate-the following amenities: open green space for pedestrian. :. use and public-events;shade and accent trees;benches;trash're - ptaetes;. 1, decorative lighting;-Wycte parking,aid a- variety of public art elements i;,.tj`fe• `4'-�� 1� � Y-�, `^l'_Tf��� �'�i .�`�..4� ..'.'i_'•r`{��i.�.h� `xY;�. Y ;�+a,,,� `���•° -� z..:,r �«��:.y?ik':..... ��i.^, r .3��- ^:�.'e:� 3 e, -� -�"x�b�E i �� -' - � °cr a •- �'�i'�Cam'_�:,�'��-�a � '��'s :x3 <.*c_ 4 -_.�Nt�^-i „y: .'�'-sx,�'� -SXo'� _ S-c+ i':1.:• �Q _ -.i -------------- Wffi ..,�;< '' Y'��� , •.:a g 'r- 0 ........... :'3: Summary of Development Standards for the Main Street Library Site Cultural Arts Subdistrict 1A: Main Street Library Site Only Section Maximum Site Coverage 5o%net site area 3.3.1.20.5 Maximum Building Height 35' 3.3.1.2o.6 "u` Front Yard Setback None required 3.3.1.20.7 t Interior Setback 20'adjacent to residential 3 31 20 7 t, Exterior Side Yard Setback None required 3.3.1.20.7 Rear Yard Setback None required 3.3.1.20.7 Public Open Space No net loss of green space(27,944 sf) 3.3.1.20.8 Public Restrooms 3.3.1.20.9 Loading 3.3.1.20.10 i`•F+. +$ i rr-F," s`.Ucr „+T. .a a "�)4." -�.e'� S' " -y� R._r_;.,n;,-xY y :3:•. f :yfi::t �'� <y'•fY,'�- :a.iR�."V..:S%'•` -`,`,':�;'":"".,:�.r:. :+�i':�'^::- :av'_ y - :'Y rw`r� - 1 - Y� - s �yyv 4. w. ire s6 r •tom.,.::.:. �. -. .,.. ,r�a u 'a •�x �-i 5) The design of adjacent buildings shall not present blank walls to the paseo b ould be architecturally detailed to complement the front of the building. Busi es adjacent - to paseos are allowed to create window and outdoor-displays,outdo ping,and appropriated designed outdoor vendor kiosks along the paseos. 6) Secondary entrances to adjacent businesses,where possible, permitted off of paseos. 7) Shall allow safe passage by avoiding configurations low for concealment or blind �F b c view., t� t r ;•t:.b< _ yam"`^'_.�. ::�•'.:r.,^:.3:_.,;- .t - �p- 4- --% n.--V�• 'ass; :.-i:. .v.+�s�`'� '_r-.: _ 3' 1C>?lea.-. _ `�:. ' -' -;:=�5.� ?� '! .'.+.:ef'-.._ - ^'�f'-`zd..q�. - ++�5��'.t:K'fe'•....w:a"_=n _ -> S - •`'tip- �:�:rSy-.-.• <-:�� ��}.'t'.,> �,- _..�,s.i�.3_." - -„-' t++r✓•� f, >� •�:::= m -�p •-..sue= - ;y4_. -�s>�.� , - - -:•>�. -` � - sls,,, ..:s, ^:'xt-M.c�.'z:•S���z ,r. - Kb.?��-2 - -£i�;,,:.c•..�'-.�-ei�:i. � MM Loaeiin n�=ServiceAr-'ea���� �-F���._�_��� - �.,�, :��= .�• __ t�� �: '_`�= � � ��.'-��'� �����^ - fir- :��,- � ws- ,�V. ..��.���;� � - ,:ate-,•-�.' z;;, - ��� `''��" -!�_�*`x�. .-�•s;` <�` .:r>sy. .�',.:�:,z:>.yw3'f�._�` - x -��-. .¢ -�,g���','�Ls•.3�...N. s ace. = :..,-';'•s"=�'�� � - ;ate- �Q`;.:_ %�� _ '���s_='.:F:;�.;:e.,>- viiide by Zo [ y 141 high minimum dim M I' A Shal[be acc #rom an alley `" _ -r oxieWcu[ar traffic.in the alley or fire or ernergency access. SwF: �-h, _ ii• �� �o-ores . .__.. �,. sr'..3.-}oaan=alteY,-wl.here an alle�ts. MI a?al+?�^ A`_T�'r`� a4�„ -Z ✓ ..�: �'i�_i+L. _ j ?r �` ...,-t y' � - -- - f1.*.*.L'7� `.xF-r'��. ��>'¢'�� �"' ��-=.�� r * �a a.•-fir` a- "•�., F45u _ ,K?r- Wiz, � �K �r gg.w�•"� • :4" '.4,'..T=_+>-'.-a'z'C`:_ :. ^'t:.ai os"r'�=iy�K.,ir',ya3..^ _ .:�y3a:,,y a t _ �ywt eC - $^:•Y.4vY. n �e�:Kc'=:'�: t� � � , �h- ;.v'a4oiL �r:•y?• F'a a::Y``<ya'�y,za r's.:;.}. sv PP ,,, �� �i ,k"Ct�r�r��•� r '.r•i .: .r•�.; x�v,., h+X�s,r�+„.v�41:�.Fiy:',vs,,tiiL ;;fl•.,",�.Hy,•."'•:.i?,. `c .n 1.yy.�,W,.i+'a'�.`., '+,\:!'b';•3r ;�:°�;;'�'� rx�t,�!ti't�, rii,i,!',i'AC'� ,yV':r,F,K,' ,i:,yb''L•„t :Y y<j;� }'�'.,;:: 5' 7• y�Tr ^vu,.lM T'({:':,.,4`:,",��: Y.1 H.Y.. '1•.t�f, ,.P.µ[ C '�rq.I' 1 r i ?;y'�i. S�r,..vw:•.x+•tt:.`Y: o.}.�, '•* :'ay°tr•\• ';�.`s„7c,,..:3 11 --- .. .. .,. 1-•,,41".•,',•1'�I ajr-`': '!K{ .:Yt„�.;• -� "4':f•��;S.it{�'k�..✓:' '`.''1: , 4 + s'Ev n G: r� •' '• ,., .-..... _.. ...I.- ?�.+ i i}"ij\ x F`A � �L�A� r e r'xlt ,4 o r> :1,k;%`;''v{5! <s;.:Cc: „L1 4v 5, @;•,...,k.. P :"..N` -iK:Ali", ', � .i�,., !`�'• ",.rM; '1„'y'Z°;:r''7/k:.-'^.',`1x,•,r�. 4 •t' ...1. �`•};�, !Mini I.J1'�'• - `As .Si"`-'.L':x�: )�..�,. :)�S,v, cn,,,.:.,Y Ar1r�,':y,•yt^.�1 ,', %9 .v.'':?+. '� r 1 r I,ul..S?" r ia;<,hc,�r,• aBr•s?r;;�'z .�`'J- �, k!': �...1,L_�:. , •.J+ I i-`'I..4I r I ','C d..•ti'','•'�".`�•{� � J }•f%r; 5� �' ,x•t,r ..+•' � w ,......� _ ., J:1 i.h7.rA, v,4,,,..��k!~Y,>^N('..' '.�'\i.M1 4`�{•' qq t'�/.Y.�' "F - -..._.......: ,.'<.,r nY`"��y�• nC. ri��„S'y' i• 1 ��_. a�,.s5„�,*,p •� 1- � 4 �� �,y� I � ��ti5r,t�l pr*, ...i;'<.. � a +r 5+rhxls��f`'j-M �� .,�7' 'S 'f���?;�!:!•,: � 1 .•.[.....:_...-..,_f .�i`',.. .., t!s � ....._.._.. ...�.•_., j f 'qtt�,��' r•'F. 2-J ,;51?;j�';r� � :;e`�,:+„';• =rn`•'FT"f , s, ;o;Yr'�m' 4 e. I 4: .,:srJy4 p1',r`J; •"�ci+:,..s NEW- _i,.P..Y.,,as.,,, �'Kf�'-•'t��' A r� £ .� ,AY��S�r'='w•'� ,'`. 1 I ... t� I. � ,,..,:�"•'k%:.} °..i „�•, .,'�". �,'f°V�'Rjdi"•r 4•q� 1On n� Y �?,�:' S' - .. ,,. "� ......-_�:.j�' •',� �{,' �'���`�, *�, � kid f�� y '{'., aµ4'; .�.y1 1 ,J ei F�Yrr t� 5}+r rr�•,p ! � 1 a F����7 li•- �� � J 4 4� +, Fa; NINsA _ R' L\•�„ V',,,, r F� '0{,I�r1.r`l ?l:-,Y�'.: P-+4 A<;;•k;,`�•{;�Sh y :f�' n�tl'Y.V."ti.r'7i n�;"F:�" �r,•!dt„w�rik., ',�q .r��v,•.;�jyt�Cx;::.:L.`..�• v'' ri;lv'l.u°1., I II ,�ra �"r��41•',4','ti..',,•.t. ;;il�.' �,,r V11.SYv U+ �� :,�trkts•r'-i%Y; ::,V F,'��`."�%'w,.•,n^m �j r r/y� a, VY' rFl"F i al :r rt• p GJ r� .,r. " '.�_`. ,r, „+roan a • a a• :•7 r '''t,� ,car'":�,, }C.�h"',' :r.:,e�4'": C;1?: QJ :(:';ir;;: :;,a,l"';'�+'h .S•'•C: •a-. .v7'4, r } /an R�'r°rs ysr„� a � ,, 4?e :',Y`>•;'•,'k:��?' „i::;;•'\,pt,is t' 1N ry.; .��'y��..k:v`i�` � � r$1%' ..�,ZHI•Zii ��jf�;��:��IIy�,y� ,"�M1 .r 'La~ %:}.: :+:j.l� �Ill� {ti';�' ''1✓,'IMG. ({:i 1N;rt ^�v'( i`,•:.t:i" -:'..\' � C. :env :.:1: f:�i,t. 1�N +i�r4�y.lit:, t t,, q•fC .� � .4C,}�af� r� •'�s,viYz�"� ttr� t� ��.� t• F � �I( '�'I � I r 1 �t� ,,,. ✓ S > k;y �'r ri?..• f, � 'OF ` � "ii,.f�'w,> �Si�r\'t,Jz'}�•�Ik ,�Sr`�7wh e ; ,1•. L A�v<�0 l Y .4 Y 1 ` y ,;' i t r` l ife-� s •s+' „� vi'�`�' ,r A ,P. •S 1, :J,;;•.s•:';:r' '"ri �' tiro`.:e ,r_ �•,r.,ai' t; �"t 4 ��i>1 .fl r.Y i.i � b,. ..,i,,!gwx !�.1, � :t:, �'�.. b tAs.A' 'r r,ya' .C, ,i" ?,-' ,;'i•i�F:'+ y ,q, ,s',�<?' � .� .�`M <, 4 ;FrN ,,Kt..., N�taci3-�Ys' •a;..;,1'• ',q� - 4'a. � ,� �• �' .•'Y 1T{f is ..Ir•y.•v "•{.,,.:.::i6`.'�� ��` Y ±1u�•. ;.}�:; O � 7 t; •.,t,.. -:cif,. - ,� �E�'?�}r:�./ � .`��'`•; +ZTgs(�1.� �r�y` k�, �„_�..,wC,'11�i,'7' 'F.::a f5::(\`::'k:4� =1 W � •�., �� ��..y�'T �I.,�i ;l �t' rn^` O a d V V1 tr T,r` r, ` • ;�'i1...y,�: t ) ,ryf,`9� rFTk' C1'. '� •+< �tiu�EfMl�;:Mfr�9tvy%:;�•'`_f.,'T S;, 4-1 � � �' LA � •;,1,k,r5Y+ �` ;s, 4��� `,F,����f'p Nt f, .r'bt 50 Q1 #� 1 a ,4 ,„.syv_ M1'Sc,�,'Y7 ,S.Ga• vv :ii"i�y,�:l,ik°':. W YO �Y,d..Y{.,:, 1 .�'ai .Y,p1,1•f' .TF?';'' Fs' �jL, y � •!'��'Pr;'dt t. .f t r,djV x rq;y"4. ..4n 'c?2.,,. <: ur,h7 r ..,,.,,Ir�'r"�'k:,:•�yr`%'`g'a• •r., co � •„`h•'�'' ;�+ ,�1�+,y i `7 'y;•:v• ;��t:;�;iY�:", "'.�I:r ?•��',;rt'. -1' a �k,�i`.Y;.�.��t.e�rr•� '^y;: V) ++ .� �p ILL, 'O. �;t,"Jia'•"%'s:� .j''k�SY;.1 , r,' �.j ,fir i=,l,',,,r ,��.ai�`.]•,,,:?eK�s}i ..,r-•,e�::. `':iy:.l'i. : .:f,;yN k,$�'';��,.+�"'�P}y+.s a N.r, .;�„�`.*k .°;ci4es�5�' 4�',I�:. :�1,,`5." �,1;;a"r;%k, i`�F�a <.:r; yto t;=1�"�c�,C .^r �'r��y�y�C:Z. "# ✓,ts� ��,'nd�ts�.a?>� „'�,�>": .�Am�y��n'�. ',..`z:'���1. ��=1r„%:,'.:'?.�,..:^ r,w'a�:'%`"''�''. e �,�„ +�' ,�,�^.rVx#',p^�i 'p,'ii,;prn,?'.,;' il'�'7Ri•°J,"'6,,�54�. d� 4•..t. ,F I �"rr i a 4* �` ' }pe, ,fit. 3� xr��s'�:'T,•��i�'�[•`�-iV�. 4a'\Ut?� rz}. .'A +!4 4E �• �k ' y�';• t,g'�,4r;,: ,�., :3„. •<iCL.;�i k<r t11' ",,r'+d,, "'�' -Mg, '"�"�„i' r"�l E;''r'•`' o'���A'' %'t'`:iSa'!;�• .§:r•}.i; ';,I,iF•,:, 111�`v``r�•" .-4 ''!i Y .',+"'f.Y,y n:, r ;'i ',.rYuc-�R; :''tilt,. i`h;• ;15� "A.ar;'�'ti.�i'�`=. `•r>�}, y;1, '+7fi.t J�•'i:a �•,.,rk,r�7,1.rYe^.',7�'r'.;�•� �'ht�,i,,,1:'j n'ri,� ,� � �P .,y`1•'l,,t,,,.y%,,a+,rY�tc :�.Nr;s'r' �''i� ,:',t,';�C1i: nYJ,::aF'.-...::t:: . r_'{NY.)'iftr };,' ,1.in.y'�r. „I.;., .>:sluis•rt".i.. ;;n'a �J{ ,.. . ''i+<:,:rt i:fYfi Ci. '' ::+:..u•::�k.14Ci`. �;:1.:',°M1,A 1Y.y�t�$ f% ..neY C �Ai. I,:t.) _,<Y,Y.!^''� 4 G ,1,; •,�f,^P'v"�;'d •�:}ty,, ':�f- ,�,rc � ,.�.;' .d .!rj'^Y4:�.,,:is',7�:b.'.i:c,• P'y..�rJr..�;.�� .s,`r Y�.Y ,cY�s�;'` f�, �`.Y,li ,�.r. .„I•!:'/�'l`,,'::?'��:.• .� N'+.,., �,.kA.� '?,.{ . ,r't G;4ve�.,j; .. `:7•,:,..?'tnU, w,r'k,;r'i<a�a.::•r;.;;:�t;,,;;`;'', ,;5,r , I,M '.`;V;>;h� b,,'G1,4,':°,.4,� ,;i,::.i ,..0� ,•"F. h;,cn.,.;. :I igS.!`�" `����)¢II;E�Y✓�r;,�,'.,,rJ:.,tr y. °�:+'A ',fir n•� � '^`n(ft�� F�,ir3r _a. dl -':x'i'" ,":'£':`<'r7 r ,�4'' �,`'T.;.u•<:Iy t..+tdi:l;'r�h'ar;arx loom" :,r•%''<`��', ' �y S: - _ h-}4� i-'L�;ra rg .t<3 1.-,. .:.er:.,�.a.,_-:s<�:�:':'r:-'.x',•:'gl." -- rM - ... ..t,».c,T• - of:r.,z:T ,x+ dx_�._<C�if' - 4 LL - rWI ' t• , z- �• - - '- - - y� 'Films _ Permitted Uses Subdistrict A Admin CUP CUP Use Permitted Permit from PC from ZA Accessory Uses' Community Theater Z Carts and Kiosks Cultural Institution Library Museum _ Art gallery 'Accessory uses to primary uses such as a gift shop or retail uses }== p ZMust be associated with a cultural institution which include the uses permitted within this table `y including. libraries, museums,and art galleries. Figune 3-36=Permitted Uses Subdistri -. _ ct-1A of District 1 4} Dev��o�mer+#S�ndar � - 4 fez_ w rese s i summary A the deaielo.p- t standards for Subdistrict 1A. = ._-A s the star Sand. #lie r: p n:referenced _ .xs .- 1 stz camas"I#ei'fi: fie;cn� e ern p errs. is of each standard ,=Ya-e ", €=',� l.uy-"' - ,s, ev'.x: ' 3 -".• -n k: F' ..;c-�*x.::ev li _.,�_: `Y - �•• dFr- a�.fnS`"`''�xX^.y+-v` ^:h '•''r tc - 3.- +v - •$%N - „e'i� ��' .4 �.k ;ark:'-t.-,-,,•. ;+ ,;,..:- z��,-'-e��'` ��cr - � �"r=1'a .ara:�,?^.+?.,sy�� ..- _ --', ?=s;�`�..z:�.,'� e'2. ,�5++ �� + �,:a i.•7Fr''' - n ,.�-�y 'n'J.` a z >t's`-� 'Y`'� ��' =g :,:^�_ -`-`-i�;:x^s-"�sa_^z:: - � ..«'-;r'�-v+fir,-.t:�y.^..�'` ::<•>, - _.�ri.:. u"Z4"-.'. z----'"u' =3,. :.:r4=z ><_�. �.:.s* :. ' -�iv� �t�: - '"�:.- - ,,.::€ y�:';`;sue-K-'��`,�w+it'z .": _ a ;:�:� •..�,ap:.z 3 _ �� ,�` ,��'� is <-'°.S':>�-r.. F"^��F�.�y'•y-s`•�`"..'.ti '�aio_,;' - - __ _ ,�.. � i"'�f`raPf �sri�,gbi-� __'S_ -Ji3�:'i�"�'t�"-.�'�'�---G-:s+• .l.y �__.k+l-_•11v=>`�i�-t_.:�.rtf_ u .J,�E:..Y"J. w.��jw- - ¢3gb-x:+ 4;• �.. _ _ ,y Hal '�-.�,�.v_.- '' .,.�..n»=r�:...,�€-c���•'t„•,.,�,--t � - � � ��s _ __ _ .�'.F` � .{7 L qn�- 'TH = -�=• r..a"q:��::_i=�[r_�',;..:"4:x-- r..:5c. :':E:» ��5?:i..�_:.;,tin. .,�i i2F1-C.eBkj "_ ��u'Ys•':r �` '�, :.� .ia. ibn. .7Si � .4.CC� 4T_� �'-fi,� �..%x..-�,-��"i,J�t-4-'rn5 i%n.-w_•_�a� � - ..:J�ris.:.-y,. �4 K ,may' �'':�'`�. - ` i>• -G ..*+. y ' e° - r' ,_,,..,.,, Sy�,.£i.. f•±Y.E���.�-"tY4, v�?�,� A_•,,°s�4 `t�Y`�-�-"'%t. _`t. -�,,. .-�+j.'y"`.Y.i.K� _ IY yam.`� •�` ice: 3'�*� .. ', ��;,�as }�. r x l'i'TY3F rs t- - v:i' _ y.may}',..;.• " 6.r:,S%• y�.�: .^...T!�'� fir` .�,�:.�t a'Fi< <_p t-.-•.% }:>.t+.> _ ..ram�:' _ �7 .;:z... > i` g _ ..1:--,�f4ev. :' t•'aORR »�,``4 •rN :S� %r�yvtiti_'`„ii 3 � b 6 Public Open Space a) Shall have no-net loss of green space equivalent to approximately 27,944 sf. b) Shall incorporate the following amenities: open green space for pedestrian use and public events;shade and accent trees;benches;trash receptacles; decorative lighting;bicycle parking;and a variety of public art elements. 7) Public-Restrooms Public restrooms shall be required-to be incorporated into a new cultural - r +t�- �=��,. - ,f "3'`. - 2--^ems- :�7`•`;�::``''"�:' '%'�,;-.x::,;:'±f,- '.�. •-,.�'^� Nor, ;�. <..1:-•A„-;-,i_�:.�•`•,�...-<_� ..��.�.� - - y"r•" Te. - - - u--��"• .s`i •�° - >t,,���. -���^•�-'>'.y}k,.r-._•_^'!,o`er }.- 1:^ - - ':T+:-" =,+? _ cam— _ .,�.s�•:-t:;:�; - �z. �`�• _ �- �.� s"Zv>�...'s - ,ter" 's.�-�i"is€�+>,..,'�- � : ;�'-: - - ..vS }�f''s`.. .�. -=?_2.<,f_ - n,-�.'.-;fY`-.:%z„`:7<><'S-1'%.N'�'?59 r ^•.L,-3' - '.�::. � _�_ - . .e 7 ..�.^_'•.,.,._.,c:-.2:�:. :,s,F .:i�i J�3:-:nyt?L' g:i:`�t`�vc: i:.Y'`_'y..��. _ •�=t+: ":•Ss r ..i .'ter--:p r„:<._a-_•` _w c.-✓.�_`< -`, [:�:>i_ .�.E.4" ...4:� = <, sib _ "- - N.-..'J' „ y:y��1:3..,a' 2 - =s... :: = =_Y fats- � ,:=.�,- ., -`�=" _ ;.ftz`u""3�'� -rr. aq,��£•,yl-c 'Idq�r --;;��< .3..h. --<'y'?'�i•::<<'>"�i:'Y :��.,, �;r- ���.�..: �, ,. -. :a -,sc.'-<=_:,�y'__ -.�>�;��t....>�c '�, 5,�. �•sx-'-��±;�:hn':ae�'��K�ii�,y, - ''_='�L �* 1 -i'i .45 � 3 ti/,•,'ut,-Ls�;�',,r^ .r .sty �'�•-� ti;�;' <.'7•• w-�; "�;' -- t ...�. - .+��'- ..;,:K_ c;^ -�< .">.�_.> ...�•_� r', . '- �. .✓+Y` �fS _ <S'Y?.S%KiS'�:.•s m.-"'• yM�."-1,•^- ,..may: - - _ - - .SZ+«."� e:q'� 'sc�� '_�a v�:.uc�, �.,.SKr"} Y� �.F!�:, _ .�y�h� ..�.e -.�--�'+i�a _ "_F?_.-S,_..:�: � .��'�..•-�-�>.. .-cv��„x� r,-s:.�'f?"� =k:-,{"fit:' ,.fz -��e.. "�' -.._s:, _ ..-.wi-�.-'�-:'�_. � �:x•;.. .�-;:1-� - •,:.>.:<->?>' .. '.2•,-:.:=c'.; ,'• -:'F_-.,.�.r�.._ - �•'•?`= -<+�.:�:��-.:':'`rK_-::.:�=:>-.>>...,.-.^fir:'• T... �-a- _:-^ .� gy,.� ;-F+_:•.,v._„�.may.-> _ _ _ _ _ _ 1:_:. `,�::..> �- _zs`^''-y�s_7n+:-;� � - -_=.y.Y-:;::; ;:uTr�v=:•;;-x'- _ ••i��.n'.Y :_',�.'T�•��.a'�s>_ _ - _ -= _ _ `'�`=<;:_5 a� s�.-a�a Y°-x a :a�^"- _ -_•�_��.,- { +-•.::�'�"s'>�'T:t'^�'� -car'_ -'"-kz�zc<?«7 -�,'�n..•'�..�_'.-•sa*.�'�. �-,Tr 1�<_'�...x,:._.i.,. - _ :-.•':�:;:;`y 't _.tcr�'. ''v:�:�'^-+`P��-sF"f'T:? �"^'•t Cam: -v t _ Summary of Development Standards for the Main Street Library Site 15. Subdistrict 1A: Main Street Library Site Only Section Maximum Site Coverage 50%net site area 3.3.1.20.4.a.1 - Floor Area Ratio 0,6 { 3.3.1.20.4.a.2 Maximum Building Height 35 33.1.20.4•a•3 Setbacks 20'adjacent to residential 3.3.1.20.4.a.4 Parking Provided below grade 3•3.1.20.4•a•5 Public Open Space No net loss of green space(27,944 sf) 3.3.1.20.4•a•6 Public Restrooms Incorporate into new cultural institution 3.3.1.20.4.a.7 Loading Minimize impact to adjacent neighborhoods 3.3.1.20.4.a.8 S TS - -y TA - 3. --7 Purpose - This district is intended to preserve and protect the sandy beach area wit " the Specific Plan Area boundaries while allowing parking and auxiliary beach-relat ommercial and .convenience uses. The beach will also be used for special events t ughout the year,such as the U.S.Open of Surfing,the AVP Pro Beach Volleyball tourna ,'the Shoreline Marathon, the NPPL Paintball Tournament,and the Duck-a-Thon. The ch parking and plaza areas north of the pier are also used weekly for a Farmers'Market,a raft fair. Approximately half of the ,_bea,Gtt, f�.- a 'e jia.the district is.Ci beach•.the.remai r Qf the beach, ro to a is owned b x-, ,. tY beach; he f. the x �' a� _ ¢.,_n. ::. _- �. .ram:-... ... . ...:-_ .'-• _ - ..:�x:'':1':t';- _ .s «N =tx•- -„-- __�" - Y-^ nQ�' £§ �Y-•- ij x..T. ± - =S•. -�.r _ `eY'j{�,� �4���S, Ai - �yy'�,-) ��y- ..:. - _e - - cyj .y %=.1 Y .'k ":%'.�! �'i"-.I^-_ >':S+ t.n �"3Y.'.h'a,a`� ..yl�n.-. ,3".::-�. n. -' :.Y !'3 iY:-:3•,. - �. •psi". �r�ithe=�acrh"e�c _> �-_-. - �R`�;�;; - - -- �"' <'� - -'� - :-'�{ _:,;�,.�.-• '?'y,,w.�= �: ;ice="-. m- � '• -� � -'r--" ,x;~- �r ---ate��e:�.. :-.i.,�.:� :;, - _ -fxeac# <Boulevard e - - :-�;_ _ '; _`-�.-�:� _ _ _ <::�:.. _�- 'tom` ��'u=.;r-�.`s` =: . -..-'•:. - __ :s - ,t. - -•=_sue_;;b •Sv:-:`` '�-..+,. r.'Ors::szxy �s»i-.: �:-�:~�- - - 1--^ _ `', _- •._'-s.- _ :. '� - %kzr_ 4r .,srfi"3_s�. `xS^;���`:.y.:,- *f.-' -e..,> '.n'._•_� �:�:�'�"a."� _ �- .�: ...rt:v,x.;'�;..•rr,c, ,:t< - �;�� .� . ..��.,_._. - re: =65 resents ch open aced use and, rVw _ P, P P P b#? fatis='�s_ e e orubirc facrhtres,• specAIR ified herein,that may be allowed subject to=apou�af Revaev3 Board =y change of such use or public facilities shall be subject to the approv'T �• t� es "tonaireCs.and.stand-alone st or age,age buildings shall be prohibited in beach areas. _C z : ,:. e strn artcrn caJ acit Q t` n #h ' ier'be 'v i ea e. t een PCH an d the be r�l ,.��,�w_ X� G,�,��i.S - .,<.: -,P.':. _ ach F: irsh c '' es#sari c r o r�`" - h. e°ct . yr erg .rice.. "lo` rth"e,'w•est-'d > we �- - >4 .. tra - - .�. u� :is e-s.�� �a r•� `r h;....t. efI ctirr .., - si !a e mr r e5 =t nc: ,� i•r, �- �Y � n res`#ouiai`�o - ..� _ <�:,. `„g:-':�- --.,�Y:= �.- _ _ :r#h=of;tE:s:area �5.. ties strx� -�}� ; , i n-ai 4a t10 to ,..� Owl,sue,=� - x: Ueil . �< : �aVatr � � XS�If�'�-a`tlere(�:•�aCkln.. x- -Y ^ vim:• d .-'^s--;`*':;:`;'"'��;;s-�``��T'"�` c.4^ �,�;�-. :ate-,...3•r _ ?t, - - e S: - sa= +a _. .. �.,- -„_ -'s-. _.::.::. <-•w;.ate;: x" •mot ..�. - - - t<: r3 s tF;,,.;`'r 'S•g X> <e€er �t »r:*".•S:'•i`4^.'�''� `�3"'} .`<"�'•'= S-..' ?' 9 ;-' � `�- i*.lszL. ,x '•4::' ==�.r�.T,�.,.��;i;,?�; .,<3ies-r-u3n i'..�: ::^. ,#- � `r,.:a'-''�.`�':'=:h- 'e:R:"g rz�`` # _ F1� - `��-be~�f�-�' _ r_'.�- :��s';- .��a••�.,xx. ,r,���"„� 1 �_-..4 ...�'4-,,,.. ,f,^,�'�50} �j.,;g �- -$- .:i,..aa;.r<7 f: - •l.:trw.,.. e.�t.=_" -.i,.'4 r^.'i}ur -- >-.�i.T:fe >:eF ".-x _�5:� tl2s� ' ,y > ,yam:ri ,S.^✓,�- - - '- - :"ti"i'-=y%r•"�wx.^i ��b: - - '-�v.�' -v�:s�-riot:&, ut.u•�� .�:,>r;:. _ _ tivf' -iY f'-=..F�."=x; ;:r.- - �:�<;,_•-. ,_�.r�,iti°,;`,,,e- r ti::F`;;:-`i.:,,..-�,> ..,�a-_;:;::r...%,-, - - S&ma� .+rf%^'',Ex=t,�s:.4T.�1�`�`-°i`.'.= i:�`J"_e'�„s ,-•,t,.. _"=`A«�d-' �„�`.„ -q:,'�.Yi`,3•"^•±`�.y, - i:?i:`-,`-S,%:x",-+'„;y'sa;,t"s,."tx:.�Ns:•-l;;jr�.k.>_„i'..3`,,:n:�§.%.y,'S�:'i">S;CY•.-.:'.:.F,Yt A'' =x,��+�+'y-�','fs?f..._3F- :.vY 1`�ri*e,>'';£+1":#`�R�F+3'-�sE"".%r�} t,•°" ,{'-n,'^a "S`-1,et ��-�.'- �:�"5�::�^Y'=ut,'�""� �� :<r;�''+�•�7;�•; ;ram��.%'� ":,r:�`-'*S�.':�'�'.r;i'-.�;,>�'�;:�,=.f ��:�:,ry,..::;a^„`.>��. - - -- - L ��31Jq�S��) ,� t!S ri7 t f r+`�Zlgly+{th Yz�f�� a jl f9Ati'Y�Fh f•Y!/dx,! i1`Mi 1� °, �q )A fl 'r I r . Ary � Onto-) n!V�'h�t���1>tirYQS1,�1,�"i `7�hdHivtY�v f t rl 4 ° +��1 r Al gig Vl 1 •,ur xl "tEYr�'.v x{ �> 1 �B w � •I s t ;, ter `••'`,y/,.• ."W .� r ,Y1 �R,; �� �, �,�z r5 � r � ;i t a ,B / m � b'` ,�p.'4o r ,✓�a fir, 6 ,� •1 � '�T,y nth 3!'i u��5 � �r=x .�l , i i Ry�� i�\• y�C�"{'_jr���s�.v��15��.�U�� �"��J.� v' � i 41� p e ..,.,��,�t�r i`('`,` ���t��=ag' �t�t, • � k AY.j,d,�,v0�i � +� 4 � }Y 5 � `� ,� k S ,_ _ {Y � L(.A 44 1 �'(n ""J��'��W �f:A�$� i�� ��i�. 1..��. Y�N��a,�' r h�YlY 1!�l ��!y�...n'✓5 t7. ' •' a,��'^�, � '`�'`'"wt' ?`fit' 4 • ���,�r� �� ,s�d Nf1"}1 .%H s i �u�s� r y-•s D _, x`r c c`�Y Y t, R w u,y� cy rr t �gC"r p lea - • J qa {>ni Yti P r F k t, 75 • o t',.w... t !P� r. ee2�'� �� ( �, 't .c r .1' 4'k�4ic d i t ,: �- Ftf�,��5��w,t �. �te'7Y t X`H�S�fYV irA 1i��Vip1,� � c ri�r i r � F �� tC,✓:r°"tS� °f r .1 j �# ,< r � , �!vw l ✓�r .ri I '.F'7 A F*. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 SUGGESTED.FINDINGS - - - - -- ---- --,---,.ZONING'TEXT-AMENDMENT-NO.-08-004 ---- -- -- -- -- - - - SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.08-004 : 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 amends the HBZSO by amending Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan to reconfigure the existing I t Specific Plan districts into 7 districts, modify development and parking standards, incorporate design guidelines and provide recommendations for street improvements, public amenities, circulation enhancements, infrastructure and public facility improvements and parking strategies. The proposed changes will be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City's General Plan because the land uses proposed in the DTSP Update will not substantially change from the permitted and specified land uses of the existing DTSP and thus, the General Plan. These changes would not alter the established land use pattern in that visitor-serving commercial and mixed use developments would continue to be permitted and the primarily developed uses in these areas. The proposed changes to the development standards would allow greater maximum building heights and densities than are currently allowed in the DTSP area. However, compliance with development standards that call for upper story setbacks and residential buffers as well as the design guidelines will result in high quality, attractive projects that are compatible with existing surrounding developments that were developed under the current DTSP. 2. In the case of general land use provisions, the DTSP Update is consistent with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which they are proposed. The proposed land uses that would be developed with implementation of the DTSP Update would not significantly differ from the existing Iand uses that are permitted and developed in the DTSP area. The amended DTSP will enhance potential to create an urban village with high quality design and sustainable features in comparison with development that could occur under the current standards of the existing DTSP. The DTSP Update is also sensitive to existing residential uses and proposes development standards and subdistricts, which would afford these areas additional protection from potential impacts from future development. The DTSP Update would be consistent with the adopted Council goals, objectives and policies of the DTSP area and implement the vision for the downtown. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The proposed changes to the development standards such as increases in maximum allowable building heights and residential densities, elimination of floor area ratio (FAR) requirements and reduced parking ratios are justified by compensating benefits of the Specific Plan. The changes proposed in the DTSP Update will facilitate development and redevelopment of properties so that the next phase of community investment and improvement will occur in the DTSP area. The DTSP Update will provide a healthy mix of land uses that will create an environment that promotes tourism to increase_ revenues to support community services. The development standards and design guidelines will ensure high quality projects with enough open space, air, light, ventilation, pedestrian connections, interesting architecture, parking, well designed circulation, and landscaping for an enjoyable environment for both residents and tourists. ATTACHMENT NO. a I 4. The amended DTSP is consistent .with good zoning practice and was prepared utilizing a � . comprehensive approach, which included involving the public in numerous .public workshops and meetings and reviewing the proposed DTSP Update in terms of potential benefits to both residents and _visitors.in the-larger context-of-directing-future development.-Smart-growth-and--sustainable design- principles were considered in the preparation of the DTSP Update: All projects_would be required to provide sustainable building practices. The DTSP Update would be in conformity with general welfare in that adequate utilities and public facilities and services would be ensured through identified mitigation measures and code requirements for future projects. Although Fire services would need to be improved at some point during the 20-year planning period, future development projects would be required to be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure adequate service can be provided. r' PC Staff Report—i 0/6109 2 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZI'11 �1'1V����� �i Tpdate)� ATTACHMENT NO. 3 SUGGESTED FINDINGS -- - LOCAL- COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NOS 08-002- - SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — LOCAL COASTAL. PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO.08-002: 1. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 proposes to amend the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to reflect the changes to the Downtown Specific Plan and the General Plan Land Use PIan designations in the DTSP area. The amendments will continue to allow the existing permitted land uses but at a greater intensity than existing and provide for more flexible development standards that would incentivize development and redevelopment of mixed-use developments with ground floor visitor=serving commercial uses in an expanded downtown core. 2. The proposed changes to the Local Coastal Program are in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act that encourage that encourage coastal dependent uses and protect public access and public recreation. The changes proposed in the DTSP Update will continue to prioritize visitor-serving commercial uses in the downtown area and encourage mixed-use developments that would allow residential uses in conjunction with visitor-serving commercial uses. Additionally, public access to the shoreline and public recreational opportunities will continue to be provided while allowing for new development that would be compatible with the existing DTSP area and increase tourism in the DTSP area. 3. The project conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The Design Guidelines of Chapter 4 encourage preservation of existing view corridors to the beach and ocean, project designs that incorporate ocean themes and build upon the "Surf City" culture and pedestrian linkages to the beach and ocean. Chapters 5 & 6 recommend circulation and streetscape improvements that would enhance beach access for pedestrians and motorists and enhance the overall experience for visitors and residents by promoting wider sidewalks for pedestrians, more bicycle parking, shuttle service, a trolley system and more beach parking. No existing coastal access will be impacted. PC Staff Report— 10/6/09 3 09sr64 GPA 08-007;ZT Q2. T dpdate) '& V TWW � ff ��J 0 RESOLUTION NO. 40� i A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY.COUNCIL OF -THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING --- ----GENERAL PLAN-AMENDMENT NO.08-0.07- - WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to redesignate the land use designations of the existing 336- acre Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 5), as more particularly described as Exhibits "A" and `B" attached hereto, to be consistent with the modified district boundaries for the Downtown Specific Plan area. The amendment also includes modifying the Land Use Schedule (Table LU-2a) and the Community District and Subarea Map and Schedule (Figure LU-6; Table LU4) of the General Plan Land Use Element to differentiate the reconfigured districts and permitted uses within the Specific Plan and allow increases in density and building heights in the newly reconfigured districts. The amendment also includes re-numbering subarea 3D, which is not within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries, to 3C on the Subarea Map (Figure LU-6) as a result of the modifications to the subareas of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Circulation - Element (Figure CE-9) of the General Plan is amended to reflect changes in proposed bicycle paths that are included in the Downtown Specific Plan Update. Pursuant to California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a-public .hearing .to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-007 and recommended approval of said entitlement to the City Council;and Pursuant to California Government Code,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-007-, and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No_ 08-007 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and is consistent with other elements of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located starting from the intersection of 09-2218/37811 1 T N®. • L ATTACHMENT Goldenwest Street with Pacific Coast Highway and curves along the coastline,. including the n Huntington Beach Pier, down to Beach Boulevard. The inland boundary of the Specific Plan Area follows the prolongation of Sunrise Drive from Beach Boulevard to Pacific View Avenue where the boundary curves along Huntington-Street and Atlanta Avenue. From Atlanta Avettue, the boundary flows along Orange Avenue and continues up Lake Street to Palm Avenue where it connects over to Main Street and along Pacific View Avenue to link down along 6th Street. From 6th Street, following along Walnut Avenue to Goldenwest Street, parcels within the first block adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway are included in the Specific Plan Area, and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and"B", respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 08-007, which amends the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements for the subject area to reflect changes within the Downtown Specific Plan Update, is hereby -approved. The Director of Planning is 'hereby directed to prepare and file an amended Land Use Map and Subarea Map and amended Land Use and Circulation Elements. A copy of said maps and the Land Use and Circulation Elements; as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Planning Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2009. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk G City Attorney Z�w� REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Planning Director ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B. Specific Plan Map Exhibit C: General Plan Changes ATTACHMENT NO. 09-2218/37811 2 EXHIBIT A Legal Description ` Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 22, of the Map of Huntington Beach Seventeenth Street Section,-as _re corded-in Book 4, Pago__10-.of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence northerly 50 feet approximately to a point, said point being the centerline intersection of Goldenwest Street (formally Twenty-third Street) and Walnut Avenue, said point also being the True Point of Beginning; thence southwesterly along said centerline of Goldenwest Street and its southwesterly prolongation 780 feet approximately to a point on the high tide line of the Pacific Ocean; thence southeasterly along said high tide line 6,100 feet approximately to a line parallel with and 72.50 feet northwesterly, measured at right angles from the southwesterly prolongation of the centerline of Main Street;thence southwesterly along said parallel line 1,470 feet approximately to a line parallel with heretofore said high tide line;thence southeasterly along said parallel line 145 feet approximately to a line parallel .with and 72.50 feet southeasterly, measured a right angles from said southwesterly prolongation of the centerline of Main Street; thence northeasterly along said parallel line 1,470 feet approximately to the heretofore said high tide line; thence southeasterly along said high tide line 5,470 feet approximately to the southerly prolongation of the Survey Centerline of Beach Boulevard; thence northerly along said Survey Centerline of Beach Boulevard 2,800 feet approximately to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Tract No. 9580, as shown on a map recorded in Book 444, Pages 29 through 31 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, State of California; thence westerly , along said easterly prolongation and the southerly line of said Tract No. 9580 and said -- southerly lines westerly prolongation 1,800 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Pacific View Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Pacific View Avenue 220 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Huntington Street-, thence northerly along said centerline of Huntington Street 1,240 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Atlanta Avenue; thence westerly along said centerline of Atlanta Avenue 750 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of First Street, said intersection is also the centerline intersection of Orange Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Orange Avenue 650 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Lake Street, thence northerly along said centerline of Lake Street 1,830 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Palm Avenue, thence westerly along said centerline of Palm Avenue 332 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Main Street; thence southerly along said centerline of Main Street 430 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Sixth Street; thence southwesterly along said centerline of Sixth Street 1,750 feet approximately to the centerline intersection of Walnut Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline of Walnut Avenue 5,533 feet approximately to the True Point of Beginning. ATTACHMENT Nth. C ;� k� • r. _ t- ' r � � - r- EXHIBIT C ATTACHMENT N0. �. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER �Q LAND USE ELEMENT IE A �IT C — Lf , is L/ 1Q( If V t/r G �/N 1� <1 ° TABLE LU-2a�(Cont.) Land Use Schedule(Cont.)' Land Use Category T ical Permitted Uses MIXED USE Mixed Use o Single uses containing Commercial Neighborhood(CN),or Commercial General (M) (CG)or Residential uses as listed above. • Mixed use areas that may include Vertically Integrated Housing(MV)or Horizontally Integrated Housing(MM uses,townhomes,garden apartments, live/work units and mid-!high-rise apartments,Commercial Neighborhood (CN),Commercial Visitor(CV)and Commercial General(CG)uses. ® The exact density,location,and mix of uses in this category is intended to be governed by a Specific Plan("=spr)to allow greater design flexibility and to address the uniqueness of a particular area. Mixed Use-Vertically 0 Single use structures containing Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General Integrated Housing (CG)uses as listed above. (MV) Mixed use structures incorporating residential units on the second floor and/or rear of commercial uses-,with restrictions on the types of commercial uses to ensure compatibility with the housing. Mixed Use-Horizontally & Single use structures containing Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General Integrated Housing (CG)uses as listed above_ (MM Multi-family residential,including townhomes,garden apartments,and mid-/high-rise apartments. - Y (Note: each use is limited to a portion of the total designated site,as prescribed by policy in this element.) OPEN SPACE Parks Public parks and recreational facilities. (OS-P) Shoreline Publicly owned coastal beaches. Ancillary buildings may be permitted,such as food OS-S) stands and recreation equipment rentals,as determined by City review and approval_ Commercial Recreation Publicly or privately owned commercial recreation facilities such as golf courses_ (OS-CR) Conservation Properties to be retained for environmental resource conservation and management (OS-C) purposes(e.g.,wetlands protection). Ancillary buildings,such as maintenance equipment storage,may be permitted,as determined by City review and approval. Water Recreation Lakes and other water bodies used for recreational purposes,such as boating, (OS-W) swimming,and water skiing. See LU 7.1-1 and LU 7.12 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN I1-LU-26 ATTACHMENT NO. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 A Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea - Characteristic _ Standards and-Princi-les- 1 Area wide Maintain the City's downtown as a principal focal point"of community Downtown Functional stole identity, containing a mix of community-serving and visitor-serving (cumulative) commercial uses, housing, and cultural facilities. Development should achieve a pedestrian-oriented,"viliage411ce"environment that physically and visually relates to the adjacent shoreline. lA Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use ire+: ,t r..+e,.,..,+9n F Housing.«a,itn� Alain-Street/ Uses permitted'by the"CG" and'`CV" land use categories,shared parking PCH"Core- 'facilities, cultural and civic uses, and mixed-use structures Downtown m housing with commercial uses. sa41y- tegrating g Core Density/Intensity Category- —:QM=1>307 Heigt.+- dwee(3) +,...:es f F b�ildhigs occupying less than a sal ble cki s Height: minim-am buffdmz height is 25 feet; four stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net`site area; five stories maxinnum for net site ai ea 25,000 square feet or greater Design and -Categories: specific Plan Special Design District("-d")and Development. Pedestrian-Dystdct(-p(F'). • Development must be designed and sited to establish a " pedestrian-oriented character. • Maintain and expand streetscape amenities. €wades. • Require vertical setbacks of upper stories- 0 Emphasize design elements that maintain viewsheds of the shoreline and Pier. Encourage the preservation of historical structures. • Establish linkages(walkways)to adjacent streets;providing connectivity of public opens aces and plazas- 1 R Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use it ' "M" Ma'n fitreet/ Same uses as Subarea . Uses permitted in Commercial General Olive"Core" Abutting ("CG"), Commercial Visitor ("CV") and Commercial Downtown Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories,cultural and civic Core uses, mixed use structures integrating housing and commercial uses and freestanding single- and multi-family housin . Density/intensity Category: ">30" g ry: « u LI 1,t- di (3) stories f buildings occupying THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 11-LU48 TTACHMENT N®• ' COMMUMTY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER. LAND USE ELEMENT • Height: minimum buildinIZ height is 25 feet; three stories maximum for residential only developments; four stories maximum.for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; rave stories maximum for net --site-area-2500Q-sguare-feet or-greater Design and Eategeries: Specific,Ua destiian Distriet (H pX') Same as Development Subarea 15, Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- yd")and Special Design District("-d") Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian activity • Require vertical setbacks above the third story • Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as a transition to adiacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea lA � 1 �3y l Y THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-49 ATTACHMENT NO.� COMMUNrry DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea lCharazteristic , Standards and"Princi-ceg- 1C Permitted Uses Category Abutting Professional Pffices, supporting retail commercial, restaurants, cultuFal, and Downtown " 'land use eategef3q shared parking facilities,and "Core" Residential fiigh("RH") Downtown Residential Density/Intensity Category: »(">30») • Height: three(3)stories Design and .Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp") and pedestrian ^is*^^* p&,) Speeiafl Development .DeBifu District("-d") ld be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian activity. • l sta ----- an unified—ar-ehiteeteral character and highb, articulated aeades. —Require vertical setbacks above the second stoFy- • Require,that the 1 d massing of struewms be consistent 'tA downtown character and as a transition—te—adjacent residential ne 3odweds Pr-ovide linkages %rith the Main treet/PCH "cores" (S b !A and -`� 4-B) Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single-family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation 1D Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use CM") Uses permitted in Commercial General('CG") and Commercial North o Neighborhood ("CN') land use categories, cultural and civic, mixed use Orange structures veftiGally integrating housing and commercial, and free-standing Downtown single- and multi-family housing. Uses that conflict with residential units Neighbor- should be excluded. hood Density/Intensity Category: " ">30"g ry: • Height: three (3) stories o.buildings occupying less than a fWl bledq f). ins storiesf f ii block t>, tw es Design and Same as Subarea IGB Development Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd") and Special Design District("-d") • Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate Pedestrian activity • Require vertical setbacks above the third story • Require that the scale and massin of structures be THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENpEIRrAbONTNO. I I-LU-50 COMMUNfrY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT consistent with the downtown character and serve as a transition to adiacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea LA THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL ATTACHNfENO, 0 II-LU-51 CommuNiTY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cunt.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards_and.Princi les_-_._ 2 Functional Role Maintain the Huntington Beach Pier and adjacent properties for beach-related Pier recreational purposes, emphasizing its identity as a coastal and cultural amenity. Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor Visitor-serving commercial (surf, bicycle and skate rentals, bait and tackle shops, etc.), restaurants/cafes, beach-related cultural facilities, and parking lots. Density%1Cnieii ik • Pier. limit development to be compatible with the recreational role of the Pier • Shoreline: limit development to the existing Maxwell's building 'f� • Height: two(2)stories Design and Category:-Specific Plan("-sp">and Special Design District("-d) Development Designstructures to reflect its beachiront location. • Establish an unifying architechual character for all structures. • Maintain public view of the ocean. • Emphasize the Huntington Beach Pier as a community landmark- Facilitate pedestrian access. Link the Pier to the Main Street Downtown"Core"(Subarea I A)_ 3 Area wide Maintain the"Old Town"residential area as a distinct neighborhood of the "Old Town" Functional Role City, incorporating local-serving commercial and community"focal" points Jo enhance its"village"character. The single family character of the small lot subdivisions shall be maintained_ 3A Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH") PCH Frontage Density Category: Design and Category: Specific Plan(`I-sp")and Special Design District("A") Development . Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-52 ATTACHMENT N®.-�J] COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU4(Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 311 Permitted Uses Category R_es denti-a Medium High("RMH") Town Lots Density Category: "-25" Design and Incorporate front yard setbacks to maintain the existing residential Development neighborhood character_ • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. 3C Permitted UsesIntagFationWirt « > PCH Nodes Visitors ' — ;ial uses penpAtted by the Commer-cial Visitor-OVW) land use eategoi-j-, excluding uses that may adversely irnpact rhamaer o surrounding fesidentiA and mixed use *.,. ,, es verticallyt housing vVith commercial. Densi.1,41atensky Categaryz " E& • Height ffee3)stor-ies Design ed Cate",: Specific Plan Development . Design a u oics-zv—uchieye—i-consistent visual crn aue4c:�a c r o Require4 wsited along the PCH frontage, ,itl, king t the rear-,sides;or vvithin structures. • Site and design development to maintain publ' views of the coast from �,ublie places; zs: 3D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Neighborhood("CN") 3C Density/Intensity Category 1-+I" • Height two(2)stories Design and Category_ Special Design District Development • Design structures to be visually consistent and compatible with adjacent ' residential units. . Design and site structures to achieve a"village"character. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 1I-LU-53 ATTACHMENT NO. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU 4(font.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 4C Permitted Uses Category.Commercrai Visitor.("CV") 11' first Visitor-serving and community-serving commercial uses, restaurants, ( Ice)Street entertainment, and other uses(as permitted by the"CV" and"CG"land use Pacific categories) commercial Density/Intensity Category: "-FT' • Height: eight(8)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan Development • Establish a unified"village"character, using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses. • Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor. • Incorporate pedestrian walkways,plazas,and other common open spaces for public activity. • Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial a - areas. • Establish a well-defined entry from PCH_ • Maintain views of the shoreline and ocean. 4D Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") Waterfront lotelslmotels and supporting visitor-serving commercial-uses(in accordance commercial with Development'Agreement) Density/Intensity Category: "-F7" • Hotel/motel rooms: 1,690 • Commercial: 75,000 square feet Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development As defined by the adopted Development Agreement. 4E Permitted Uses Category: Open Space Conservation ("OS-C"), uses permitted by the PCHMeach Commercial Visitor("CV")land use category,and free-standing multi-family Northeast housing("RM")_ (Please refer to the Land Use Map for the exact boundaries of each land use designation-) (Continued on Density/intensity Category: next page) For RM designations, 15 units per acre • For CV designations,F2 • Height: three(3)stories a THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IFLU-56 ATTACHMENT NO. ��. 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT t FABLE LU-4(Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea -Characteristic - Standards-and Princi les 4E Design and Category: PCHfBeach Development • Establish a major streetscape .element to identify the Beach Northeast Boulevard-PCH intersection. (Cont.) 0 Site,design,and limit the scale and mass of development,as necessary, to protect wetlands_ • Maintain visual compatibility with the downtown_ • Incorporate onsite recreational amenities for residents_ ® Minimize access to and from PCH, providing an'internal roadway, system_ • Incorporate extensive landscape and streetscape. V Permitted Uses Category: Conservation("OS-C') Wetlands • Wetlands conservation. 4G Permitted Uses Category_ Public("P")and Conservation-("OS-C") Edison-Plant • Wetlands conservation- Utility uses_ Design and In accordance with Policy LU 13-1S_ Development 413 Permitted Uses Category- Conservation("OS-C") Brookhurst- Wetlands conservation_ Magnolia 41 Permitted Uses Category Residential High("RIP') Atlanta First Multi-family residential,parks and other recreational amenities,schools,and ("ke}Street open spaces. Pacific City& Waterfront Residential Density/Intensity Category: "-30" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development 0 Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions"(Policies 93.1-93.4)_ • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two (2)to four(4) stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 11-LU-57 ATTACHMENT NO.��- Extract of Figure LU-5 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations \o�o Atla v : ATTACHMENT NO. ��. Proposed DTSP Subarea designations Extract of Figure LU-6 1 \ I f C �- 1 B i ;Atlanta ue- - m a� 1 ATTACHMENT NO. ��• I � a m I u s I Fn / ' n z 0 [P � d • �b , ' 0 ° u+ op 0 s a aMil ■a�Ir$rrssBrpQM " 0 ° 0 0 0 _ (' � � aw don oaao° , m A� n ° 0 q z ,. ®�� fix° o c�aDooDoc�aac � 0 0 0 0 Z aq boaa a n 'tioaaa acocDrsaDo aaa�Dao ' p �404" man x r M lip amp 01 a aaO0lobat$aaDO�0000 � a - m p° 0 0 p 0 a a i' c 0 aaot aa4 coo oCoc�°�aa a poo ! 0 0 c o ° r. 0 d, 0 Q 0 eiio ar —{ a' accd6 Q. ct000 aadaaaaooOo co© 000p ao.d ;306 oobhc� o C 0 Q p 0 0 0 _ � � �o�a a�aaooa c�ao�aoap ooec�000� ° Z i ors oao�aaagpDaa�ctpoD aoocoaa NORTH 0 Z �oo.000a 0 0 ® , _....a FIOUAH a 0 0 3 ' °CO ° i Proposed Bike Lanes (Changes to Figure CE-9) co P ropos m Class II , Bike Lane J 6th St: (PCH'to Main SLY' eca i Av Proposed Class_ 11 -Bid—e Lane - Lake St_ (Orange Ave_ to `.Pecan_Ave..) • y � N! w E � S `♦ t Extract of Figure CE-9 Legend - - - - Existing Class I Bike Lane - - - - Existing Class II Bike Lane ® m Proposed Class II Bike Lane ATTACHMENT NO. I RESOLUTION NO. 410F - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON-BEACH APPROVING_ AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5-DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004) WHEREAS, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 has been prepared and analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated , 2009; and Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 is- a request to amend Specific Plan No. 5 — Downtown Specific Plan to establish new development requirements,design standards and land use controls within the existing 336-acre Downtown Specific Plan area. The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council on the amendment to the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65354; and The Planning Commission held a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65353 on , 2009 to consider said Zoning Text Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds as follows: SECTION 1: The amended Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted Land, Use Element of the General Plan, the certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and other applicable policies and is compatible with surrounding development. SECTION 2: The amended Specific Plan enhances the potential for superior urban design in comparison with the development under the base district provisions that would apply if the Plan were not approved. SECTION 3: The deviations from the base district provisions that otherwise would apply are justified by the compensating benefits of the Specific Plan; and SECTION 4: The amended Specific Plan includes adequate provisions for utilities, services, and emergency vehicle access; and public service demands will not exceed the capacity of existing and planned systems_ SECTION 5: Specific Plan No. 5, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as thoroughly set forth herein, is hereby adopted and approved. 09-2218.001/37808 l ATTACHMENT NO.-LL PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach.at a regular meeting held on the day of Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: /49 City Clerk (-rCity Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Planning Director ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Specific Plan No_5-.Downtown Specific Plan 09-2218-001/37808 2 ATTACHMENT N RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF i HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA, ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 TO AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES TO AMEND ZONE 4 — LAND USE PLAN. AND ACCOMPANYING TEXT OF THE CITY'S COASTAL ELEMENT FOR THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA(SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5) AND TO REFLECT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-004 AND REQUESTING CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA- COASTAL COMMISSION WHEREAS,after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and Public Resources Code Section 30503 and 30510, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002;and Such amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption; and J The City Council,after giving notice as prescribed by law, held at least one public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002,and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan,the Certified Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (including the Land Use Plan), and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act, 09-2218-002 1 0 E i N , ATT�C.H�i --- NOW,THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of.Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution is located starting from the intersection of Goldenwest Street with Pacific Coast Highway and curves along the coastline, including the Huntington Beach Pier, down to Beach Boulevard. The inland boundary of the Specific Plan Area follows the prolongation of Sunrise Drive from Beach Boulevard to Pacific View Avenue where the boundary curves along Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue. From Atlanta Avenue, the boundary flows along Orange Avenue and continues up Lake Street to Palm Avenue where it connects over to Main Street and along Pacific View Avenue to link down along 6th Street. From 6th Street, following along Walnut Avenue to Goldenwest Street, parcels within the first block adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway are included in the Specific Plan Area and consists of approximately 336 acres within the City of Huntington Beach(Exhibit A). =4 2. 'That the Local Coastal Program(Coastal Element)for the Subject Property is hereby changed to reflect modified district boundaries and circulation improvements for the Downtown Specific Plan area, associated changes to the land use and subarea designations and updated narrative (Exhibit B). 3_ That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No.08-002 also consists of Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 4. That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to consider, approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002. 5. That pursuant to Section 13551(b)of the Coastal Commission Regulations, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 08-002 will take effect 09 2218.002 2 L ATIAGHM NT automatically upon Coastal Commission approval,as provided in Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513 and 30519. ell- PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting hereof held on the day of 2009. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney W a AL Uq REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Planning Exhibits: A. Specific Plan Map B. Changes in Land Use Plan(Coastal Element) C. Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-004 �J 09-2218_002 3 ATTACHMENT No. GJ EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT N0. lv��I ! e!. 2n� 4 ,T- E S Y _ i v ' O `I r ✓6 1 - ' EXHIBIT B ATTACHMECV1 Nu.-(j--L COASTAL ELEMENT the adopted conceptual master plan. Existing oil production facilities are permitted to continue. ^' However,the Coastal Element Land Use Plan provides for an ultimate change in use on the site from oil production to mixed use,including residential,commercial,open space and civic/recreational uses. The Coastal Element Land Use Plan for the remainder of Zone 3 designates the vacant bluff at the eastern edge of the Bolsa Chica as open space. It is intended to accommodate the proposed Harriett M_ Wieder Regional Park. The private golf course area and neighborhood park-are also designated as open space. The residential portion is designated as low,medium,medium high and high density residential,consistent with existing development. Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) The entire land area is designated as OS-S,Open Space-Shoreline. ZONE 3—LAND USE DESIGNATIONS RESIDENTIAL RL-4,RL-7,RM-15, RMH- 25,RH-30 MIXED USE . MH-F2/30(AVG.15)-s OPEN SPACE OS-P,OS-S,OS-CR ZONE 3—SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS Holly Seacliff Specific Plan,Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan ZONE 3—GENERAL PLAN OVERLAYS 4B,Q See Table C-1 for land use category definitions. Zone 4—Downtown This portion of the Coastal Zone extends from Goldenwest Street south to Beach Boulevard. (Figure C-8.) Existing Land Uses Inland(Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary.) Zone 4 is known as the City's"Downtown." Existing land uses include recreational beach amenities,single and multi-family residential uses,and a rich variety of visitor serving commercial facilities that serve to make the area the primary activity node for visitors to the Coastal Zone. Within the Downtown area,project areas,with their own distinctive character and purpose,have been developed. Significant commercial project areas include Main Street,the Waterfront Development and Pacific City,a site formerly known as"31 acres." Many of the commercial areas also integrate housing. However,the"Old Town"and "Town Lot"areas are the primary residential nodes in this area. Main Street Main Street runs north south from Pacific Coast Highway to Palm Avenue within the Coastal Zone. The Main Street"core area,"where development is most concentrated, lies between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Street. However, the expansion of the Main Street "core" area is envisioned to extend north on Main Street to Palm Avenue. With-the head of Main Street leading directly into the Municipal Pier,Main Street itself serves as an extension of the Pier for Coastal Zone visitors. Main Street and its environs have been developed THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-13 ATTACHMENT N�. L-11- COASTAL ELEMENT ...< as a mixed use,pedestrian oriented district,with visitor-serving commercial uses,integrated housing and upper story office uses. _The_ The Waterfront development area encompasses approximately 44 acres-located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. The site presently includes a high rise hotel with ballroom and conference facilities,a luxury hotel with conference facilities, specialty retail uses and a spa and a multi-family residential component. Planned uses for the remaining undeveloped portion include additional luxury hotel'accommodations, This area also includes a small wetlands which was restored and conserved in 2004. Existing uses north of the Waterfront development area to Atlanta Avenue include multi-family residential and a residential mobile home park. 2'��-Pacific City The q i Aefe 'Pacific City site is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway and Atlanta Street to the north,and Huntington and First Street to the east and west. This site is presently vaeant but planned-under construction for development with visitor serving commercial and high density residential uses. Oldtown The area inland from Lake:Street and Atlanta Avenue is known as the Oldtown section of the City. This area is developed with a mix of single and multi-family residential uses. Townlot/PCH Frontage This area comprises approximately 17 blocks uerth e€between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue,east of Goldenwest Street and west of Sixth Street and south of Palm Avenue- Existing land uses in the area are primarily residential. Coastal(Seaward ofPm(Wk Coast Highway) The seaward portion of this zone includes a high density residential development located northeast of the Pier on the sandy beach area. Also included in this sub-area are the Municipal Pier with restaurant uses and recreational fishing opportunities;the Pier Plaza located at the base of the Pier with public open space,an amphitheater and palm court;restaurant uses at the southwest base of the Pier,and Huntington Beach City Beach. The Municipal Pier The City's Municipal Pier is located at the intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway and serves as the focal point of the City's Coastal Zone. The Pier,which was re-built and opened in 1992, is 1,856 feet long,30 feet wide and 38 feet above the mean low water level. It is constructed of reinforced concrete. -It includes a variety of visitor serving and recreational amenities, including a restaurant,community access booth, lifeguard tower,restrooms and observation and recreational fishing platforms. Visitors can use the Pier to sight see, stroll, fish and/or dine. Proposed enhancements include a funicular/trolly system to transport pedestrians from the Plaza area to the end of the Pier and back. Coastal Element policy restricts the height of buildings on the pier to no more than 2 stories/35 feet and requires that the entire perimeter of the pier be retained for public access. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN COASTAL ELEMENT Pier Plaza The Main Pier Plaza is located at the base of the Municipal Pier. It consists of more than eight acres of public space. The public plaza includes a palm court,a 230 seat amphitheater,a spectator area,accessways to the beach and lawn r_estrooms and concessions, bicycle parking facilities and automobile parking. It also includes 18,000 square feet of visitor serving commercial uses(restaurants)..Pier Plaza was designed as a community focal area where public speaking forums,surfing.competitions,foot races,outdoor concerts and similar events are held. Coastal Element Land Use Plan Designations, Inland(Pac fc Coast Highway and areas north'to the Coastal Zone boundary.) Coastal Element land use designations for the inland portion of this sub-area include mixed use and medium and high density residential. The majority of the sub-area is covered by a specific plan overlay(The Downtown Specific Plan). TheMain Street core is subject to the"pedestrian overlay"provisions in addition to the Downtown Specific Plan. Portions of the Community District and Sub-area Schedule apply to the area as well. (See Figure C-10 and Table C-2.) Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway) The shoreline area,including the site that currently houses residential development,is designated as open space. The Municipal Pier and the area southwest of its base are designated for visitor serving commercial uses. With the exception ofthe residential use,development in the area is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. ZONE 4—LAND USE(DESIGNATIONS AND GENERAL PLAN OVERLAYS OLDTOWN OS-P,RMH-25-d Design District 313 ' TOWNLOT/PCH RH>30-d-s , FRONTAGE Design Districts 3A-G-and D Downtown Specific Plan WATERFRONT CV F7-sp,RH-30-sp, Design District 4dD and I RM-15 Downtown Specific Plan MAIN M 4 F4 30 sp ,,,a MV F» STREET/ENVIRONS sp^a,P,M F!nS sp pd, a V F695 sp-pa 3 M->30-d-pd-sp Design Districts IA,B,C,D Downtown Specific Plan 3 1�'riz zD&PACIFIC RH-30-sp,CV-F7-sp CITY Design District 4C,I Downtown Specific Plan PIER AND SHORELINE CV-d-s�,OS-S Design Districts 2,4J Downtown Specific Plan See Table C-1 for land use category definitions. THE CITY OF WNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN n IV-C-15 ATTACHMENT NO. COASTAL ELEMENT COASTAL ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN LAND USE,DENSITY AND OVERLAY SCHEDULE TABLE C-1 (Continued) :. - a .....,,3/.-z .T ram•-. .._ e_ .. �,a}'. ..-, - _ - P V DLIC INSTITUTIONAL Public(P) Governmental administrative and related facilities,such as public utilities, schools, libraries,museums,public parking lots, infrastructure,religious and similar uses_ MIXED USE Mixed Use(N>) Mixed use areas that may include Vertically Integrated Housing(MV) or Horizontally Integrated Housing(MM uses,townhomes,garden apartments,livetwork units and mid-/high-rise apartments, Commercial Visitor(CV),Commercial Neighborhood(CN)and Commercial General(CG)uses. ■ Mixed use development in the coastal zone will focus on providing visitor serving commercial opportunities along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway and within the Downtown Specific Plan Area. ■ The exact density, location and mix of uses in this category shall be governed by a Specific Plan("-sp")to allow greater design flexibility and to address the uniqueness of a particular area. 3 i ' - THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN W-C-28 ATTACHMENT NO,� COASTAL ELEMENT COASTAL ELEMENT LAND USE PLAN ---�, LAND USE;DENSITY AND OVERLAY SCHEDULE TABLE C-1(continued) - :-. - - . .. ... ....- ..c. .... +:.. ..:?s:hi - :,. �:n 'Sf.:?-.A'¢'i"2.b1"i- •:�t^srY„�' :6.c :Sj _ �.;�:. _ Residential Residential densities indicate the maximum density which may be permitted on a site. The actual development density may be reduced to account for site conditions and constraints. 4.0 Maximum of 4.0 dwelli.ng units per net acre. 7.0 Maximum of 7.0 dwelling units per net acre_ 15 Maximum of 15 dwelling units per net acre_ 25 Maximum of 25 dwelling units per net acre. >30 Greater than 30 dwelling.unifs per net acre. Commercial and Commercial and industrial intensities indicate the maximum floor area ratio Industrial (FAR)which may be permitted on a site. The actual development intensity may be reduced to account for site conditions and constraints. FAR represents the total building.area(floor space,excluding basements, balconies,and stair bulkheads)on a lot divided by the total area of the lot. (Note:commercial FARs exceeding 0.4 normally necessitate subterranean or semi-subterranean parking to provide adequate space to meet code required parking-) -F 1 Maximum floor area ratio of 0.35 _ -F2 Maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 -F2A Maximum floor area ratio of 0.75 -F3 Maximum f[oor area ratio of I.0 -F4 Maximum floor area ratio of 1.25 -F5 Maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 -176 Maximum floor area ratio of 2.0 -F7 Maximum floor area-aWof 3.0 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-31 ATTAGHMEN NO. COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2 _- Subarea_ _ Characteristic--, _ Standards-and-Principles... . . 1 Area wide Maintain the City's downtown as a principal focal point of community Downtown Functional Role identity, containing a mix of community-serving and visitor-serving (cumulative) commercial uses, housing, and cultural facilities. Development should achieve a pedestrian-oriented,"village-like'environment that physically and visually relates to the adjacent shoreline. 1A Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use Vertical I„to l'a-en ofHousing(11A "��c`1VI") Ma*n St Uses permitted by the"CG" and"CV" land use categories, shared parking D.f`III=-c�"Go re" . facilities, Cultural and civic uses and mixed-use structures Downtown vertically-integrating housing with commercial uses. Core Density/Intensity Category: " '•">30" Heighf throe(3)stones f r buil,rkigs Occupying loss than a. I44 four-(4)stories fer-full block stractures •_ height: minimum building height is 25 feet; four stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; five stories maximum for net site area 25,000 square feet or greater Design and Categories: Specific Plan("-sp7%Special Design District("A")and Development Pedestrian District C-pd"). 0 Requires the pro..-,ration of Specifies Plain_ • Development must be designed and sited to establish a pedestrian-oriented character_ • Maintain and expand streetscape amenities. 0 Establish an unified arehitectwal character- and highly articula €acades= • Require vertical setbacks of upper stories. • Emphasize design elements that maintain viewsheds of the shoreline and Pier_ • Encourage the preservation of historical structures. • Establish linkages (walkways) to adjacent streets; providing connectivity of public open spaces andplazas- Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use Veffical littegratien of Housing Main StFew Same uses as Subarea ]A. Uses permitted in Commercial Olive"Core" Abutting General ("CG"), Commercial Visitor ("CV") and Downtown Commercial Neighborhood ("CN") land use categories, Core cultural and civic uses, mixed use structures integrating housing and commercial uses and freestanding single- and multi-family housing. Density/Intensity Category: " F6 " ">30" Height:4hFee (3) stenos f r buildings occupying loss than a full b;w.s dries for full block struetum THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-34 ATTACHMENT NO, COASTAL ELEMENT Height: minimum building height is 25 feet; four stories maximum for developments with less than 25,000 square feet net site area; five stories maximum for net site area 25,000.square.feet.or P-reater; three stories for -residential-only`developments Design and Eat@g9ileS: 'S e,ifk Plan !! sp!) :n Dede..bi- District Rf pEg') Same Development . Categories: Specific .Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd")and Special Design District("-d") ® Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian=activity • Require vertical setbacks above the third story O _Require that the scale and massing of structures be consistent with the downtown character and serve as a transition to adjacent residentiA neighborhoods • Provide linkages with the Downtown Core (Subarea 1A . THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-35 ATTACHMENT NO.� COASTAL ELEMENT e COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2(continued) Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 1C Permitted Uses Category: ' g rY= Abutting , > c'ukwal, and Downto eivie/ y t,•tt d "CO" land use category) a f ry)shared parking ..:t:t:es ...i � " residential.-Residential High("RH") Downtown Residential Density/Intensity Category: " "(">30" • Height: three(3)stories Design and Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp") and Pede-sbian DiStFict ("Pd!) CDeeial Development Design District("-d") • Buildings should be sited and designed to faeilitate pedestEian ac4ivity- r bl t unified h•t t t eharacter d highly .,,+:,ula l an 2 facades. Require veftical setbacks above the seeond steFy. Require that the scale and massing of struetures be consistent with downtovm charac4er d as a t-awition to adjacent o'sidd ifiti l A • neighborhoods.l with the Main Str-eel)PGH t coFes" (Subareas !A an l • Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single-family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation 1D Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") Main Street, Uses permitted in Commercial General />—�-GG") and Commercial North of Neighborhood ("CM') land use categories, cultural and civic, mixed use Orange structures „integrating housing and commercial, and free-standing Downtown single- and multi-family housing. Uses that conflict with residential units Neighbor- should be excluded. hood Density/Intensity Category: " F 1� 11 • Height: three(3) stories for-buildings occupying less than a full blook-, Design and Same as Subarea ICB Development Categories: Specific Plan ("-sp"), Pedestrian District ("- pd") and Special Design District("A") • Buildings should be sited and designed to facilitate pedestrian activity • Require vertical setbacks above the third story • Require that the scale and massing of structures be THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-36 1-11 M ENT NO COASTAL ELEMENT consistent with the downtown character and serve as a-transition to.adiacent residential neighborhoods • Provide linkazes with the Downtown Core (Subarea THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-37 ATTACHMENT NO. � • (� COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C 2.(continued) Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 2 Functional Role Maintain, the Huntington Beach Pier and adjacent properties for Pier beach-related recreational purposes,emphasizing its identity as a coastal and cultural amenity. Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Visitor("CV") Visitor-serving commercial (surf, bicycle and skate rentals, bait and tackle shops, etc.), restaurantslcafes, beach-related cultural facilities, and parking ICU. Density/Intensity • Pier: limit development to be compatible with the recreational role of the Pier • Shoreline: limit development to the existing Maxwell's building "€ootprinY' • Height: two(2)stories;maximum 35 feet Design and Category:Specific Plan("-sp')and Special Design District("-d") Development • Design structures to reflect its beachfront location_ • Establish a unifying architectural character for all structures. O Maintain public view of the ocean • Maintain public access around the entire perimeter of the pier. • Emphasize the Huntington Beach Pier as a community landmark. • Facilitate pedestrian access. ` • Link the Pier to the Main Street Downtown"Core"(Subarea IA). 3 Area wide Maintain the"Old Town'residential area as a distinct neighborhood of the "Old Town" Functional Role City,incorporating-local-serving commercial and community"focal"points to enhance its"village"character. The single family character of the small lot subdivisions shall be maintained 3A Permitted Uses Category: Residential High("RH') PCH Frontage Density Category: " " ">30" Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp")and Special Design District("-d") Development 9 Design multi-family units to convey the visual character of single family units and incorporate extensive mass and facade modulation and articulation. ® Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places_ r THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN j IV-C-38 ATTACHMENT t COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2(continued) Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 3B Permitted Uses Category- Residential Medium High("RMH") Town Lots Density Category: "25" Design and • Incorporate front.yard setbacks to maintain the existing residential Development neighborhood character. • Site and design development to maintain public views of the coast from public places. 7Cei-FJ irk QS be j': Mixed Use Verac az uncsiunvn-vrczv'aasizr�[rr-ram PCH Nodes �r� r-;e=,' - e ial uses permitted 1,5, the C,......,emi l Visit land e character o€- surf oeuuding—reside;':tial, and mbwd use stmomes Densi"utensity Category" a;_ee )Des�[, Specific Plan K n Development Design su etwe to achieve - t t 1 T ct d T vasicaa'v:�--o�"uccncn—it-cviz�scvm�fczacaccccct—mza-vr compatilAe.with adjacent residential,units in seale and • quire structures to be sited along the PCparking to �. k sides,OF within - Site and design developiii�to maintain public-views of the Goast public plaees_ JD Permitted Uses Category. Commercial Neighborhood("CN") 3C Densitylintensity Category: "-FI" Height: two(2)stories Design and Category: Special Design District("-d") Development 0 Design structures to be visually consistent and compatible with adjacent residential units. • Design and site structures to achieve a"village"character. r THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-39 ATTACHMENT N0, COASTAL ELEMENT COMMUNITY DISTRICT AND SUBAREA SCHEDULE TABLE C-2(continued) _ ___Subarea- Characteristic Standards and Principles - 4I Permitted Uses Category- Residential High("RH") Atlanta st Multi-family residential,parks and other recreational amenities,schools,and (Lake)Street .open spaces. Pacific C_ itv& Waterfront Residential Density/intensity Category: "-30" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Specific Plan("-sp") Development • Requires the preparation and conformance to a specific or master plan. • Establish a cohesive, integrated residential development in accordance with the policies and principles stipulated for "New Residential Subdivisions"(Policies LU 93.1-93.4). • Allow for the clustering of mixed density residential units and integrated commercial sites. • Require variation in building heights from two(2)to four(4)stories to promote visual interest and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. 4J Permitted Uses Category: Shoreline("OS-S") Beach Coastal and recreational uses. Design and In accordance with Policy LU 14.13. Development 4K Permitted Uses Categories: Residential ("RL" or "RM") and Open Space-Conservation (Coat.on next page) Density/Intensity Residential • Maximum of fifteen(15)dwelling units per acre Design and See Figure C-6a Development A development plan for this area shall concentrate and cluster residential units in the eastern portion of the site and include, consistent with the land use designations and Coastal Element policies, the following required information (all required information must be prepared or updated no more than one year prior to submittal of a coastal development permit application): 1. A Public Access Plan,including,but not limited to the following features: • Class I Bikeway (paved off-road bikeway; for use by bicyclists, walkers,joggers, roller skaters, and strollers) along the north levee of the flood control channel. If a wall between residential development and the Bikeway is allowed it shall include design features such as t THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-CA3 ATTACHMENT No. . COASTAL ELEMENT TABLE C-3 Public Parkin unities within Coastal Divisions Coastal Free Metered Total Zone Division Parking Parking Parking Parking (Figure C-4 Location - SIjaces- -.5 aces Spaces- - --Comments Zone i PCH(on-street)* 300 300 Peter's Landing 630 630 HH Yacht Club 76 76 $1.00/hour Sunset Beach* 672 672 4 hr. maximum Zone 2 Bolsa Chica State Beach 2200 2200 $5.00/day PCH(on-street) 324 324 $1.50/hour Zone 3 PCH(on-street) 260 260 $1.50/hour Surf Theatre Lot 39 39 Permit Only Zone 4 Pier Plaza 421 421 $1.50/hour Main,Promenade 815 815 "2.00/ Hour $12.00 daily maximum) PCH(on-street) 486 486 $1.50/hour Business Streets 206 206 $1.50/hour Residential Streets 218 218 $1.50/hour City Beach Lot 250 250 $1.50/hour ($12.00 daily ? maximum) City Beach Lot 1813 1813 $710.00/day Pierside Pavilion** 283 283 $3.75/hour ($11.25 daily maximum) Plaza Almeria** 171 171 $2.00/houa- ($15.00 daily maximum) The Strand** 410 470 $2.00/hour includes ($12.00 daily valet spaces) maximum) Zone 5 HB State Beach 1200 1200 $5.00/day PCHIRiver(inland) 110 110 PCH/River(ocean) 75 75 Beach Blvd.(16007 83 83 $1.50/hour inland) Newland to channel 75 75 Magnolia to channel 81 81 Brookhurst to 22 22 channel TOTAL 1,965 8;48 10,446 9 45 11,370 i THE CITY OF HIJNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV c 56 ATTACHMENT NO. COASTAL ELEMENT F Note: *Most oral[ located outside of the City's Coastal Zone boundary. **Privately operated parking structures available for public use. Rates for summer months and valet vary. Commercial Parking Much emphasis has been placed on providing adequate parking for commercial facilities in the Coastal Zone to ensure that,commercial parking demands do not negatively impact recreational beach user parking. This issue was especially significant when planning for the re-development of.the City's'Downtown area into a dense node of visitor serving commercial facilities. The unique parking:issues of the Downtown area have had been resolved through the development and implementation of the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan(see Technical Appendix). The Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan,a component of the Downtown Specific Plan,was adopted in 1993, and providescl for shared parking facilities including on-street parking,lots and nearby municipal parking structures. worts and medifleations 4the Master Plafi�if needed,will sewe to ensure that adequate parkitkg facilities . In 2009, the Downtown Specific Plan'was updated to accommodate-for new development within the downtown area. Part of the update process was.the elimination of'the Downtown Parldng Master Plan,,which had`reached Iestablished development thresholds. Although the Downtown Parking Master Plan was eliminated,the downtown still empl"ovs a shared parking concept and the Downtown Specific Plan_ has added oiher tools for managing the parking demand of existing and future downtown development such as a trolley,a shuttle to remote lots and a parking directional sign system. Other commercial areas within the City's Coastal Zone;but outside -' the downtown area,meet their.parking needs through implementation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Adequate parking must be provided on site at the time of development. Shared parking is permitted on a case by case basis,if justified. Residential Parking Residential uses within the Coastal Zone are required to provide parking facilities on-site. In some areas of the Coastal Zone,residents may purchase parking permits to exempt them from parking time limits and/or metered parking. Certain residents also have the opportunity to purchase parking stickers that permit them to park in areas where the general public is not permitted. However,Coastal Element policy prohibits the establishment of new preferential parking districts whenever public access to the coast would be adversely affected. Trails and Bikeways Bicycling provides both recreation and an alternative mode of transportation to access the City's coastal resources. The City's bikeway program is one of the most extensive in Orange County and includes both Class I and Class II. Bikeways are marked with signs and street painting. Existing and proposed bikeways in the City's Coastal Zone are depicted in Figure C-14. Figure C-14 also depicts riding and hiking trails, including a proposed equestrian trail that will be included in the planned Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park(The Huntington Beach Regional Riding and Hiking Trail). This trail will extend from the existing equestrian facilities and trails in Central Park to the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway at Seapoint Avenue_ This trail will provide views of the Bolsa Chica wetlands and shoreline_ THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-57 ATTACHMENT N®.6. �� COASTAL ELEMENT Downtown The downtown area has been designed as the primary visitor serving node in the Coastal Zone. Development of the area is guided by the Downtown Specific Plan. Coastal:Element policy promotes the continuation of the area as a visitor serving node. Significant project areas within - the-downtown area include the Main/Piei area,the Waterfront area and Pacific City,a site formerly known as"31 acres." The Main/Pier area includes the Municipal Pier,the public plaza at the base of the Pier,adjacent restaurants,and commerciaUretail development on Main Street and Ste Street., The Waterfront development area is located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. It is designate&for uses such as hotels,specialty retail and residential uses. The"was"Pacific City site is located on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway at First Street,just south of the Municipal Pier. This site is planned approved to'be developed as a mixed use project including visitor serving commercial,�office and residential uses. Planned and existing projects within these development areas are summarized in Table C- 5. TABLE C-5 Existing Downtown Area Commercial Facilities Existing Visitor Serving Projects Within the Downtown Area Description The Waterfront Development The Waterfront Hilton Beach Resort 296 hotel rooms, 15,006 square feet of ballroom/meeting space;restaurant pool and fitness.center. _Hyatt Rmency Resort and Spa 517 hotel rooms with a conference center,retail and restaurant uses and a spa.and fitness center Main/Pier Pier Pavillion 19,100 square feet retail,restaurant and office uses. Oceanview Promenade 42,000 square feet of visitor serving retail Main Promenade 34,000 square feet of visitor serving retail, restaurant and office uses. Includes 830 space municipal parking structure. Adjacent to Municipal Pier 15,000 square feet of restaurant area. Currently houses Duke's and Chimayo's restaurants. Municipal Pier 8,000 square feet of visitoi serving commercial at end of Pier_ Pier Plaza No commercial uses. Plaza Almeria 301 Main Street. 30,000 square feet of commercial/retail with 10,000 square feet of office on upper stories. Also includes 42 townhomes_ THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-67 ATTACHMENT NO. COASTAL ELEMENT -, The Strand 157 room boutique hotel and 154,000 „ square feet of retail,restaurant and office uses Planned/Approved Projects Description The Waterfront Deve opment The 14ilti3n Paoifie Grand v Ft adjacent to--X� (Waterfront Developments > conference > 12,000 specialty retail and—spa-and-a A Hurd hotel Pacific City 31-acre mixed use Proiect consisting of seven commercial buildings--with,,retail, office, restaurant,cultural and entertainment"-nses and a residential component with"516 condo units and a 7--acre"Village-Green"parr The commercial portion of Pacific City is also planned to have carts,kiosks, outdoor dining,live entertainment indoors and outdoors and a boutique hotel. f THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN Iv-C-68 ATTACHMENT COASTAL ELEMENT resources until a determination can be made �\ as to the significance of the paleontological/ Objective archeological resources. If found to be C 6.1 significant,the site(s)shall be tested and Promote measures to mitigate the adverse reserved until a recoveryplan is completed p -impacts of human activities on marine" imp- to assure the protection of the. organisms and the marine environment paleontologicaVarcheological resources. through regulation of new development, (I-C 2, I-C 3,I-C 8) monitoring of existing development,and retrofitting necessary and feasible. C 5.1.6 Reinforce downtown as the.City's historic Policies center and as a pedestrian-oriented C 6.1.1 commercial and entertainment/recreation Require that new development include district,as follows: (1--C 1,I-C 2, I-C 4 ). mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible;and,at a minimum, 1. Preserve older and historic prevent the degradation of water quality of structures; groundwater basins,wetlands,and surface water_ (I--C 2, I-C 8) 2. Require that new development be designed to reflect the Downtown's C 6.1.2 historical structures and Marine resources shall be maintained, Downtown design guidelines enhanced,and where feasible,restored- adopted Mediterranean thefae; Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or 3. Amend the Downtown Specific Plan economic significance. (I--C 6, I-C 8,I-C (as an LCP amendment subject to 12, I-C IS, I-C 22e) -- Commission certification)to: C 6.1.3 a. Coordinate with the Citywide Uses of the marine environment shall be Design Guidelines;and carried out in a manner that will sustain the b. Incorporate historic biological productivity of coastal waters and preservation standards and that will maintain healthy populations of all guidelines. species of marine organisms adequate for C. Coordinate Downtown long-term commercial,recreational, development and scientific,and educational purposes. (I-C 7, revitalization with polices and I-C 8) programs of the Historic and Cultural Resources Element. C 6.1.4 The biological productivity and the quality WATER AND MARINE RESOURCES of coastal waters,streams, wetlands, .estuaries,and lakes-appropriate to maintain Goal organisms and for the protection of human C 6 health shall be maintained and,where Prevent the degradation of marine feasible,restored. (I-C 7,1-C 8, I-C 12) resources in the Coastal Zone from activities associated with an urban C 6.1.5 environment. Require containment curtains around waterfront construction projects on inland THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-124 ATTACHMENT NO. COASTAL ELEMENT C 2.3-3 Policies Encourage the Orange County, C 2.4.1 Transportation Authority to locate bus Maintain an adequate supply of parking that -turnouts along Pacific Coast Highway-and supports the present-level of demand and other major arterial roads within the City,if allows for the expected increase in private feasible and appropriate. (I-C 9, I-C 22d) transportation use. (I-C-9) C 2.3.4 C 2.4.2 Continue to reserve the abandoned rail right Ensure that adequate parking is maintained of way, located parallel to Lake Street,for a and provided in all new development,in the future transportation use such as a transit, Coastal Zone utilizing one or a combination pedestrian and/or bicycle facility. (I-C 9,I- of the following: (I-C 9) C 22d) a. Apply the City's parking standards C 2.3.5 at aminimum. Encourage the development of a b. Implement the- transportation center in the Coastal Zone in Master glart a comprehensive or near the Downtown area. The parking strategy for the transportation center should be located to Downtown area. serve both local and commuter traffic,to c. Consider developing new parking promote coastal access,and sited to standards specific to the coastal minimize adverse impacts from the use on zone,subject to Coastal adjacent land uses. (I--C 1, I-C 9, I-C 22d) Commission appioval. C 2.3.6 d. Develop parking assessment districts to fund off-site parking New development,such as multi-unit structures, if necessary: housing and commercial centers,should e. Monitor parking programs to make maintain and enhance public access to the the most effective use of parking coast through provisions for enhancing or resources. encouraging ridership on public f. Replace any on-street parking lost in transportation_ (I-C 7, I-C 9) the coastal zone on a 1:1 basis C 2.3.7 within the coastal zone prior to or Provide for future use of water borne concurrent with the loss of any parking spaces. passenger services along ocean frontages and harbor waterways_ (I-C 1, I-C 9,I-C C 2.4.3 22d) Consider the cost effectiveness of new parking facilities and encourage those that Parking parking the cost of providing the land, structures,maintenance and management of C 2.4 Objective the facilities in order to minimize ongoing C Balance the supply of parking with the municipal costs_ (I-C 9) demand for parking. C 2.4.4 Develop parking areas outside the Coastal Zone for passenger cars and the development of alternate transportation THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN IV-C-110 9 ATTACHMENT COASTAL ELEMENT the Downtown��z ParldngPlan I The City's traffic model to the Specific Plan shall be processed as an extent it is consistent with the City's amendment to the City's Coastal _al Coastal Program; Program and shall not become effective until certified by the California Coastal 4. The City's Trail Master Plan to the Commission. extent it is consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program; j) Continue to implement the City's Zoning Ordinance to the extent it is not d) Coordinate with neighboring inconsistent with the City's Local jurisdictions regarding circulation for Coastal Program as it pertains to parking autos,pedestrians and cyclists to requirements_ promote coastal access opportunities_ k) Promote public parking opportunities e) Explore the use of water taxis in through the establishment of new or Huntington Harbour and ocean enlarged off-site parking facilities, frontages,especially those near creation of on-street public parking commercial land uses. opportunities, shared parking,and requiring that adequate on-site parking Parking Management be provided in relation to any f) Prohibit the implementation of development preferential parking districts whenever it would adversely affect public access to 1) Enhance public transit to improve public the coast-through a-reduction in the access to the coast and to.minimize E availability of public parking spaces energy consumption and vehicle miles —1 used by public visitors to the coast_ traveled_ g) Develop parking and traffic control Direct Access plans to promote public access to the m) Provide directional signage for cyclists, coast for those neighborhoods that are pedestrians and autos to guide beach adversely impacted by spill over parking bound traffic. and traffic. n) Annually assess existing access points h) Explore areas where park and ride for maintenance needs. Repair/maintain facilities can be implemented at existing as needed,or as prioritized per capital shopping center parking lots where the improvement program. Acquire new available parking is under utilized_ access points where feasible and appropriate through the development i) Continue tozImplement the Downtown review process. N4aste it a a parkin strategy for the Downtown area o) Evaluations for new access points within the Downtown Specific should,focus on pedestrian safety. Plan_ Wniter the Plan on an annual basis, and update i"en neeessar�- Transit Evaluate the impact of downtown p) Coordinate with the Orange County parking on coastal access, public transit, Transportation Authority to develop a and vehicle miles traveled. Updates to transportation center within the Coastal Zone, if feasible_ THE CITY OF HUNTTNGTON BEACH GENERAL IV-C-144 ��°'" �� Zone_3 A� 0 s� j ' 3 NZ.94- .y r- RESfDE2C17AL t�®R.�,f DEtStiY 'AH RES1DE-MAL HKAI DE\SM, CO%WERCIAL 17S1TOR AL!iFJI t�SE - _ 74 MXED USE' 118t MDCED USE tX*20%TAL ry C - mv MrA i'SE«RT7CAL Zone$ 11 SPACE OS-P P.ORIC OS-S SHORE PLBIl' P PUBLIC t_;VUAY d DESIGN ONERLILY -i4 PEDES7RIA,NOVERLa2' SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY Refer to following figure: _ Ctztn�eaar.rvn��ntu anon t�sF t,E:c,r kl,tntn� F4 1-z "Extract of Figure C-811 F5 20 30 for proposed changes to Land Use Plan F11 p F12 ;O ' .' ,�'- .'"`s'-� - :'fix - - -•p`- OAS 'lt ZONE ZONE 4 LAND USEPLAN �s CITY OF HlfN7lNGTOtd HEACii COASTAL EIE,A�;E•�17 LL _- - - �:_z• Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Extract of C-8) Downtown Specific Plan Update \ � I 1 i AtIa Ave: V 7 Extract of Figure C-8 Legend I--] Downtown Specific Plan boundary Land Use Designation CV—Commercial Visitor OS-S—Open Space—Shore M—Mixed Use RH—Residential High Density Density Schedule Overlay Suffix I��NT N®. F7(3.0 Floor Area Ratio) -sp(specific plan over as TTAC' ->30(greater than 30 dwelling units per acre) -pd(pedestrian overlay) -30(30 dwelling units per acre) A(design overlay) Proposed Subarea Designations in Coastal Zone—DTSP Update Extract of Figure C-10 1_B - Atlarita�ve. --— -._ --- '�----•.-gyp ATTACHMENT NO. a -- n c z SEAL WESTMINSTER - BEACH 1 - j z NCR MIN ■ I / I / �z New .■ • -- _ UNIT ■ ---- a 1 - - -- xaa FOUNTAIN VAU-EY low an Y i i O ■ 11 ■. ■f-- TAL3 r �F r mumm PACIFIC 3 OCEAN ® . ana g.■ a■1 at -a s at arm yyYr y,?,p MOANAPOLS awe am f v 1 i LegendHAWRN Existing Class I_ (Paved Off-Road)-Bikeway Existing: Riding and Hiking Trail woes• Proposed Class 1: Riding and Hiking Trail COSTA MESA ® ® Existing Class 11_ (On Road Striped Lanes)Bil<644= ! ■a a e a Proposed Class If: Bikeway 000oo Existing/Proposed Riding and Hiking Trail Refer to following figure: "Extract of Figure C-14" Coastal Zone for proposed changes to "Trails and Bikeways plan sources M ASsociates,1994;city of Huntington Beach Update,1995 TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS 14 CITY-OF HUNTINGTON COASTAL £tEMChi AJ{-Sbnq:r&r-M4E:NT NO Proposed Bike Lanes (Changes to Figure C-14) CO Pp9pos :Class II � Bike Lane -� 6th St. _ (PCH`to.Main St_) eca - Av Proposed . Class II nor , Bide Lane Lake:St- -(Orange-Ave_ to Pecan-Ave-) f s i a � f � f � d � WO , e _ � s Extract of Figure C-14 Legend - - - - Existing Class I Bike Lane - - - - Existing Class II Bike Lane ® m Proposed Class II Bike Lane ATTACHMENT NO.V ) ' xi 5� `, =2t -. 4g - 6 .c . 5 r 3 -4 Atlanta 8A 7 o� 11 BB 9 Legend N ®1983 Speck Plan Districts Parcels SPECIFICEXISTINtj • ® ! • 's ° • • ° ATTACHMENT NO. j :f r . . ,•..-,.1. _ - .- _ ._ ._.,. - - .-- • Legend ■1-Downtown Core Mixed-Use 02-Visitor-Serving Mixed-Use 03-Visitor-Serving Recreation 04-Established Residential ®S-Multi-family Residential 06-Pier N Beach �;Parcels � L PLAN . RGATE ®, k 's ° i ! • e Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Downtown Specific Plan a w Legend ® Downtown Specific Plan boundary Land Use Designation Density Schedule CV—Commercial Visitor -F7(3.0 Floor Area Ratio(FAR)) OS-S—Open Space—Shore -F8(1.5 FAR(MU)-0.35(C)/25 du/acre) M—Mixed Use -F 12(3.0 FAR(MU)-3.0(C)/30 du/acre) MV—Mixed Use—Vertical -F4/30(1.25 FAR—30 du/acre) MH—Mixed Use—Horizontal -F6/25(2.0 FAR—25 du/acre) RH—Residential High Density -F11/25 (2.0 FAR(MU)-2.0(C)/25 du/acre) P—Public -30(30 du/acre) Overlay Suffix -sp(specific plan overlay) -pd(pedestrian overlay) ATTACHMENT NO. -d(design overlay) Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Downtown Specific Plan Update Atla a Ave: - s N E Legend ElDowntown Specific Plan boundary Land Use Designation CV—Commercial Visitor OS-S—Open Space—Shore M—Mixed Use RH—Residential High Density Density Schedule Overlay Suffix -F7 (3.0 Floor Area Ratio) -sp(specific plan overlay) ->30(greater than 30 dwelling units per acre) -pd(pedestrian overlay) -30(30 dwelling units per acre) -d(design overlay) ATTACH ENT N®. ? s r r. }``.^v. ,js�.+?A+.�2�'➢"t}"'$rs1•gm ,,: ;k l P I'' .w�E;4; """,��tljFF:^nE',gm„A!� Ad,E'- (^1 r, 2 74 ,t'. i.t getl,§ , I,;yv:.r�r, J"x tq rc n asr - r:n-?s:m y................... •"li ft✓�I' 1�1SS5�.' °t+ r::)7 .,a i:r{!� i t� � r +i' i Isf v 'I' �1. ;.P s ! ,xl'� - ) ,11 :° `.ft\: �,:t�. P s 'C'•v ?'� t• ) cy 3_._a,�� , t,.p �drt,„� o c +?r; :.:. ,.?t r �= j•s;, q �, � t� how* I::, •7;. S. •r>. ,+:..7. ry.,C trY. 7 � 1 t 1 J -,b7`y,'+.,,..+, Y, / :) AON . ;:r !• ,,. ""''� �(�: �C.i �.t.� '.l '^^r.ory .- ) .f ,).` opts d '1- �,t- ,1 a �..,, t ,,I., I l: y,. 1 1 1 �; �:,� tl;,l� Y4.., � t .;(, r ..h;, e ,:) i :,s f. c,>:,,>: .at,: 1 I v l •f I l 1 y.l-. ,Y. '^J{', :.71.:( .,Ur•Yn.+- �^f�t;/4 A 5 � f ;;j,. .:.,.:. '� ..,..; ., 1 {-;,t I�X.,1,� .l.,:1- '�:�.:. ��,, !t .:.11 ,,r.:].� i A �� �1 � �•.�.. ..�y .l� d I� 1 , :,it., J a.. � ). y' 31 I s)tic{y .rtiT' x>; + ;, ,:.� .,� ti r�r,v,; ),,, 1 t c � 1'�. , f:� ,;;,:;rtu , <,.� s�> �,�!1�, f.r,�j�, ut ({ Z ��rl�,� tA?'1(�•�x. ..a t a kt, tL ��;� t 1 �� ,,....:,I tt � t., < ,:;�::;�:r ,.:..l:.a.lh' ( � 1a•.y, 4 (,, �t{{ 111 :yy .�11! .id',Q �f e '.r.,p C., 1�99I {i3 :ea s3 I 3tti a7' I r 1�,�'� �gt� �H•. � .,r.'•� iay .(..;�?r ,.., :: ,,< ..,,: I ,,(r I ..,:(-: .�lv.. ,. .r.,. g ,:,' t s :e �$ nr I .Q '9 {.9 d ;�3:. �•� :,� l { 1 ��t )-d s� `-I 1. 'a_!4 ,•p:: E7 ., ,)� <37r,''a)`; ';., � • �. � ��,,( t.,. 1 .6_. �ry1t. ( �:':v ,�.cd � � R: 6 { � 1 / �Y ...II rl. '.i. �r.r. ..,gg+4^-{ ,':'�! tv. ,:: ,1 9Sd� rt;11 1(•�.1 � ,.1,1, .�, 1 , :;9y j 'ti '�s. ,a�..��,.� t;+. ri � ( , ,.0�'�. ^t� 44 .Ys��pM,..r..,h•.i-. -,.. ., > 5 �� ., � 1 _.h. ,-A �l1;3�, � �t 1 t ,1�. � ��.d.r3 "�.�1"7��"� =a4r a 1',r, e ' .,�." sy'r>'� ? S s,..:�1,j EI((.5+:,•; r a ,.� ) .a,t, is"L. ms., �tp'!. r:;,6,r s n.v> v -� .'�'�,;�.�z•; ..1 "t r 1 ..e, f ,n&.y ;; �" F �a: r .;4 k s{' � i 1 � ,a, � ,e � r"1 a��.�,•:w:'� ..�. -�. � � ,�.�. 1 W 1� ;µ}�,,,'�li• ('3 ti)}'�r.:•;v}f' d� d',i�;.�,„�,ty�,+p� �'^;, � , :' t i :,„ 1 ,; ! ..h VrL t�, J '!f hhr Vr ,.:,,'r�. �! Y a.. y k t.4. •b' .t {:r r' iJ'a.3.as% c sn,'t'x.i4Ma e�>< ,c..,4.�J 5,,.k,.w�,.x.....rwa tit.,, na,.,���,u`s.�.�r.!�{,,,mr4,1>.mw,l�$ r�`wFdWL�u2�t?Zau({,+�?k�4�A��.�iHf..us!iS ih�4r�5.'',c��MY.t; 00 �Y4 �,. .:..d�• ..F ��. .......... 4'� /fi��4�,��t, 'a. � '�,�(,•R! r�TM"r/.id 4jFT' �1'�;<r p�.hti,�d��Y l_d.s: { V V, 151 - �� A�ft;1::1��.1��'� r��'ry' cA „Nqf. a,..S.J+F,6r-?9i.:)v-'3+:Ta,�r'S.:11o^rT�<P S-.s.�.,�s�r'.,'s'7�rs��k,....RJ+,l,.I„� ,•.i.tiC'�1 irY{.::".:..11�r,�l:F.RV."ly`<'iy.._,.id l t.Y.:+'-r'�.r.....�o�e.;o,.r�?.3,.'v�..+,�r�':.,,sYP:v.'�„"'gi,-;fe.y'..�.a�a y.r.: a1Yrrt<.n,r p.oyyy�i.��;Sto.:,(r:'-.. .�,q+v.-�r-;..�,{Jrrn�..r.„.):,r,i.�r,.,i,.'�a:l.,:d 1I.:'e.v7..�C�1g,7..�.t,..),.I-,'r{7,1:;�....,.,4�l��.-.f-.:1.Y..,.;..j1 i,;..;;.f.,�,.�kt i1�1„1�..{tb,.7.�.cI`.,,�,::.j t.1.�F t�u(�r), .y,r/J /A d(`lJT::?k.{iig —"T m 'if�.e1;r'� �1 d r.�.dl'..-t'Y 1f!1 a..w3..:r.l�,.yS+e"Tt`ih..1,itl�r.�'�f�.ry1}�X-�r.�i,,.,y^{5;„^'.5SY.o5 d`V.'ar'4.:..•''.C.�..ti tdf-,��n,�i:V.t,. „,Y�J'' � o ,. .� ,["F '� r„ r2 Sj '�..� "•, ,j rfx.,�.�, .;.. .,., "" ,e,.;.,.., , r,:;,11 k u 5�.a.?)'z av 3„kn, as>. Nh� .J\ c:'�7' 5.;�1.n 4x���.��`` �yyrf aa " ''yyyyi,v? �r .1YA, le, �i'S0.,1.. r A.,^F,y ;m�r• ;, s,.f„�fis ,...{ ��,.t -: -, ,-, ..,,w �.. r:,,,,,,J,., ,,r'�... ::r,3,,) ,. +.. �, :..{-.✓ /' r..,,a i'� � -C• � .. )..r,..,tiin.. a,.2,rr�.�'��.F,:,t:r•l�•r;'>...4.,. �.. ,� , �gq 0"7. Si, ,'.'fv es'§€� Pv:.,t:. ..a� L, �. ? t. .i ,� rrv{x�'!''iC �. AF'r1 A.. "i��,'�!.,�-, s✓1 ';. ( ' ..,.t�3.sc .;; .a ,��. r�;�E,•b� 0?4,...� ;;� i,.,:'•:'�".,, �_,'. �...,:1 �:" v I ,r:'.:`t b. r\�;,i' �r ri,2._.t:X�,'" -t,v. a..{p. ,,,• -x)F.t) r)r,� Pt,. y j t()UC`F T'D 1.I j,.,5 {�•' �. 7. �r �. :�t,s� :� ,e �rt4 < e6 .,,✓; fa' r .:i:%: 7 ,;nc r'. � , \N:•,:.',Mr It,,.'�maia,,,qq.,�'s:' 9a,o a d . ��. q .E r. S� � e t. ,t a..>... 1. ,. rd.. Y y j ! 4... ,,f�t1, � 1 -,1.;,1 c..."�•..1,, .\I.. P-"i �i Fl.:i,, vr< y+, "'.,.,y , .,e,<i,"r• r ?;:r r a9�_It1 141 .�X,+`i � r1, .?, ,.9 R„ 7S' � r. �.a„-.. �!� ..(i,�i6,1r)g m r--.. -E R�7.,P r q_..fdp) o ra, "C,+G�:.. ,.s�:�:. I, .t ) 8 ,l � � :+) ? ,.,�:.,.i ,:.. .,�s :,:`o!�r.•u:, a,T -^;�.:.?.. .j r:iv., at ak, ap, t �;:.s. ,� ;... t. ,. tti+... ��•,��, .,& ... A?..n ,,r r,:i..'c).. � ..4":< II :.'. 1 µ�, i I �'._�:. ::j, t rr� j {.r� .,�.!. �r� `,'"1t��- ,2r?..,�% 1, j,:. �_,,fi:}.„, .rS ,.,t,4 '^,:ar n: i.rtt�ir..,r,:.r sy:,,�:.� .1::1d,. yy{ S {I .rs.. a.. s, s. +, •t r _t:iS �. „`U R+t, �p Y , � a`r.� f ':;<•1 1a(�t.� L�csy+, iU) x 4 i 3 ua,. r,. iy c ,� q ry j a){ ( 7,j i•:' M:�.., .,: �a F1'�.:�.��. 1.� � I,'':'.; f M : �-',. ' ... C.. ,..., ,_.._,r l ! c...' ° .�:.� � :'i T�-�,}�n, rN�t�'J,�l) \d:.J{,.1,`�. � y r'S; ,' 3 �al ..`�1q� .��.�vU�� ,�,� I,.,, �a r,,d:1 +:,,)._ ,) ,^l., { o - v' �, �,� r�r•*ah ,p ire r •.? r `? ,��Si'ii ,' •• i � 1 '{}{-„ d � ,.t! ,p I � C�Ao{a 'tdr..b�x' ,r N ,:, _:.; < ,r q , t,:,'rl�i• + m� �,�A. .y 1�t i9 n � y ..,ppt C �sA ta .: .�" y a,. :a 7 ,.x,rrr, i r !. xkE +,r•,,a e,., -t .i nq> (u .(l )i7- m =,I d^J.r 1pJ'?.fit {.- `,(q �,lf�.'.I. j:,.!�{ pI� `k 1. iv M4.. J . .:'�. _.:,,� 1. n ,. ^-, ,: Vv:,.{}rt. �1 ..,, k,:...:,-, ............ :y,.: .,,.,,,.-n' , r; !.:;.1 64' ,'n Ts ems: �,l;l;. ^Y•.y t 7 ;'i� ��.... o,,�,:,�. .. � m,.:.yy, ...F,_`�y ,s�� .,.�,e .> �: a,,la_, .. M r ,a.,r_r ,�,a, -„ �s r. ,.. a -'^' .. •,,: P-:.,t ,�o �r ;„ y �r,,,. r� T;, 's., 4 a.:� :��..,.. ..,,. .�. , ,,,..4. ,.. � 3 ('gr�lydPS�{l �,t„ < �,ii, ..�8+Il11s �...,��✓di�; ..+,�� ,.�.,,, ,.. � crux, r'. s a ��.�y ::�n. �`' :. fi n ...:.,.,.:. rth: r.,.,;;.;',�,.fi ..,w.&nl:, t:„/ i.;4 ?i „!,i -.:.'.i a 1 r^S:,<:r, '.;...•, .:,. f. -...r.�, r.,.:..1,r (:,ni,�' ,'.r v s ,v�,. 5:': t a.,..'nfa s.'),j, -- x.. /».91•r ::yyQaf/>n1 yyJyl'a trr,'1.),.�. �i 1 u "S: .ar<,U..,. j } ffiP:sy ,,>_ t, rVJ t :. ' �.+.. � .:�. 1', ®tl{t,2'`i)..t,➢"t',1.. d1 :3'%`.'3 5 f)'d-h.`.:' A .ss1'/ ,Jfr ✓,,: ad ,) I. s.,l raps-vi `b\ro r,\; _.ac ��� A. F� � 't vP "1�s y,,. wrr P`: \,:,,N ri° �oA >s ✓ ,�A''r ,>. r���!. aof creA>- 6 v + �� t- + c.,p t ,n •.j! �"' :.VK �,�, ,>3:4'� �j;, a � � `1 .I,. �l-: A .r:�d �� A'-k+�d, � �/1.. � v1NA3. AI�! -'1,{�,l-��,�.�dl . I w,>u^�-:"d,d,ij p•�!:ui• � '::t n.,,� -�, t y ._/, �._:+ a '3. r �- .inri. ,. I.R. s .a ._' a A,. r�,; t..' dY.. F, l�`YQ �,�� vtv�:,, /, R.� ;n.,.,. �";u.y} ;�' , �Yh rv.s 'q.�„ ..� '`.� z. yy �'�• � .r�Y2. h / .,^« >N ) 1?j I'f- .{, J)l' r ) A.,, he <x y�t ...! s :v. P s r �1� ��d....1 l.j.,'.,( a fit .�dl „ i.h', s o ISO rSlui99 t �c4 duly .{?,d-/�\ _,�.v •S:i{I® h aA, ( j y y ! ✓� r 1,.h�j•v. �.x �7} y.'; � ,1. r � 'r.a� 7 C ) 'k�.�t £>..�• t .v to d yc;,t 4.,a'.•v�v. t.• ;, ri• V :.; r , t 1 yy �:`. •. ,rd„ ,.� t '4y SXS^;�.,� P-I t., t ! i ' �L .Rr;"-o v+,� a rt .� yq :+,! ity i dOf. i�t r I Y ke1 r e..?..'t, ,',,•.. Y,�. i' m .x' aj :ai es_ {, 9 J i. •S..99 a.fq .:§Y zt,f,7u Cd d-/ df{¢lsi �(( 7�!{- iG hu• 1. t.',t u8 '•J qY'.f, .h�yo lV�;..�.R:1•r;..0 t.wr. .^fe { � c ,E , .:� : - < uv ,s cads.SrA ��:I`�/ e i`•�S-Z'k:r.r ,s,s + ! ;�,1. ,0(et f F)•.,t,1 s�r (a i,'Y: a, ," +,:..G.....,;�t... �.rw �.. .: `� -:�r,y,� ,J(A}'D.,.:. ,.1, ti F7's.r.b. u d`�' ',.Y,•. i � �y ,•...,:(a �,�,. '� , r >x,, ly v,1 t��. Z".,LS1 V F' ,) �( r) 3 jjpaur� el �'a;$;`o a� .:z.1>, ,�. 4 i 9 f:.0� J�<)9yy���ii�,(Sd��'f � , +>gg13k r( . �yn �,�(+':. k✓ r t :;\,. ., 1. t •m _i°'.. s �y .�r,r, � {,3,,.�tiq (.! �� �.,�!, �.r.,t �4�', �. �r.� � �q � �, r4 / •�4 R 1,� 5. S.' ,,r a` [[ �q�''fei YYa? {{ �yysr„vq 4�is 'd`S'�,{,y } � !° nr�.i✓ y,�'. � !.';, ,�,._ 'lt,: ,J'�.,r J , .t. b r ,1 yr?(tf k s,'�).+'� ql. fE!v0 ,�t-.���. �.}.L eh"par\��7�FF�!I(�,•(1u.. i1`t,7^�,-� •w"1 P �:': � :�i!.A;•l 3Y' f!n .UyU^.N; J+�i fir., rz+., ?yf 4j: •.,1) Y. ,�k,l. p ..'(`.F. d � .� T .,•.�r: � F _ a1�s ..U7, ?+;C�.. ./�,..,r ,, ""t..a '?i ..f,:r t �V•Y; i ,i/ �Y� lY(�L� ri h .:1}1: if 4'.:-.+;Y:..'.� ,•l..'� I :,.ty.,.. J, .�r<,.*i,y.3s:��i �s r'r�,,,c.. 2 ,^^? ,�•la^�:a7 {.�II�. ),Cs Idd:'�aA �r ,dlj 's a � k /., .e;. �.�F '�...:�,�., .s,v, ,.. t� >#•✓3.'fn+ � c ,. •tibt r{!'r f ,..; ��.,�����'H Pt �, r� a t �3 1 d'r.; µ <`t:,).,, � n ..,. { r ?, 1.�R��, ,1\\. �� r t t ,r ,�+... "�x�.xt,rc>ii-"Jrl�.,.:+,< i>;:✓:.. °s?Y:f'^� �Y��-' t { I NEE! y1,' '✓ ii-Y Eiji :! .Z" - :� //,a�s-s: '�:'� '�I:i i� rl�,[w� A.L1nAA:A.,�`1FlF(-.T...t.:dAf t7 S, m�..sy � tl(,C• A�I"R'- ��A ,1srj!:, r\"'I ,.s,.,?.'S r=mac,,. ,� r.Y:,.a, yu,.4��h.�.d'y �.�'rt 1>:Y'xM �', stis,r,.a `54. "•s.r`5. t. �7i :%n s''�T�%� ,?�, i,r':. -„1. ,n" .� ;:.� ti i'.. <,',liS' r..A.i'� ,.�d.x.,�.•n, .,�'s3.r�.ti r e t. ���r � -T :,�jjs,. �o I .>a .,e�;,'v� ��5w.� rtt. K S. -)''.°3 a y J ;i vv ,r.Jr. a 4r'k ��('1•, ( �.,• ;� ����� )�� �lg,;�t K�'t'�'4 r�. �: ( (� �i� $�� ..m;i e�h`r l�n.,;lAt� �,�Al��t� ��m�r? �� � )�'�ti��� ya°".?V6�y �k✓$^{y�, (��i�h,' lg,,. .,tip ;� �': 'ofi�;f'�� - �.• - "lxx>: 6. Alternatives CEQA Guidelines§15126.E requires that an EIR consider alternatives to th project,or to the location of the.project,which would feasibly attain most of the Jectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen_any of the significan o the project,and evalu-ate the - comparative merits of the alternatives.In corn ith CEQA,alternatives are presented here for this project.Each of the alternatives evaluated against the project objectives as stated in the Project Description(Sectio tement of Objectives,page 3-35)of this EIR.A statement as to whether those ob' an be met under these alternatives is included.The project objectives include•t wing(not listed in any particular ranked order): • Create an environment that promotes increased revenues to support community services and transform the City's economy. • Provide an established vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that the next phase of community investment and improvement can begin. • Provide and implement a DTSP land use plan that promotes orderly and viable development and that also meets the needs of visitors(including tourism),residents and businesses. • Provide development standards and design guidelines that encourage development of underused parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture that will complement - the existing uses in the DTSP. • Provide adequate parking that is also incorporated into the framework of pedestrian pathways within the downtown. • Establish and maintain efficient on-site and off-site traffic circulation. • Implement green and sustainable building practices,where appropriate and feasible. As required by §15126.6(c)of the CEQA Guidelines,a reasonable array of altejopes has been presented herein.The EIR itself,as well as the"Alternatives"section provi equate documentary material from which to construct any permutation of alternatives on ject.Therefore,this Alternatives section is intended to present a reasonable range of atives for discussion and evaluation in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Gui ' s. The following discussion describes and evaluates alternatives including the CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)mandated"no project alternativ ' d two additional alternatives. The alternatives considered include the following: • The No Proje ernative • Conse e Market Demand Development Alternative • R ed Development Alternative City of Huntington Beach Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Downtown Specific Plan Update page 6-1 ATTACHMENT NO. �at �yBF OFFICE OF CITY-ATTORNEY P.O.Box 190 Paul D'Alessandro,Assistant City Attorney <' 9T1�* 2000 Main Street Scott Field,Assistant City Attomey E Neal Moore,Sr.Deputy City Attorney Huntington Beach,California 92648 Leonie Mulvihill,Sr.Deputy City Attomey Jennifer McGrath Telephone: (714)536-5555 John Fuiii,Sr_Deputy CityAttomey City Attorney Facsimile: (714)374-1590 Daniel K.Ohl,Deputy City Attomey - -- - — Sarah"Sutton,Deputy City Attorney Mike vigliotta,Deputy City Attomey September 14, 2009 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Upon review of the historical documents and thee facts..presented by City staff, the City Attorney's Office has generally opined that the landscaped area immediately adjacent to the Main Street Branch Library is a park. Therefore,any proposed development of that area would be subject to Measure C. At this time, since there is no pending application or proposal for development of the area,amore specific Measure_C.analysis cannot be completed. At such time as a proposal or application is submitted, this offices will conduct a more focused Measure C analysis. Pi ntact my office should you have further questions. 4, J ER MCGRATH City Attorney City of Huntington Beach JM/k c: Hon. Mayor and members of City Council Fred Wilson,City Administrator Stanley Smalewitz,Director of Economic Development Scott Hess, Director of Planning F 38387 ATTACHMENT N®. HBT DTSP PC STUDY SESSION COMMENTS 9-01-09 ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO I WAS ASKED TO GIVE STAFF AND CONSULTANTS MY VIEWS ON A FUTURE VISION FOR DOWNTOWN. I SOLICITED IDEAS FROM MY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBERS AND HBTOMORROW BOARD MEMBERS. THE VISION WAS FOR A TOURIST AND RESIDENT FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD HAVE THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS: CLEAN SIDEWALKS; PEDISTRIAN FRIENDLY WITHOUT THE CONGESTION AND UBSTRUCTIONS THAT KEEPS RESIDENTS AWAY; UPSCALE COMMERCIAL USES THAT WOULD ATTRACT RESIDENTS AND TOURISTS; THE REDUCTION OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WHO'S SALES COME PRIMARILY FROM' THE SALE OF ALCOHOL; AND OUTDOOR DINING WITHOUT BREATHING IN AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS. WHEN THE DTS PLAN WAS RELEASED WE FOUND THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT MEET OUR VISION. IT DOES MEET THE VISION OF THOSE WHO WANT TO INTENSIFY- THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES. THE BENEFICIARIES ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD FINANCIALLY BENEFIT FROM HAVING MORE PEOPLE DOWNTOWN AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE BIGGER IS BETTER. OUR DTSP PLAN COMMENTS WERE: ENSURE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS DO NOT EXCEED THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR BELLA TERRA II. THE PROPOSED PROJECT CALLS FOR 60 DU/AC AND 5 STORIES VERSUS _45 DU/AC AND 4 STORIES FOR BELLA TERRA II. WITH REGARD TO THE CULTURAL OVERLAY. THIS CONTROVERSIAL RECOMMENDATION APPARENTLY CAME FROM THE CONSULTANT - THERE IS NO RECORD OF A COMMUNITY MEMBER SUGGESTING THIS. WE RECOMMENDED THE PRACTICALITY, FINANCING, USAGE, LOCATION AND OTHER COMMUNITY SUPPORT QUESTIONS BE ANSWERED BEFORE A CULTURAL OVERLAY BE ADOPTED. HBT SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF A CULTURAL CENTER BUT CERTAINLY NOT AT THIS LOCATION DUE TO ITS IMPACT ON ADJOINING RESIDENTS AND INCONVENIENT LOCATION FOR HB RESIDENTS. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT HB RESIDENTS WOULD VOTE YES TO BUILD AND FIND SUCH A CENTER AT THIS LOCATION. OTHER HBT RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE INCREASE IN MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE, . FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LACK OF UPPER STORY SETBACK WERE ALSO IGNORED. PERHAPS THE EIR'S REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE COULD CONTAIN THESE PROVISIONS. HBTOMORROW HAS SUPPORTED THE PLAZA ALMERIA MIXED USE PROJECT, THE 31 ACRE PACIFIC CITY PROJECT AND THE BELLA TERRA II MIXED USE PROJECT BECAUSE THEY ARE BENFICIAL TO THE CITY, ITS RESIDENTS AND ITS BUSINESSES. HOWEVER WE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE BECAUSE IT WILL INTENSIFY USES TO THE DETRIMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE RESIDENTS. IN SUMMARY, HBT BELIEVES THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND AT A MINIMUM DIRECT STAFF TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: REDUCE INTENSITIES TO THE LEVEL OF THE BELLA TERRA II PROJECT WHICH IS ALREADY 50% HIGHER THAN EXISTING STANDARDS AND SECONDLY REMOVE THE CULTURAL OVERLAY FROM THE PROPOSAL. IT'S A BAD IDEA THAT WILL LEAD TO TIME CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE LITIGATION AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE. t ED KERINS HBT DTSP COMMITTEE MEMBER ATTACHMENT N®. 11 l Pagel of 3 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Wine, Linda - ._..._..__._. Sent: , Monday,September 14, 2009 8:33 AM To: vllasenor, Jennifer Cc: Wine, Linda , Subject: FW. Proposed Cultural Center Alternative and Public Hearing Date Please add this one to your next staff report as well. ThanksY From: Richardson Gray [mailto:richardson.grayA@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 5:54 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Fw: Proposed Cultural Center Alternative and Public Hearing Date Dear Ms.Wine: Please forward this email to all seven Planning Commissioners. It discusses a number of questions that some Commissioners asked staff to answer,and I would like to get a copy of these answers. I would appreciate your confirming to me that you have sent my email along to the Planning Commissioners. Thanks a lot. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ; 714-348-I928 richardson.grav@yahoo.com --- On Thu, 9/10/09,Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo.com>wrote: From: Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Proposed Cultural Center Alternative and Public Hearing Date To:JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 6:34 PM Hi Again Jennifer, In looking over my notes from the September 1 st Planning Commission Study Session on the DTSP, I realized that my email to you from last night was incomplete in terms of the questions that the Commissioners asked of staff on September 1 st that were not answered in the public package for the Commission's September 9th meeting. I have listed all of these other questions below, at least the ones for which I want to get copies of your answers. 1. I believe it was Commissioner Scandura who asked staff to present information on how the Cultural Arts Overlay (Overlay) meets the goals of the DTSP. 2. 1 believe it was Commissioner Livengood who asked if the proposed Cultural Center would be approximatley 37,000 SF, or if not, what would be its maximum permissible ATTACHMENT NO. y, 9/27/2009 Page 2 of 3 square footage. 3. I believe it was Commissioner Livengood who asked how much on site parking would be required to service the uses envisioned for the proposed Cultural Center at 37,000 SF,.or if the permissible square footage were larger, how much on site parking would be required to service that greater amount of square footage. 4_ I believe it was Commissioner Scandura who asked for the square footage of the Main Street Library (Library), the square footage of the total Triangle Park(Park)parcel,and - square footage numbers for the parcels in the Overlay that are across Main-St. from the Library and Park. 5. I believe it was Commissioner Farley who asked for the exact square footage of the green space at Triangle Park, since this amount of square feet in green space must be preserved according to the DTSP. 6. I believe it was Commissioner Farley whos asked staff to provide an analysis of the impact on the DTSP if the Overlay were removed from the DTSP. 7. I believe it was Commissioner Livengood who asked how much money was available to the City for building the approximately 260 in lieu,off site parking spaces that the City is obligated to build downtown on account of other downtown developments that did not provide enough on site parking. 8. I believe it was Commissioner Degleize who asked for an alternative, smaller suggestion from staff for the proposed Cultural Center. She talked about the possibilities of moving the surf museum there or enhancing the library uses or both. I have included this list in this forwarded email of mine to you from last night,so that you would have all of my questions in one place. Of course, the answers to my questions in my email from last night are the ones that are most important to me_ I have forwarded this email to Linda Wine, to make sure all of the Planning Commissioners see what my questions are_ Thank you for your help. Richardson Gray --- On Wed,9/9/09, Richardson Gray<richardson.gray@yahoo.com>wrote: From: Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo.com> Subject: Proposed Cultural Center Alternative and Public Hearing Date To:JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 11:37 PM Hi Jennifer, To follow up on my public comment tonight at the Planning Commission Study Session, I need to get a copy of the Planning Department's downsized alternative for the proposed cultural center at Main Street Library and Triangle Park. One of the Commissioners asked staff to prepare such an alternative at the September 1 st Study Session. When will this alternative proposal be available and how can I get a copy of it? Too, please let me know as soon as you get the Public Hearing scheduled for the Planning Commission on the DTSP and its EIR. I need to get the date, time, and place (Council Chambers, I assume) on my calendar as soon as it is scheduled. ATTACHMENT N0. ,����. 9/27/2009 Page 3 of 3 Thanks. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714-348-1928 --richardson.gray@yahoo com 1 � ATTACHMENT NO.� 9/27/2009 Page 1 of 3 Villasenor, Jennifer 'f From: Wine, Linda Sent: Monday, September 14,2009 8:26 AM To: Villasenor, Jennifer,Wine, Linda Cc: richardson.gray@yahoo.com Subject: FW. Official Public Comments for the Planning Commission's September 9,2009 Study Session on the Draft Environmental Impact Report of July 20, 2009(Draft EIR)on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009(June DTSP)and their Cultural Art Attachments: McGrath—Park Documents.rtf Dear Jennifer: Please add the attached comments to your staff report for the Downtown Specific Plan for the next Planning Commission meeting. Thanks! Fivm: Richardson Gray [mailto:richardson.gray@yahoo.com) Sent:Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:14 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Fw: Official Public Comments for the Planning Commission's September 9, 2009 Study Session on the Draft Environmental Impact Report of July 20, 2009 (Draft EIR)on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009(June DTSP)and their Cultural Art Dear Ms. Wine: I learned tonight that you are on vacation and that you were not able to get my comments below(and - attached)to the Planning Commission. Please confirm to me by email that you have delivered my comments to all of the Planning Commissioners and made them a part of the September 9th meeting's official records. Thanks a lot. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo con-i --- On Tue, 9/8/09,Richardson Gray <richardson.gra@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo.com> Subject: Official Public Comments for the Planning Commission's September 9, 2009 Study Session on the Draft Environmental Impact Report of July 20, 2009(Draft EIR) on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009(June DTSP) and their Cultural Arts Overlay (Overlay) To: linda.wine@surfcity-hb.org Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 7:43 PM Dear Ms. Wine: Please make this email and its attached letter a part of the official public comments and record for the 9/27/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. Page 2 of 3 Planning Commission's September 9,2009 Study Session on the Draft Environmental Impact Report of July 20, 2009(Draft EIR)on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009 (June DTSP), and their Cultural Arts Overlay (Overlay). Measure C The attached letter is a formal public records request to Jennifer McGrath, our elected City Attorney, regarding City documents concerning the Main Street Library(Library),Triangle Park(Park),Measure C, and parkland restrictions. My concern continues to be that the City has not taken an official position in writing on whether the cultural..center proposed for the Park in the June DTSP would require a citywide referendum under Measure C. The public deserves an unambiguous answer from the City on this question as a part of the review process for the June DTSP and its Draft EIR. Draft EIR Summary Comments As you know, I oppose the redevelopment of the Library and Park in the Overlay as a cultural center (Proposed Center)for many reasons, including the following. For all of these reasons,I urge the City to eliminate all proposals in the June DTSP and Draft EIR regarding the Proposed Center at the Library and Park. • Along with roughly 5,000 other Huntington Beach residents, I have signed a petition recommending that the City continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses at the Library and Park in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. + The conclusions of this.petition's signers fully contradict the Draft EIR's findings of no significant adverse impacts on aesthetics,with mitigation and code requirements. + The completion of the Proposed Center at the Library and Park would cost surrounding residential property owners millions of dollars in lost property values. • Locating the Proposed Center at the Library and Park would fully disregard a key land use planning recommendation,unanimously adopted in June 2009 by the business and resident leaders of the City Council's Downtown Image Ad Hoc Committee. This recommendation was for the City to encourage neighborhood-serving retail along Main Street north of Orange Avenue, while keeping Main Street's visitor and tourist oriented uses south of Orange. • Better locations for the tourist oriented Proposed Center would be either the six(6) closed movie theaters at Pierside Pavilion or the old Mandic Motors site, that currently is for sale(and which possibly could include the adjoining Electric Chair parcel). Mandic is the last property on the north end of Main Street, near its intersection with Orange,that is visible from the Pier, which would increase pedestrian traffic to the Proposed Center. • If the Proposed Center were built at the Library and Park, it would substantially degrade downtown's only park away from the beach, and the second oldest park in the City, dating back to 1912. Based on the original deed for the Park, the City is required to maintain the Park as parkland for all time, forever. • If the Proposed Center were built at the Library and Park, it would be a misplaced anchor, ATTACHMENT NO. 9/27/2009 Page 3 of 3 locating a major noise, traffic, and air pollution generator on the border of established residential neighborhoods. 1`t � • The Library and Park provide a necessary buffer and transition between downtown's dense business and tourist district and its established residential areas. If the Proposed Center were built on the Park,this necessary buffer and transition would be substantially lost to surrounding residents. • The proposed reconfiguration of Sixth Street and Pecan Avenue,connecting the existing Sixth Street straight through Pecan Avenue to Main Street,would reinstate a design that the City abandoned for good reasons over twenty years ago. • The Main Street Library is the most important historic structure in downtown. Triangle Park is the most historic park in the City. As such,they both should be preserved as historic landmarks for future generations of Huntington Beach residents. • The preservation of the Library and Park has been endorsed.by the Sierra Club, the adjoining Townsquare Condominiums and Pierside Town Homes, and the Parks Legal Defense Fund. • The public review for the June DTSP and Draft EIR has been fatally compromised due to inadequate transparency, insufficient responsiveness to resident concerns, and a substantial conflict of interest for one of the leading proponents of the Proposed Center, Steve Bone. Thank you again for your consideration, and I hope support, of my views. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 riebardson.gray@yahoo.com ATTACHMEN T N . 9/27/2009 RICHARDSON GRAY - 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714 348-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com Via Certified Mail,Return Receipt Requested,Regular Mail, and Email Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Request for Access and Copies Under the California.Public Records Act,Sections 6250 through 6276.48 All Documents Possessed by the City's Officers or Staff Members or Both Concerning Measure C or any Parkland Restrictions or Both for Main Street Library or the Land on which it Sits—Triangle Park—or Both Dear Ms. McGrath: My Request Under the California Public Records Act, Sections 6250 through 6276.48(Act), I am formally requesting access to all documents in the possession of the City's officers or staff members or both,concerning any parkland restrictions or Measure C (Section 612 of the City's Charter)or both, for Main Street Library or the land on which it is Iocated and which surrounds it—Triangle Park—or both. I want to view all of these documents before I selectively authorize you to make any copies for me. By email,I also mart you to send me any electronic files_ that are available for any of these documents. If you do not grant my request within ten days, by September 18,2009,I need you to send me a written response by that date, explaining why you denied my request. This deadline is very important, given that the Planning Commission's Public Hearing and Vote are scheduled for September 22,2009,on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12,2009 (June DTSP) and its supporting Draft Environmental Impact Report of July 20,2009 (Draft EIR). If these documents are not released to the public by September 18t', I request that this Public Hearing and Vote by the Planning Commission be postponed until after the requested documents are released. Please let me know when I can have access to the requested documents. Public Interest in Disclosure Outweighs Any City Claims for Possible Exemptions In order to provide the public with full and timely information, and thus an adequately transparent review process for the June DTSP and its Draft EIR, the City must release all of the documents requested. This public interest in full disclosure outweighs any possible claims that the City might make for exemptions under the Act. l ATTACHMENT NO . My December DTSP Comments In m Jan 22 2009 official written public comments to the Ci 's Downtown Y �'Y � P tY Specific PIan Update Draft of December 4,200&(December DTSP), I raised the issue of Measure C's applicability to Main Street Library and Triangle Park. This issue has yet to be Officially answered-in writing by the City,in its June DTSP,in the Draft EIR,or otherwise. My May 2009 Meetings with You In my two(2)meetings with you in May this year,you said that the cultural center proposed for Triangle Park in the December DTSP would require a citywide referendum under Measure C. Also in our two(2)May meetings, you agreed to release to the public your official written analysis of Triangle Park's parkland restrictions and of the applicability of Measure C to the cultural center proposed for Triangle Park,now revised by the June DTSP (the June Proposed Center). In a July 9,2009 email to me, you reconfirmed this legal opinion of yours,that the June Proposed Center would require a citywide referendum under Measure C. Planning Commission's Unanswered Questions Planning Commissioner Tom Livengood,at the June 23,2009 Study Session on the June DTSP,asked whether Triangle Park was a park and about the applicability of Measure C. The Planning Department's response to Mr. Livengood's questions,which I assume were reviewed by your office,are contained in the Planning Commission's July 28,2009 Study Session Report. i This report states in part that, Triangle Park"does not have a zoning or general plan designation for parks or open space. However, as is the case for all projects, any future development proposal would be required to comply with all applicable codes and regulations, including . . . the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the City Charter(including Section 612 "Measure C")to the extent that they apply." The Draft EIR,which again I assume your office reviewed,provides a similar inadequately ambiguous statement about Measure C's applicability to the June Proposed Center(Draft EIR,page 3-13). My June DTSP and Draft EIR Comments,Triangle Park's Deed Restriction, and the Inadequate Transparency of the Public Review Process In my September 2, 2009 official written public comments on the June DTSP and its Draft EIR, I again raise the issue of Measure C's applicability to the June Proposed Center. In these comments, I also quote Triangle Park's original deed, which required the City to maintain the entire property as parkland forever. To repeat myself, this deed restriction never has been explicitly terminated. Throughout Triangle Park's entire history of almost one hundred(100)years, it has functioned as a park and has been regulated by the City as a park. In my January 22, 2009 written comments on the December DTSP, I included a photograph of a sign that still stands in Triangle Park today, listing all of the City's park regulations that apply to Triangle Park. 2 ATTACHMENT No. fit,(, . The City's residents and property owners have the right to enforce Triangle Park's parkland deed restriction against the City. Furthermore, Triangle Park's parkland deed restriction supersedes Measure C. The City simply does:not have the right to build the cultural center proposed in the June DTSP on Triangle Park,even if the voters were to approve the project in a citywide referendum. Finally,in my September 2,2009 comments,I stated that your failure to release to the public your official written analysis has fatally compromised the public review process for the June DTSP and the Draft EIR,due to a lack of adequate transparency. This official written analysis of yours should include Triangle Park's parkland restrictions and the applicability of Measure C to the June Proposed Center. My Repeated Public Comments at the Planning Commission's June DTSP Study Sessions During the Planning Commission's Study Sessions this summer on the June DTSP,as a part of my public comments, I have repeatedly asked the City to address two-(2)questions about Triangle Park and Measure C. First,does the City agree that Triangle Park is a park under Measure C? Second,if the City were to attempt to move forward with the proposed cultural center at Triangle Park, with uses that in any way go beyond a simple expansion or improvement of the Main Street Library, would a citywide referendum be required under Measure C? An attorney from your office, Leonie Mulvihill, attended these Planning Commission meetings and heard my public comments and requests. But again,the public has yet to receive an unambiguous, official written response from the City_ Conclusion It now has been over eight months since my January 22, 2009 letter about the December DTSP and over three months since our two(2)May 2009 meetings. I think the public has waited long enough,too long, for your officially answering our questions about Triangle Park, its parkland restrictions, and the applicability of Measure C to the cultural center proposed for Triangle Park in the June DTSP. I look forward to receiving your answer to this letter, and your answers to the questions that my letter raises. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Richardson Gray cc: All City Council Members All Planning Commission Members The Orange County Register The Huntington Beach Independent i 3 ATTACHMENT NO. Page i of 2 Villasenor, Jennifer j From: Kirk Nason[kirk_nason@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:52 AM To: Villasenor,Jennifer, Fritzal, Kellee; Planning Administrative Assistant Cc: info@hbr4bdt.com Subject: RE: Residential Parking Jennifer& Kellee, 1 am in favor of metered or visitor permitted parking in the entire downtown area with yearly permits(two per single family home)given free to property tax paying residents. In reviewing the residential parking recommendations in Book 2,Chapter 5,Section 5.6.3.1, 1 want to make sure that the metered parking does not end at 11th street, but continues all the way to Golden West and also extend inland to at minimum of Orange Ave.and preferably Palm Ave. Today there is some metered parking on GW,22"d,21st,and others in that area as well as downtown. We often see in July beach goers extend their parking search up to Main Street I despise my front yard, sidewalk and street turning into a garbage dump for significant portions of the year. Visitors just don't care and even cause damage to our cars by cramming themselves into to small parking spots. Similar to downtown, painting spots to buffer parking is also needed. Two weekends ago,l had to cal(the HB Police because of fighting over a spot in front of my home. Ultimately neither car could fit into the spot they were fighting over, which was even more ironic! Often I want to go outside and make comments to the visitors, but fear so, because of the damage they can cause to my personal property if they are vengeful. I have witnessed people, after giving a polite reminder,to in turn drive by and throw all their trash out into the street as well as diapers. We experience "tagging"on our curbs this summer, which the city and to come and remove at tax payer expense and neighbors had front yard furniture stolen. Please make my comments known.. Regards, Kirk 1. Nason ATTACHMENT �'. 9/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 714 321-7298 (c) kirk nason@hotmail.com http://kirkn.spaces.live.com/ First recipient of the "HB Goes Green" home award ` Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail a ATTACHMENT N0. 9/27/2009 RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare Lane#209, Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714-348-1928, richardson.gray@yahoo.com Joan Flynn,City Clerk September 17,2009 City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street - Huntington Beach, CA---92648 Re: City Council Meeting,September 21,2009, Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District(BID) Public Hearing,Steve Bone's Two Possible Conflicts of Interest Dear Ms.-Flynn: Please make this letter and all of its attachments a part of the public comments and official record for the referenced public hearing. I own my home in downtown Huntington Beach. After a 25-year career in commercial real estate investments, I have retired here. Attached are a sample of a September 10t'letter that I sent to all BID members except the Hyatt, and my August 190'letter to.Jennifer McGrath. These packages address two possible conflicts of interest for Steve Bone,the President&CEO of the Huntington Beach Marketing& Visitors Bureau(MVB), which administers the BID. The MVB and BID are largely publicly funded,through the approximately twenty percent(20%)of room taxes that the City pays them. With this public sponsorship and taxpayer funding,Mr. Bone's two possible conflicts come from his$1,000,000-plus (and possibly much more)ownership interest,of at least 10.% (and possibly much more)of the Hyatt. First,with his large Hyatt investment-as such a powerful motivation,Mr. Bone logically should give preference to attracting guests and groups that would benefit the Hyatt first and foremost Second,given that Mr. Bone's compensation from the MVB is largely funded by taxpayer dollars,and based on his sizable Hyatt ownership,I believe that Mr.Bone has a substantive conflict of interest in his lobbying efforts for the proposed cultural center at Main St.Library and Triangle Park(Proposed Center),even if his efforts might be technically legal under.the City's Conflict of Interest Code. The attached worksheet provides a calculation that estimates an increase of at least $590,000 in Mr. Bone's personal net worth,flowing from the Proposed Center's impact on the Hyatt's.room revenues,as set out in the enclosed,highlighted supporting information, including_pages from the MVB's Analysis of Potential Market Demand for the Proposed Center. This second conflict is exacerbated by the'widespread opposition to the Proposed Center from Huntington Beach residents,with more than 5,600 signing a petition. Sin ly yo s, Lf 11tS��U V �D chardson Gray SEP 17 2009 cc: Linda Wine & Planning Commissioners (hand delivered) Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT Vy F ATTACHMENT N®. ' lil,�k6c- 0,,e "do, 411'� tZg- 0� avt� c itw, �� u��{ 11�1\�i —rS � 1��v7 l !`� � V�� f3vl �' 5/' L_Lt IYI/Iv; llr'i- a1 ),::.;:✓h . RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare Lane#208, Huntington Beach,-CA 02648 714-348-1928,richardson.gray@yahoo.com t\ September 17,2009 Calculation of an Increase of At Least$590,000 in Value of Steve Bone's Hvatt Investment Generated from Cultural Center's Projected Impact on Hyatt Room Revenues All Assumptions from Hyatt's Website and.MVB Analysis of Potential Market Demand Attached Pages,Except for Estimated Revenue Valuation Multiple Leisure Share of HB Hotel Demand 50% Projected Increase in Leisure Demand Generated by-Cultural Center 10% Total Increased Demand.from Cultural Center(50%X 10°/6-=) 5% Cultural Center Year of Opening 2013 2015 Projected HB Stabilized Hotel Occupancy 72% Share of 2015 Projected HB Occupancy from Cultural Center(5% x 72VQ=) 3.6% Hyatt's Total Guest Rooms 517 Rooms Hyatt's Annual,Supply of Room Nights(365 Nights X 517 Rooms) 188,705 Hyatt's Added Occupied Nights from Cultural Center(3.60/6 X 188,705 =) 6,793 Nights 2015 Projected HB Average Daily Rate(Hyatt's ADR would be Much Higher) At Least$174 Hyatt's Room Revenues from Cultural Center(6,793 Nights X$174 ADR=) At Least (Increased.Total Revenues (w/Food, Beverage, Other) would be Much Higher) $1,181,982 Estimated Revenue Valuation Multiple for Hyatt -5.0 X Hyatt's Valuation Increase from Cultural Center At.Least (5.0 X At Least $1,181,982) $5,909,910 Steve Bone's Percentage Ownership Interest in Hyatt At feast 10% Steve Bone's Increase in Value of Hyatt Investment At Least from Cultural Center At Least 10% X At Least $5,909,910) $590,991 ATTACHMENT NO. Proposed Cultural Center—Huntington Beach,California ?KF Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau—Surf City US18 � J Art N9useuttis $I,233,924. _ $1,27Q,000 _ History Atitums $230A�. . $228.000 ISclence.and"Tim ,Musetirns $2,218,977 $2,637 462 Arbwettstlis and BoWcal Gadens $906.501 $975,319 Fed and`tither: VW'600 $589.1QW Source:Urban Institute analysis,IM,iS Museum Public Finance Survey.2008. ECONOMIC IMPACT The :fact that museums and cultural centers provide employment to nearly 60,000 individuals makes the museum industry a major factor in the economy of the state of California. On a local level, as the City of Huntington Beach embraces its cultural history and "Surf City" roots with the Cultural Center project, secondary effects such as an increase in day-trip visitor spending and extended lengths of stay for overnight hotel visitors are reasonable outcomes. Rather than focus on economic impacts which trace the estimated I flow of money spent by visitors to the proposed Cultural Center, we have analyzed the local Huntington Beach hotel market and have evaluated total occupied rooms in the city based on an assumed opening date for the subject. Additionally, we have determined the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) levels as a result of average length of hotel stays increasing.. Projected Hotel Market Performance &TOT Impact The proposed Surfing Cultural-Center will be the newest attraction for both local residents and visitors of Huntington Beach. As such, we are of the opinion'that an increase in total occupied rooms and average length of stay at the surrounding hotels will occur due to induced demand in the leisure travel segment. The following table represents the mix of demand in 2008 within the seventeen hotels which contribute TOT to the city. Competitive Market 2008 Mix of Demand Market Segment Room Nights Ratio Leisure 219,200 50% ommercial 90,900 71 Group 126,700 29 Total 437,000 100% Source:PKF Consulting _40- 1�J ATTACHM PKF Proposed Cultural Center—Huntington Beach,California Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau—Surf City USAF In order for us to determine the increase in overnight visitors and average length of stay for the leisure segment,we analyzed the historical growth in supply and demand in the local lodging market The primary -market research we conducted involved interviewing representatives,of key lodging'properties in,Huntington Beach. We discussed development patterns in the,area with officials in-the planning department and marketing efforts with representatives:from the Marketing.& Visitor's Bureau. Additionally, we interviewed and obtained data from officials at the city on historical transient occupancy tax receipts. Hotel Visitor Extended Length of Stay Through the combination of our aforementioned research, we have estimated the current average length of stay for overnight-leisure visitors to be three days. This figure fias been assumed according `to our interviews with hotel management personnel at surrounding hotels. According to local city hotel operators, an overnight leisure guest will typically plan activities that will occupy four to five hours of his or her day. just as the areas beaches, retail attractions, and community events now draw many of the leisure guests to Huntington Beach, we believe that a proposed Cultural Center will offer tourists an additional "activity"day to their respective vacation itineraries resulting in increased room nights in nearby hotels. The Cultural Center will offer exciting interactive exhibits, special events, premiers, and a historical learning experience which should provide a four-hour learning and entertainment experience for visitors to the area. We believe the facility will also create additional awareness for international travelers who currently are displaced inf , other-beach destinations such as-San Diego or Newport Beach. Our estimates of the local lodging market potential are. based, in part, upon our recommendations concerning the economic environment and market positioning for future hotel development in the City, as well as the advent of the subject facility. Presented below g are the following-assumptions-we have made in order to project future demand for lodging accommodations as well as TOT collections for the City of Huntington Beach: • The proposed Cultural Center will open in 2013 • The Shorebreak Hotel will open in mid-2009 with 157 guestrooms • The W Hotel will enter the hotel market with 250 rooms in 2011 0 We have induced 22,000 room nights into the leisure segment between 2013 and 2014, consistent with the subject's opening date (this equals approximately a 10 percent increase in total leisure-oriented occupied room nights) CONCLUSIONS RELATIVE TO TOT PROJECTIONS While the Huntington Beach lodging market experienced a record high in 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008, the economic recession has negatively impacted the demand - 41 - ATTACHMENT NO. `' L O PKF Proposed Cultural Center-Huntington Beach,California Huntington Beach Marketing and Vultors Bureau-Surf City USA levels for leisure commercial and"group business m ate•I 2008 � t p and,into o 2009. We expect ,. an absence of growth in the market in the short-term; however Iwe anticipate these events to result in a recovery of demand.growth over the long-term due to Huntington Beach's - beachside positioning"-and -redevelopment ro'ects -neadn completion-.-The--extent--to- Which - - - P P 1 g- P . �. the market r is able-to translate growth in demand to rate and occupancy growth depends primarily upon the .recovery period for the economy, and more specifically the competitive advantage the city can create compared to other surrounding beach-oriented . cities.The following tables summarize the historical and.projected occupancy and ADR for the Huntington Beach: lodging market, which would result from the specific supply and demand-assumptions described herein. We have also presented the associated TOT revenue projections for this market on a calendar year basis. Historical Market Performance of the Local Hotel Market Annual Percent Occupied Percent Market Average Percent Percent Year Supply Change Rooms Change Occupancy Dail Rate Change REVPAR Chan e 2004 606,165 WA 406,365 WA 67.0% $121.07 WA $81.15- WA 2005 606,265 0.0% 433,978 6.8% 71.6 12932 6.8% 9257 14.1% 2006 606,265 0.0 433,452 -0.1 71.5 138.79 7.3 99.23 7.2 2007 606,265 0.0 442,315 2.0 73.0 151.92 9.5 110.84 11.7 2008 606,265 0.0 436,824 -1.2 72.1 151.12 -0.5 108.89 -1.8 CRAG 0.0% 1.8% 5.7% 7.6% 2-08ytd 101,105 WA 70,979 N/A 70.2% $14456 WA $101A9 WA 2-09 ytd im 105 0.0% 57,742 -18.6% 57.1% 133.04 -8.0% 75.98 -25.1% Source:PKF Consulting Pro ected Market Performance of the t oral Hotel et Annual Percent Occupied Percent Market Average Percent Percent Year Supply Change Rooms Change OccupancyDail Rat Change REVPAR Change 2009 629,990 3.9% 406,600 -6.9% 147-00 2.7% $94.87 42.9% __2010 1-663,570 ._ 5.3 .418,700 3.0 63 148.00 0.7 93.39 -1.6 2011 754,820 13.8 449,300 7.3 60 151.00 2.0 89.88 3.8 2012 754,820 0.0 475,700 5.9 63 156.00 3.3 9831 9A 2013 754,820 0.0 502,000 5.5 67 164.00 5.1 109.07 10.9 2014 754,820 0.0 534,000 6.4 71 169.00 3.0 119.56 9.6 2. 015 754,820 0.0 543,500 1.8 72 174.00 3.0 125:29 4.8 g016 754,820 0.0 543,500 0.0 72 2.9 128.89 2.9 2017 754,820 0.0 543,500 0.0 72 184.00 2.8 132A9 2.8 2018 754,820 0.0 543 500 0.0 72 190.00 3.3 136.81 33 CRAG 2.0% 3.3% 2.9% 4.2% Source:PKF Consulting z -42- ACCOMMODATION CONFERENCES&BANQUETS -517 guesbnorns•including 3 Presidential suites,57 total suites,275 kings, -A total of 52,000 square feet of function space,20.000 square feet of prefunction 185 queerdqueens,and 16 accessible rooms available;An accommodations offer_ spade,and 40,000 square feet of outdoor AmCti n space •Andalusian-Inspaed furnishings •Three ocean-view balkwms,including the 20.000 square foot Grand Ballroom with • Bathrobes space for up to 2,000 people and over 40,000 square feet of function courtyards for •CD/dock radios and remote 27'cable TV outdoor events •Coffee maker and refrigerator •11.000 square foot Mariners Ballroom with 16 ceilings •Data pat and two-line telephones -Internet access in all meeting rooms Down comforters •Hairdryers RECREATIONAL FACILITIES - •High speed Wireless Internet access -Lagoon-style swimming pool •individual controlled air conditioning •Spa Grottos,a series of three exotic spa pools located amongst lush landscaping and - •in-roan safe rocky outcrops •konlroning board •Tvm beautifully landscaped tennis courts •large bathrooms with natural stone countertops •20.0W square foot Pacific Waters Spa_Reminiscent of an elegant private Spanish •Oversized desks and worWdesk area estate,the Pacific Waters Spa creates a paradise of well-being throughout 17 •Original artwork treatment roans and addoor private treatment areas_We offer such kocudes as: •Pillow top mattresses dry sauna,steam moors,mWs and womWs lounges with private whirlpools,water- •Private bakxiny/patio fan showers,a premier fitness center,and a full service salon -Nearby championship golf courses SERVICES& FACILt T tES •Direct beach access via a pedestrian bridge •Camp Hyatt"activities for kids •Children's activity,center POINTS OF INTEREST •Concierge services •Scenic Pacific Coast Highway •Retail plaza with unique shops and boutiques,including ice cream parlor and •Huntington Beach Pier gourmet grocer •Boisa Chice Ecological Preserve •Business Center -Surfing Walk of Fame •ATM •loternationai Surfing Museum •Art gallery •Catalina Island •Gift shop -Newport Harbor •Tobs on the Nose,Adventure Hyatt Store •Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure •Knotrs Berry Farm RESTAURANTS & BARS -Queen Mary •The Californian—Contemporary •Aquarium of the Pack •Surf City Sunset Grille—Casual,Cocktails •South Coast Plaza •Red Chair Lounge—Cocktails •Fashion Island shopping center • Mankota's—Poolside casual •Tower 15—Pizzeria AT TA NO-IL, L RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare Lane#208,Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928,richardson.gray@yahoo.com Steve Bone's Possible Conflicts of Interest,HotelMotel BID and MVB September 10,2009 Dear Members ofthe-Huntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement-District: I am writing about your membership in the Huntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District_(BID). The Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau(MVB) manages the BID. To support the BID and MVB,you pay them about 2% of your room .revenues through your City room taxes. Steve Bone is the President&CEO of the MVB. From his attached Statement of Economic Interests for 2008(and-the enclosed five related newspaper articles),you can see that Mr.Bone owns at least 10% (and possibly much more) of the local Hyatt Hotel. He valued his investment at over S1,000,000(and possibly much more),and he received in excess of $100,000 in annual non-employee income from this investment(and possibly much more). In my opinion,Mr -,Bone's Hyatt investment poses two possible conflicts of interest. First, in light of Mr.Bone's substantial Hyatt ownership,it seems unlikely to me that . he could provide the BID's members with the solidly impartial leadership that they deserve and pay for. With1is large Hyatt investment as such a powerful motivation,Mr. Bone logically should give preference to attracting guests and groups to our local hotels that would benefit the Hyatt first and foremost. V_ Second,Mr.Bone is a leading advocate for a proposed cultural center at Main St.Library and Triangle Park(Proposed Center),which faces overwhelming resident opposition—more than 5,000 petition signers to date,including me. Given that Mr.Bone's compensation from the. MVB is largely funded by taxpayer dollars,and based on his sizable Hyatt ownership,I believe that Mr.Bone has a substantive conflict of interest in his lobbying efforts for the Proposed Center, even if his efforts might be technically legal under the City's Conflict of Interest Code. If you agree with me that Mr.Bone might have a conflict of interest,you could express your opinion by speaking at a Public Hearing about the BID on Monday, September 21't. This hearing is a part of the City Council meeting beginning at 6:00 PM, at City Hall,2000 Main Street,92648 (the legal notice is attached). Alternatively or in addition,you could send your written comments to the City Clerk. Written comments must be received by the City Clerk no later than the 6:00 I'M beginning of this City Council meeting, and must contain sufficient documentation to verify business ownership. In case you would like to talk with other.BID members, I have enclosed a two-page membership list, with names,addresses,and phone numbers. Today I have mailed this same letter to all BID members except the Hyatt. Thank you for your consideration of my opinions. Sincerely yours, Richardson Gray T ATTACHMEN ed I e. FORM WA , STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS DaOWW te R use0* CALIFCOVER PAGE R E C E. A ! Public Document 2009 AUG 28 AN 84 03 Phase type or pr/n(In a k. NAME ([AST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE) DA NtNNBER MAWNO ADDRESS CITY ---STATE ZIP CODE OPTIONAL'FAX!E-MAtI.ADDRESS (May use business address) 1. Office,Agency, or Court 4: Schedule Summary Name of Office,Agency, m Court ► Total number of pages Including this cover page: �La % if applica ►Check applicable schedules or"Wo'reportable Inferests'p 1 have disclosed Interests on one or more of the Your Position Cs;�C� Q rig attached . Sctxxk le A:1 ❑Yes-schedule attached ►If ling for mur0 tiple positions,list additional agency(tes)1 ynes6»ents(Leas eau rocs ownw3wp) poslffon(s): (Attach a separate sheet If necessary.) Schedule A-2 Yes-schedule attached Agency. i mesf<tterds(rox or oaneraftw Posif Schedule B ❑Yes-schedule attached new Prom* Sdhedule,C k�yes-sdadule attached 2. Jurisdiction of Office (check at least on@ boxjand 1B er ss PosUbm omer aw Gm ®tee- Schedule O _ §(Yes-schedule attached County of /rooms Ghu Schedule E ❑Yes-schedule attached ❑mdo-County kwome-GAts-Trave!Payments ❑Other -or- No reportable interests on any schedule 3. Type of Statement (check of least one boo ❑ assuming Olficellrittial Date:_l_l 5.Verification AA nnual: The period covered Is January 1.2008, gh December 31, 2008- 1 have used all reasonable diligence In preparing this -0r statement i have reviewed this statermt and to the best of my knowledge the infonriation contained herein and 6 any O The period covered Is___!_/�,through attached schedules Is true and complete. December 31, 2008. i certify under penatty of perjury under the laws of the State ❑ Leaving Office Date Left_—J___ I of California that the foregoing is trm and correct. (Check one) O-The period covered Is January 1,2008, through the cafe of leaving office. Date Signed zlr -or- (wtk 4-y.y O The period covered is f. f. through the date of leaving office. Signature CA iFee n,a«Ism �d ahalement r�you�ro oPodata ❑ Candidate Election Year FPPc Form roo(2008120Qa) FPPC Toll-Free Helpline:866/ASK-FPPC wwwrfppac&Ww ATTACHMENT NO-_L�, SCHEDULE A-2 1 °Investments, Income, and Assets NamB of Business Entities/Trusts (ow Interest is lo% or Greater) •- - •- TRUST -------- -- 11--5 OIL Address Address Z� Chw*one Check one ❑That,go to 2 b(Btislness& ty,complete the hft then go to 2 ❑ Trust,go to 2 KBuslness Erft complete the box,then go to 2 GENERAL OESMPTiOjJ OF TSINESS ACTNITY GENERAL OESCRIPT OF BUSINESS ACTMTY /OrCl-d—dL-�(/ FAIR MARKET VALUE IF APPLICABLE;LIST DATE: FAIR MARKET VALUE IF APPLICABLE,LIST DATE $2.=-$10,11011 Cy zowwo-$1%000 $10.001-$100,000 - 88-' r(1_'J�8 $1aeo1-$100,000 ____1,108 /_/08 $100,001-$11.M.000 ACQUIRED DISPOSED $100.001-$1.000AM ACQUIRED DISPOSED Over$1.000.000 $1.000,000 NA011 RE OF NATURE OF INVESTMENT ❑sob B� Pe*--[* ❑ ❑sore Proprietorship K-PadnersMp ❑ Otirer YOUR BUSMESS POSITION X J-1 C-3 `S -a YOUR BUSINESS POSnON K • o • $1 $488 - ❑ 10,001-$100,000 Q$0-$4W 0$10,001-"00.000 ElSSW-shoo a100.= ®SSW-$i,eoe $100,000 ❑ 0ot ss. -st0.0oa $1.001-$10.000 owc bra bw Check am twrc ❑ MENT XREAL PROPERTY ,® ❑INVESTMENT XMAL PROPERTY INIMM of su dr"M En Err*jx StnsatAddress orAssosaar's Parcel Number of Real Property greetAddre�Assessora Parcel Number of Lai Property Of euelaess AdW gr Description of Btreineas Acg*g CIf-Other Precles tmatlort of Real Property City or Ol1w Precise Looallon of Real Property FAIR MARKET vxmis IF APPLICABLE.UST DATE FAIR MARKET VALUE IF APPLICABLE.LIST DATE $2.000-$10.0w L$717,$D(Ii -$10,000 OMo o01-$100.000 = /"p8 1-$100.000 1 1 08 $100jm-$1,000,0w ACQUIRED DISPOSED -E1,000.000 ACQUIRED DISPOSED Over$1,000,0001,000,000 NATURE OF INTEREST NATURE OF INTEREST ❑Propeew Ovawrshp/Deed of Trust ❑Stock Partnership ❑Property.Ownership/Deed of Trust ❑Stock ?"artnerehip ❑Leasehold ❑other ���"'CCCCCC ❑Leasehold ❑Other Yn,re"Wrti; Yra.rem ❑Check box It additional achedules reporting Investments or real property ❑Check box if additional schedules reporting Investments or reel property are attached are attached I Cornmerrts• FPPC Form 700(200812009)Sch.A-2 FPPC Toll-Free Heipline:888/ASK-FPPC wwwfppc.ca.gov ATTACHMENT NO. . �� SCHEDULE C GALIFCIDIRVIIAs 7.0 Income, Loans, & Business Positions taarnel (Other than Gifts'and Travel Payments) ME RECEIVED NAME OF SOURCE tNCDbAE - NAME_OF SOURCE OF IC:QME -- - - — ADDRESS � Fb��-'- !���Q�� cam- Ac" 441 BUSINESS ACTINAITY,IF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTI1R71r;IF ANY.14SOURCE YOUR BUSINESS POSMON YOUR BUSINESS POSMON GROSS INCOME RECEIVED GROSS INCOME RECEIVED Q$500-$1.000 p 0.001-$10.000 Q$$1*-s1A00 ®$1.001-$10.wo Q$10.001-$100,000 �ovER$100,000 ❑$10.001-$100.0w RUM$100.000 CONSIOERA710H FOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED CONSIDERATION FOR W 9CH INCOME WAS RECEIVED ❑Sd1a1Y ❑SP--s or reOW-ed".ac periner'a k.. [�Salary ❑SP A or registered domestic padner's Income Loan repayawid p Loan repayment ❑Swe or p sate or 4�weoc ar swac-� -fops�eoac etG, 0 Coni d3stoo or p Rented hroomai apt ead awae o/S1gwo or MM p Comrdstlon or 0 Rental Income,Id each sw xo of ft0.00o or as ae iJiOlher -t-t v G � a_� grog., e ® • You are not required to report loads-from commercial lending Institutions. or any Indebtedness created as part -of wretall Installment or-cnedit caved.transaction;.made In the lenda"s.regular course of business on terrns avallable too members of the`pirbltc.Without i4jaI4 to your off ida[status. Personal bans and loans received not In a lender's regular course of business must be disclosed as follows: NAME OF LENDER* MTEREST RATE TEM @4m6wfW1Dw* ADDRESS SECURLTY FOR LOIN BUSINESS ACTIVITY.IF AMC OF!ENDER ❑Nona []Parson!mWenoa C1 new Proper°` sue.!aeareu HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD ❑$Soo-$1.000 p$1.001-$10.wo []Ouerentor $10.001-$100.000 OVER$100.000 06+ar (UescAbel Comments: FPPC Form 700(200812009)Sch C FPPC Toll-Free Helpline:866/ASK-FPPC www fppc.ca.pov AT TACHMENT 0. SCHEDULE C • A Income, Loans, & Business Positions Name (Other than Gifts and Travel Payments) • E RECEIVED- • NAME OF SOURCE/OF INCOME-. - - --- - NAME OF SOURCE OF ADDRESS � _ L� ADDRESSs ;�-�'. c 3�/ arc �eg � CA BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF Y,OF SOURCE 'r BUSINESS ACTFM.."IF AIR.OF SOURV YOUR BUSINESS POSITION YOUR SUSMEms POSITION GROSS INCOME RECEIVED GROSS INCOME RECEIVED ❑$500-$1.000 Q$1.001-$10.000 Q SSW-$1,OW ❑$1.001-$10.000 $10.001-$100,000 OVER$100,000 �$10.001-t100,0W Q OVER$100.000 VXJSIDERATION FOR WHICH=INCOME WAS RECEIVED rAWIDERATION FOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED 3afary ❑Spouse's or registered domestic partrmr's k... Q Spouse's or registered domestic partner'.kworrre Loan repayment ❑Loan iepaymeat Q Sale of El safe ofIPmPah;car.Goat•taJ ( 61 ce4 twat 40a) Q Corrurtssbo or Q Rental Income.Gsi each aovtie or$10,000 or mope ❑Conwdsslon or Q Rental Income,N each wime of S1g000 or arore Omer Q Dow You are not required to report loans from commercial lending Institutions, or any indebtedness created as part- of:a retail Installment or credit card transaction, made In-the lender's regular course of business on terms available to.members of the public without regard to your official status.- Personal loans-and loans recenred not in a lender's regular course of business must be disclosed as follows: NAME OF LENDER' INTEREST RATE TERM 0400WYeam) % Q None ADDRESS SECURITY FOR LOM BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF ANY,OF LENDER None Pet nal reslderce Q Real Properyr Sheol address HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD Q$500-$1,000 CR $1.001 -$10,000 ' Q Guarantor $10,001-$100.000 Q OVER$100.000 Q Other r0esa+�) Comments: a FPPC Form 700(200812009)Sck C FPPC Toll-Free HelpOne: 8661ASK-FPPC www.fppc.ca.gov ATTACH MENT NO.I SCHEDULE D name Income —Gifts ►NAME OF SOURCE r ►NAME OF SOURCE ADOW58S C. C� ADDRESS BUSINESS ACTIVITY.IF ANN#OF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF ANY OF SOURCE DATE(mrNddW VALUE 0 DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) DATE(mm/ddW VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) �Y10- $ ►NAME OF SOURCE 'NAME.OF SOURCE ADDRESS ADDRESS BUSINESS .IF ANY,OF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF ANY,OF SOURCE DATE(nwWddNSlj VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFTS DATE(mrrddd M VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT( { ► NAIL OF SOURCE ►HAM OF SOURCE ADDRESS ADDRESS BUSINESS ACTMTY,IF ANY.OF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF ANY.OF SOURCE DATE(nMt M*y) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFTS) DATE(mmldS M VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFTM —/—_I $ Commerds: FPPC Form 700(2008=9)Sck D FPPC Toll-Free Helpline:8661ASK-F1PPC wwwfppe.ea.gov T N®. 1 � 'd--y ATTACViMEN ORANGE C001 d 2oos•''. °�' n.spa 0 9- - oft' bur e� Ile : • ' '�' - A downtow'nresi ent told,Huntington �,eac 'officials Au board merribeis had 't:fRe the a its r� d 1~ po onfinancial i>�vestrilgs:!r' By ANHIR;BpRR18 $13I3g'W88a 10V@r9 }tanflY,llath8, Bone'6 700,Ai sh, k ij'i �f�• B' r^ �.YI's>t6olf+k B `'. THE ORANGE COUNTY-REGISTER expected the forms to be Sled has inore thamU miltiot;,•a im►estr:,' early the following week. metits in the A,yatr~ '' Stieve, olrte;.p�eslde`i1h and CE0 'of�the tiureaw H UNT I N GTQN,,.'AEAC}#'••1Ab#e than a But as of FrUiay,six forme were •"towCAn'it notbe llt!l 4Of•,;` J D Shat W week after'thi ;:n£Ly-. `glerted missing.those of.suzanne Beuke. ,his mind;preference i tjt i; ' . • er ttli Wlttoit'Water-'; that its;toi�izs buzf#.igas Bye;'r.ma; who is with a cafe and' nesa to 'fir>3t go to: ietr' ti ?r ;• front Beach Resort ' months in.8 $tsanclal'dilg... event planning comllaaMarco , Gray said �^9C0f�unt'en with Golden. closure ddaaini13';'nia ofttiq YG : ?erry, ,who is al3sociated' with' $oiae said Y}is rote ; 'the," IWest g required forzos have,beeu tui��d ''Shorebreakliotel downtow*Pat ' Hyatt was none cosh �;+gf,later- Cency 'phelps'with Hyatt,Rer. of Icials aid. + qe Y in, a - Rogers, ei?,the'Bella Terra shop• est because he wa_s iiat ,vdting $hh1ey;De4tcloH'with Ar iigos!` "It is a•couture tom an indi. ,ping: ,center; 'Maureen ,'Sloan member of, the 'bolt-d;'k on de Bols Chlca Aduel a tune to•comply sQ fa:are ''J•am@e, o is tvitls 8 Poizits�'laza;' asloed ab4i�t the'haj.}>ce Hof this' �?�ARK�ta1 t "ti a` 1 ,. �„;,. tl.' ` ,' tetf' acge ,witb;D �:•',, ii thatperiod of tam@,":mod' ' �� afthe;music b4sttion wfth t2te, bo l @• $tRh gene 14., slit p' ii +r r;fit Boiue the-Huntington Bch 1.1eg i d Jau�; aid R�ichael sponded,"The board' Whtelli-''. of Atha vfsi$�rs'tiulreen: In= keting and Visitors luau's r' C 'of ', properties; ;gent'board',:aAd they' a;'make r tat: '�executive and presitieht. ��3s., tdiug,'Fstciffc, City on -.their own decisions." couldbe&e�ibbythe ci lQ�.c1�Y' aPlatinifj 9 powntown i'esidet�t,' ` c'ioaetl: h�e>�yapdthese- Gray has",clashed with ,Bane kith a'maxlinu�ti;pf$100 fQr•not, Mpo P�lrrl+;' i io.rireak, Ricliarfison Gr iybadwxltten Qity �ior;';centefi in,Qentral rk over a,study the bur Six co ants- "ffiin ,said ltcmai� ?qrt! ,'.es�eu- I • "b'',; rj Attorney Jennifer McGrath:#i. " 'cozieertteci?,No,"M ayor• storied"to.co�sider the economic 'tive.diredtot.of the state7Fiair Po- ' Ron McLln'with. ' 4 oar --1 Aug. 19 saying that'Bone anH'the 1eBohi'sa�d`about the late 81- ' impacta Qfbuilding'a•cultural con- litical Practices Corhmispion, tad p 'f bureau's 14 board members find gs� M ,folks•Tm sure`adll:do'it ter, down wn's only #rk. e' w eh o rs e f w' ,•, ,itl a tq' Y p ?'b oes h firms;fl'he,, ,Itortn tel fi;P1. ith hn. D failed to turn in docpments known or �, 1 resigh t.it is kind of ag Plana,'call'for 'a pexforznitlg COmtn ssipz}; Gould;„lAter' izn lose o„ , ¢ •Irm ' as''700 forms. The reports ,dim,' ';ei Vte.�;tiiat:Xt ,not a big.deal theatir a�iciundergroundpsrlsing' Snes up to$6;OQ0,.']'oiter.saizl. ' Jo�ycA l�fd�ell�ivith close financial 'Investmebts `aai� f or wit peo�iTe;but'for Some pea " str4ictui a for the canto , that City'Clerk Joan•Flynn said she, death�hatri���Of lrp' den,,.,' t.n area'requii-ement'inthebureau's 'plettis.!Ileydo� tw'anttheir1Ser could'generate$45f�nillio>i�year' :isn't oblig4ted,to•'se6dd a;•sec�R, ° +:;pat'4o�ela� �8e K• ';'•i contract with the city. solial, Snancial inpestments and and attract'about $O(f,Q00,tour-• >�otic@.of�latef #a 'to tkiQ.�iureaig ��14:e .Jai�ies,,tiffS Tha ,forms are-often used to de-' fnforma�on;out 'there and`it•is ists a year. ' "gntu OCt':'-L IV�c4�-ath'aaicl k�e"bu- Pdints'Ailia, `'trn}`u`ie'ctjnflicts of interest with' their ca1L" tural s d Clray' aid the cul enter' read' delaycouldbeconsi ereda Mtchael•Oagnet with .elected officials' such as City Grsy laas�pointed out concerns, Would affect the quality of .�1 r breach of cbntxact, Pr6pettles tom- t ha Bost rnier President of the; 'do'vvnCmva} 'residents: lAo :iid,0A, `' o ,,,c,.>:'y j ;•, C'ouned•.members,Planning t e,•� � '''`'.:i, •:''"'",�+'_;.'..';• 'r• Deort To�ence;�vi#h,1�; 1�. ��; ~-- missioners,the citetreasurer.and 'R,obort Mayer,.Cotp.,'wbich boil' ee e p r,1' ''',�c�o:¢�1ti► UsiC t' has.b n'taken on't}a se c r wm �/ ,•,•},/. " � • •. �l ,•,N•;{,:,:,t; 'Itl. -� the city attorney. the'dty's'Hilton and Hy�►ttbotels, which v�ere Bled with` ie,bu�ee►u; 1 •;;i 9e+s :2, Bone paid Aug.'21 th t,the late'. migli ;have q ct bta emlaars' 'off '� 'e�reij�t " .•1 ",`: ' : �� at a'c utli of interest:,' $, a and hoat'd ureiYa2o �,:,•;: ' 4 "', 'C'd I+f' , +.8.�,'jv:•r.j:v \Yt • i p�A wr �� +p•.•, � r Friday,August 28,2009 said Steve Bone,the Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau's CEO and Only 5 of to u ri s rid president. bureau's 15 fate Downtown resident Richardson Gray had written City Attorney Jennifer McGrath on Aug. 19 saying that Bone an the bureau's forms turned in so 14 hoard members had`failed to turn in far documents,known as 760 forms.The reports disclose financial investments and are a requirement,in the bureau's contract with the city. More than a week after The forms are often used to determine conflicts.of interest -with`elected officials Huntington Beach officials such as City Council members,Manning were alerted about-late Commissioners,the city treasurer and city - financial disclosure forms, attorney. Bone said Aug.21,that the late tiling was an only some have been turned oversight and he expected the forms to be filed early.this week-However,as of today, the only forms that had been turned in were from Bone and board members Kevin Patel with Howard Johnson ess lien and Sui#es, ' The Orange County Register _. Cheryl Phelps with the Hyatt,J.D.Shafer with HUNTINGTON BEACH-=More then a week the Hilton,and former-mayor and Amigos de after the city was alerted that its tourism Bolsa Chico representative Shirley Dettloff. bureau was rive months late in filing financial dllsCIOS exdocuments,only five of the 15 "I'm retired,so mine is kind of a simple required forms have been turn in,officials form."said Dettloff who turned in her said. documents on Monday. 'Some of these people are very much In business so they are "It Is a courtesy to give an individual a time gang to take a little bit longer.I am going to to comply,so we are-in that period of time," assume that every person on the board will i y ATTACHMENT N®. http://www.ocregister.com/article.s/board-city-bone-2544817-bureau-forms 8/28/2009 only D or tourism bureaus I late torms turned in so far I board,city, bone, bureau,forms... Page 2 0,t 3 1.n-Mt. ac EWA* \ have it by(the end of Friday)." conflict of interest because he was not a voting member of the board.When asked The city is still waiting for forms from board about the influence of his position with the members that include Dean Torrence, part of board he responded, "The board is an --the-music legend Jan&Deans and Michael intelligent board and they can make their Gagnet with Makar Properties,which is own decisions." building Pacific City on Pacific Coast Highway and the senior center in Central Park Also Gray has clashed with Bone over a study the on the board are Margie Bunten with Golden bureau commissioned to consider the West College and Marco Perry with ecgnomic impacts of building a cultural Shorebreak Hotel. center on downtown's only park.The plans call for a performing art theater and "Am I concerned?No,"Mayor Keith Bohr said underground parking structure for the about the late filings. °The folks I'm sure will center that could generate$4.6 million a do it or they will resign—it is kind of as year and attract about 300,000 tourists a simple as that.It is not a big deal for most year. people but for some people it is.They don't want their personal,financial investments Gray said the cultural center would affect and information out there and it is their call.' the quality of life for downtown residents. No action has been taken on these plans,which Gray has pointed out concerns that Bone, were filed with the bureau. former president of the Robert Mayer Corp. that built the Hilton and Hyatt mega-hotels, Bone and board members could be fined by might have a conflict of interest.This the city$10 a day with a maximum of$100 morning, Bone tumed in his 700 form,which for not filing,said Roman Porter,executive --' shows he has more then$1 million of director of the state Fair Political Practices investments in the Hyatt. Commission,which oversees these forms. The commission could later impose fines up "How can it not be in the back of his mind to$5,000, Porter said. Preference for the business to firs-t go to the Hyatt?"Gray said.Olt is possible that the City Clerk Joan Flynn said she isn't obligated Hyatt Is struggling and ... he may be trying to send a second notice of late filing to the to save his investment for all we know." bureau until Oct. 1. Bone said his interest in the Hyatt was not a McGrath said the bureau's delay could be Advertlseme�t - PY • S_ _ r� •:A - 4 • 1' ATTACHMENT NO, I q., http://www.ocregister.conVarLicles/board-city-bone-2544817-bureau-forms 8/2812009 .i+--J' -+ �.-..v... vw...ww ✓ ..v avaaaav, aaav�+1a1 JV 141 VVuau�-�..11��'VVll�+� VUL VCiLL�LVLLIIJ... 1"E,V J VL ✓ R- 71-4 r-EI6M- R considered a breach of contract. ._ Contact the writer: aburris@ocregister.com or 949-553-2905 AdVerdsement Mtn Ott:.•+-a ATTACHMENT http://www.oeregister.com/articles/board-city-bone-2544817-bureau-forms 8/28/2009 . . • efiw'.'d3y`.� Ac6"HUitt-bAY;AUCUS'T 27,2.M HUNTINGM- I BEACH INDEPENDENT,' WVVNf,H$liyDEPEN ..T -, CA _..._._:__ . .._.._.__........_, _._.�__._.._.... ............. Alm - Loo0iC; ® , ; #ere # . . R-o�S' def . 3- tv"';W'd COnt the b l but zeau,." 1.1 m 'assdcfatinn br/6�eybafies(�ladrnesa�i}; opts diid'not Feceh�a sa$+�Ozmsspoan+ Residents'.n 'rhe: ownr. ce tfq,^As 'of lai4'VYo¢t dayr�;fo}Jrassoctaxion. 8s fi o1}d g town SpedBc rlatfs pd�siBld;culttiial; ' oath.ulesai ars'had:dompZ@ted the bub, tfie issue, al¢ng?with,�esic ent center 'unw ered tbg': istitfisgtdn� forma,'. i'' Ric a�d6��z.�i�q. ye id B sl�seov Beach Madmdog t 4 c-' $aroau debt and.t�ef,Emgti� twd nq»dae coin thl liO Chad p- reates •almost Avq�nionth `clay i '• dyle"SWm.-06ne s' d'-the Vvfas' the j6=s in W:.wten cor6m:dngwlth6eA*s'CD kf6f ` tiuely.vin pteatbi l.""Ncaw t't's• 'he wss. to obt in.a'.eb r df:a 3nteiest Code. beea'ca�ed�p,otir.a�oeittion,we"re'au' ,drag.=r a,poss�aIe`,cszlttual The bv;rea�t�s 14 board:Viers" ga to'cbtnbly"F$dne slid, "• 6ntat in Ztiaa�ie Park: ` and president.are•,requited by the Th@'bliii�w� brot>gbt'up , GIq. id,he wanted'bq:sge't2ie bu- . city's Conflict of Nita o¢e to .•'r aidbnts and qie Hunti igton'Bea' d's foaas to c3�ed�it�orie`hati°anY complete a Form 700,Statement of DevvntarvVn'Residents Assn " ; sigttiflc tt $4a#rdel iate�eats;ri 'the' Econoniic.lnterest q h vth,the tthe. EHimtingti?xb �eac,:Down- motels -® �opd ing Gray cued City Clerk.'The,'foa:ti9i;d td s@ ti Resideats'AsSn,J ;is,o8nceeri@d vvuaaldbe A ooziSioiest, aay Snanc3al'int&:.end � # tnatrcial disclo f4rlus Yia�e" •' �Me'said',fkms initeteo6lu L The'codd fs.A dAA -'on, not Been. v te';#suaaer. "'tlie; A other city ofilals by t$e sue: dt}s•' iirgm$@`fifty Clem:ofvn' . Cityofac:Ws said thWittatdA.severai licetac gndYi tbi�s 'creaLe;axo tete'st�fQ"tom: lOCa 2 qXtesdap,Aug.2,ti,2009 ® MOK-90UNTY TOU s T B v E e.o-H E- -�,ettu,�:�tner tct t�e�;yrat �S P R E S 1 Q E N F,- p ," AO 0n--:�pfe;l3 W- a E EIOPA— SIIII bureaff 14te - -H U N Ti N.G J O Nj9Oi (ili�r _ 4 Pd.. ^` A N.P 0.11IIA' clovu j TOR -URE_AM-- - r for. : f ii d�.a :� �iso :�. .:. cMe i ►dying}fe's cfine$ �'.if3lalb Hunnf. ton panel says of _the } yer r delay.is dire c eeornr>ke rsl&_ int �t ay holds somerrMatn�ait tw[ bta�4�1reg eni mms,_ over•Q90's uavefittneris: �.r_. - sent the hotels on t�(&mnto m) -By ANNIE Ruests :- I is�i�tt3riro ad lonaad- ORANE OUTEGI5TER Wk hthe still co nn ec dto •THE - t " o �the b , 4cctofhd& st 01upfTiflawk BEACH •The city's.tourism The cityOtVW�offoeiladcontapte the bureati is almoot five months late in bureau i�cee.-9�t - -in- abut the $uanciaII discYosure forms that have been f&me, t r, t'k-obie.Lqw r teci by file eitytht�ee times sirice=the said.Bd� ndet April deadline,offidals said. taotlsi _ - .:t whetliwitir The head ofthe Hitntington$earhMar emPt _4 is i Left `} W « nand'Visitors Barest and 14-board didriot ft w e _ are red dibd by a contract with= tbthe city to ffie docunients kmivn as Form:_ realys vNep3i 7" that dlisciope financial dents. Denean _ ._ °I a ifernis are often used to determine commas of Interest withelected officials , $100 for not Sling,said woman Pbrter..ex such.as city_council memhmrs, Planting i ecutive director of the state Mr- cal' aotame3r Quire,the cily_t er_er tend city Practices Commission, rich oversees t fese-forms.The comp&den cold later Steve-Bone,president and CIA of the , -fines up to$0000,Portw ead& said the delay was an overelght. j City Attorney Jennifer tGrath said `It was one of those= fife bureau's delay cpdd)e.e® ered a things that wag a slip in breach--of conitatt- Saw ( *Zqudcff the araeks p said t;ne, members said that-as long es the Bureau who became bureau_ ' complies gait.*,they are-tot coacerne�d: M Grty i ece W clashed-with Bone over a intentional' -sfi*the bureau dommWdoned ie pQii id- "It - , We will Afl c6nip�j." er the economielmpacts of biilid[nga cul- The•litireau.is a Sri- ' I tural center on downtown's onlypark-The gOnprQfft'that wois P call for a performing arts theater i. and underground'parking structure•for naming the. city Surf the center that,per year, could genii ate _ LYtyrtJ.S:A,apdrecive8 ' i $4.fi million a year and attract shout- ON 41 =10percent of a how tax__i ( j 300,600,Wurist& Gray said the center- ` ®$ to .market the city. I wotaid-affect the quality of Vd for-ilovp}r g , { :town rdsidents.No action.has been#skirt Board inQmbe-rs include . ti elf 8 on these plans. t sig fica t_conuntuiity IViayor Keith Bohr a4d Councilman Dob @ Playef `,s�ti<h as Deaiti flansen said the city has•fnsde efforts 1 Zlur pti�e, PAA of the �f mus the past to have fewer boards ani commis-. • � - ic �. _ Jan &-._-; . _ sions fill out these formsbecaum it has hin- dered people from volunteerlug. (® d: -ties, wtieh bu0 CONTACT THE WRITERt 949-553-2905 of W Padfic;c,ty,hn_Pacific.- 3 Ai bf. --.� nhd - aburrlseocregister.com 'AT TA HMENT NO, �T8 v"E- 0 0:Ql�-_- senicfr eeflter in�iitt'ai•- °"""�® F R7t@ ,QQi�61Y m R Monday,August 24,2009 These forms are often used to determine A'D conflicts of interest with elected officials Tourism bureau 5 such as City Council members, Planning Commissioners,the city treasurer and city attorney. - -mont s fate---on-- Steve Bone,president and CEO of the bureau disclosure forms said the lateness in filing was an oversight. "It was one of those things that was a slip in the cracks,"said Bone who became the Huntington Beach bureau's chief last September. "It wasn't Marketing and Visitors Intentional.We will all comply." _ - Bureau was reminded 3 The bureau is a private,nonprofit group that was instrumental in niclmaming the city tunes by clerk's office about Surf city U.S.A.and receives 10 percent of forms due April 1 . a hotel tax to market the city.Board members include significant community players such as Dean Torrence;part of the By ANNiE BURRIS music legend Jan &Dean,and Michael Gagnet with Makar Properties,which Is The orange County Register building Pacific City on Pacific Coast Highway and the senior.center in Central Park.Also HUNTINGTON BEACH—The city's tourism on the board is former mayor Shirley r bureau is aimos#five months late in filing Dettloff,Cheryl Phelps with the Hyatt,Margie - financial disclosure forms that have been Bunten with Golden West College and J:D. requested by the city three times since the Shafer with the Hilton. April deadline,officials said. The late forms have drawn criticism from The Huntington Beach Marketing and downtown resident Richardson Gray, who Visitors Bureau's presidentlCEO and 14 wrote a letter to the city saying he's board members are required by a contract concerned about Bone's financial - With the city to We documents known as 700 investments.Bone was president of the forms that disclose financial Investments. Robert Mayer Corp.that built the Hilton and Advedsement - Tit Print Powered By (El Format ?oarWo$" httn•//www rx-mnictPr n�m/articlPc%itv-hi�ma��-fnrmc-25�95(iFi-hone-ham �TACHMENT N0=" q 4 c Hyatt mega-hotels and still holds some Some City Council members said as long as financial interest in the Hyatt. the bureau complies quickly,they are not ` concerned. . "it seems that It would be.hard to represent the hotels on the (downtown)group .._ when "I'm not losing any sleep that they filed_it he has one big fish he is still significantly late,"said Councilman Ikon Hansen. Involved with,"Gray said. Gray recently clashed with Bone over a study Bone said it is well known that he is still the bureau commissioned to consider the connected to the Hyatt but it is not a conflict economic impacts of building a cultural of interest. center on downtown's only park.The plans call for a performing arttheater and The City Clerk's office had contacted the underground parking structure for the bureau three times in April about the forms, center that could generate$4.5 million a Assistant City Cleric Robin Lugar said. year and attract about 300,000 tourists a year. Bureau leaders responded with questions about whether the,agency was exempt Gray said the center would affect the quality because it Is a private company but did not of life for downtown residents. follow through with-requiring r the board to file,said Donna Mulgrew,the bureau's vice No action has.been taken on these plans, president of marketing. which were filed with the bureau_ Bone and board members could be fined by Mayor Keith Bohr and Hansen said that the the city$10 a day with a maximum of$100. city has made efforts In the past to have E for not filing,said Roman Porter,executive fewer boards and commissions fig out these director of the state Fair Political Practices forms because it has hindered people from Commission,which over sees these forms: volunteering. The commission could later impose fines up to$5.0124..Porter said.. "I do not think they are all that important for non-elected officials,"Bohr said."For some it City Attorney Jennifer McGrath said the Is just too much private information for them bureau's delay could be considered a breach to want the public to be able-to access and of contract therefore they will choose not to serve on board or commission." Adverr3tneM rwi 30 Day T *41 jr1l Total Print Powered By Fob,ynarifte" ATTACHMENT NO. ) httn-//www nf-revi-aer Rmh.(l q s f i1/0i RW Hansen said requiring the board of a private entity to file the forms u seems like over- reaching." -Contact the writer:-aburris@ocregister.com or 949-553-2905 Adverttaement At% -els"Wreen Lawn Quic�. i11 1 four seasem of# yeWI MW.901dIRMSde.09MMeal Print Powered Sy.�ormat.E< )Mn-doS` P,TTACH MENT N® .... httn•//www R/7.4n •. j -p " pTYOT . .. 6TON� -Z P" k].0ljtE . i -_� e' PUBiitNfll�iG,EOlZ7�E`HO��i�@T� i Z�^ NOitCE t5.HEREBY fiWEN.THJ►" e. w11i.fiold Its-? Oc ! nta Hearhig on the.2009.2010 r#nevrg(of the unHngton Beach Hotel%XAOtt Business-Improvement District.st its•MegUn$-sch •eduled"ori-Se sMUOr-2L at 6..7-1'M it soon hereafter at the.Hyaila on"Be on er, a ea unc m- s %: • e gg rovemon ea a approved by.CNy,CodntiF'In Resotutioo No 2009746 as re-prided belovC RESOLU-00ti..NO.2i)f19-46 A RESOLUTION OF TWCM COUNC6 OF CffY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH DECLARING THE & iNXNTiON TO LEY f-AN AWAL FOR FISCAL YEAR-2009-2010 INh M THE TOf l - BEACHNOTEf UOTEL BUSINESS IMIRWO1/f1 OTDISTRICT- . WHEREAS,the California Legt Wl re in adopthi the-P"ark(n ind--Business j F improvement Area Law of 19g9-{Streets-aod•{Ways Code-63m-it seq.) found that cities are 8uthorlrOd W10y assessments.otV businesses (n order.to•proinote ecodomic revitalizatton and towism„"eate jobs,.attiact new businesses and prepent erosion of business districts;and- ' The California.Leggislature found "that dues are authorfied 16 is assessments on*.businesses whlch benefit front UIoie-improvementi an¢ ' pr'WiHes;and*eabta majority of the hotel and inotcl buslr Wes wlthk the"C _of Hu~oo Beach requested.that the7CIty Council cmOneaee prbcee adea-fheTarkfaagg and Business knprdvemept Area Law 6f 1989 to estabftsa a•Aotel gild saatet business'benefit area-rrfthIn'ths City of ffuntingto Beads and to levy a spedat:assessment-to promote tourism W41 eYents;opd, U- 6 tft coujo toimed a business Improvement.area, knovrtr Im Use !sting p,Reach-Ho%Wotel Business lwovement:01stad the lbe-passage of OrtEfnance Np•3M'on August-_19,-2002.Tka wme to continue thi etistenea of fiva Bbtdet for fl s""cca�tt yea 111 by feiryirig assessments on those.businesses•that benefit-tr =Tka DisWs Advisory Bpard:has prepared at►d.Hlad rritla the*City Ctetk, i an 'Asa 8eport/Opere Budget•20�2009 Fiscal Tear-to bate"Am �9 Yfopssed Rodget for fiscal fear 2OW201r(c4sgUve1y,"Annual R Row,Ttff.REf-ORE. BE w RESOLVED that Uie_City Coandf Af.the ci4• - Beads does haebY iasolve as follows = IL N l (.Tha City Corm "haieb rove(tae llnnuat Report tan by--Vm Advisory Board In ttta CNs of a attailiad aeeeto'es')�R t A ymd"fneapotaattoll Wow b this.mfetehSa..wateb"bHdtidas.a piopassl Gndapt for FF1sc Year 200910 and.a desatlon of to kiiprov aeutactiv►Uesio be provided— a!Year 20Q9 0 _: SECfIOII'i To kiry and assessments rdihkt Hte"District area Year 2009-2010 in-the amount of 196'ed`flow.agid motel o" In hotels and metsb listed iq:br4U t) attashed.hew-0 and tad basin by this rsfeream. - 3=The type.or types-of briproitemeids vud-:sctivttie%-Or W be fended"by the levy of assessments bubisssss wltkia'ttia bLstn hoorairoment area_are spaditad:fa: Esdil6tt A. attached beretq--and tbreln.tty thbieferatce - -- a ore-tile City Oowic8 oa i • ,at 6 00"p m,=of as sooa tltetaa(ter ps tray--be-heard.bt.the-Cod" N_aft,2000 tlAatn Str lft(nting'ton_Beach.•-Cip'flforrdk Et-which,tkmoe ib2 colt�'.wlB-asap futerested perms-4or 4t --agaktst fevyitt¢it,v sssesstnettt,�an4 Df'spedfied;;;yyppee Of lmpro6ements oractivillm 1'iatest , ie i ' be made 90W or jn a ieg;'buf, it Writlim*80 be Sled wfUr the Matt at of before the time'R for the(tearing aad-eombdn tlon to veUbuskess.ow mp bV pcote3t. Any protest tntng to sae regularity nr->aaey-pf proceddimo shall be kp waft sod saad ciemh set forte: ar'delaet-lg-vrte(d+Use ob]ecUop b aia ,;The ry ColQicR irdy 6Ye6utarigrin the form of t of-a vfi t protest apd at t!"pub8e ` boa ft -del oarbdd sdnor defects;yk 11 titrltteh' ter be b'verRing;itt an saaOrr o4 pia 4n+bBt_biming fist forth above if rutiltat otesti wt ieicefve4 by site 4vmefs off*mId'the fiistrii ,:wtdch will par 50%ax lasts -- Uta.'totaf a£sessa+atts'-to•be leviefl, Itp-futt♦ier. _ta levy: ptoposed assessoieM shall.be.takes 4or a; of one fTdA _ dat6$f:"f a(q ' protest 6y.ftce i�tj CoudcfL the trfOrtly aEYalt�t-the_ "of rpesiflefl.tyPa or apes• eri�nts-r�ytty within thi'll typek.ef-1mQro ._ tit aettvtttas 9WOlie eRthtrieLed i - - • er ecR -Ro `Ra i pal h'y"ca og:oWrefoftltlOp of- tq as to be once IA dgvpt of getfeiat e�cutaHbn-if_ieds{seuen days b� tfw pub0a N 6.-F•tutftk- lrtlormagon r�Da.". the•pi. osed* bus_ ' t dbtrk mayy�6e•o�ttafi�d of Sfloat g4t..iluntaftgton Bead►. Cab9 ielibhonO;j���'tms.ttiewyHAyu{nrig4un Beapdt Cyco, 11ur4 Y iRi[Nl vacc�f ^� Y�+b:wi_�^ter\ I 'S1itfi�f 7:Tfia�43ork a�DlaH(f oeh>ptgte.eoP7�t tafs'resofvtlota dt st (Rag to each budam- t t h thb area-�iith ' en - SeYett after CoundPb��ton oflblstAso ' t:71t(s resob"shbIl take Med to :um.bdapNon: PASSEb`Mllf ADOPTED b:She-4'RY Carm die � ity'af (tuttttnYttOt B464 at a regulat nieeH�t f fretd.od the 1711%dejr at Atteast�009 t IN-estrat-10atod cost-o1providIng ehtl the bpptovefa Ad acdvWbs for F - t ilea b�I1�.o0P• " = • -- "- -- . , `.- Copse;dQ th¢axtdbfts refe(enced abat<eme'aratrepte In' atscd"of via ch Clerk of t' ixeg-stby-te ProJbct f(7 7<7551E6 or•'8trough theT,)tys.ofslisRe:a� t►tpJ/Wmysprk!h'-aa: Q ~ pr$/ ovarnntei /AganStaa/ � -- Pti6tf3tt�dfiunUngtooffeacatndependontSaptemtter3,"2fl09 � ' �` p - ATTACHNlENT , Victor,General Manager 777 Motor Inn General Manager Beach Inn Ken Patel,General Manager Best Western Huntington -- Ted Chen,General Manager Best Western Regency Mike Azad,General Manager Comfort Stephanie T.,General Manager Extended Stay J.D.Shafer Hilton General Manager Hotel Europa Mr.King Sun,General Manager Hotel Huntington Kevin Patel Howard Johnson s,, J General Manager Huntington Suites Lisa Phi,General Manager Huntington Surf Cheryl Phelps Hyatt Mr.Travin Patel,General Manager Ocean View Mr.Darahan Shah,General Manager Pacific View Marco Perry Shorebreak Mr.Sam Patel,General Manager Starlight - Mr.Jitendra Barot,General Manager Surf`n Sands ATTACHMENT N' ;, HOTELIMOTEL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MEM13ERS ' *202011) 0 1 777 MOW Inn o: 92849 714.848.5561 Beach Inn Motet 811 n. 9 848 7184.1=8808 Best western Hu n Beach Inn 18M Rome coast hwev, HUftdnatonBeach JCA, 9264871 , 6.7500 Best Western Reaem Inn 19360" oh Blvd. Huntinciton Beach 4CA, 192W 714-962.4244 Comfort Suites 16301; B untl n Beach CA 92647 1.4-841-1812 Extended Sta America-Huntin n-Beach 6050 SWWhW9qt0raW .- ,.,,IHmntIn*torrj2jft1QA... 92847 714+7994887 Hitton Waterfrotrt Beach Resort 211Coast u ro a0t w CA 92648 7144K56 8000. Hotel Euro a. 7561 CehterAvenue,04Hu nftn;sea 9264 714.89 . 80 Hotel Huntin n Beach, 707,C40ftrAvenge unu nt 9204.7 T14-89.1,0123 Howard Johnson ress Inn&Suites 172 1. Blvd.. Hu n; CA 9264 714475.0250 Huntincton Suites. 72 7 YodhomAvenue undn n'MICA CA 92 714-96 50 Hun n ton Surf Inn a Coast„ 192648 1714,W6-2444 Hyatt Reg en Huni sortandAm 2 c gh 192648 171"Wi234 Ocean Vlew Motel 18198 a apt unti rt ' ch . 92 9 714536-8962 11 N Pacific View Inn.and utter 16220 - c Coast< u n'Beach:: CA 9264 562.59 �4959 22. 'o Sho reak o u n n Beach 20 a ch;. 9 648 171 4 0. z 0 Sta i ht Inn 1 , v u. n chs: 92648714848=8422 0 0 Surf n Sands Motel 1102 Pabific Coast H1 hwa Huntin n Beach CA 92648 714-536.2543 m z 0 P; � k RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare Lane#209 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com August 19, 2009 HAND DELIVERED Jennifer McGrath City Attorney City of Huntington Beach City Hall Fourth Floor 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Ile: Steve Bone,President and CEO,and all Members of the Board of Directors Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau Form 700 Statements of Economic Interest,To Be Filed with the City Clerk Dear Jennifer: From the attached three pages in the Huntington-Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau's (Bureau)contract with the City,dated September 18,2006 and expiring October 1,2011 (and two pages in the accompanying Request for City Council Action)(Contract),you can see that Steve Bone, as President of the Bureau,and all Members of the Bureau"s Board of Directors (Board Members),each are required annually—to file a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700s)with the City Clerk Per the enclosed February 19,2008 biannual City Council review and action;the application of the City Conflict of Interest Code to the Bureau was reconfirmed,including setting out the due date for the filing of Form 700s as April I"each year. From this information,you also can see that.Steve Bone and the Board Members for 2009 are still required to file Form 700s with the City Clerk. Finally,I have attached a copy of Section 2.100.065 of the City Municipal Code,which states in part that"f a]ny such person who fails to file a Statement of Economic Interests as provided in this section shall automatically vacate the office." As of my personal visit yesterday afternoon to the City Clerk's office, the City Clerk's staff informed me that they have been attempting to obtain Steve Bone's and the Board Members' 2009 Form 700s for the last few months,with no success to date. In my.opinion, Steve Bone's and the Board Members' refusals,for nearly five months beyond their due date, to provide the City Clerk with their 2009 Form 700s, are a flagrant disregard of their ATTACHMENT NOaa ., __, . codified ethical and legal obligations to the City,and its residents, property owners, _ taxpayers, and voters. Please let me know as soon as possible when I can obtain copies of Steve Bone's and the Boards Members' 2009 Form 700s. This information is crucially important to me for a number of reasons. 1. As I understand it, Steve Bone and the Board Members are some of the leading proponents, if not the absolute foremost proponents, of the cultural center proposed for Triangle Park(Proposed Center).in the June 12, 2009 draft of the Downtown Specific Plan(June DTSP)and its accompanying Draft Environmental Report of July 20, 2009(Draft EIR). 2. I believe that Mr. Bone led the developments of both the Hilton Hotel (Hilton) and the Hyatt Hotel(Hyatt), located on Pacific Coast Highway near downtown Huntington Beach. 3. Should Steve Bone continue to hold a financial stake in either the Hilton or Hyatt or both,in`gny opinion, this financial stake would create a substantive conflict of interest for Steve Bone in championing the Proposed Center. This conflict would arise from Steve Bone's compensation from the Bureau, provided in large part through City taxpayer dollars,and the direct benefit he would receive in the increased value and increased revenues of the Hilton or the Hyatt or both,expected too be derived from the increased occupancy at downtown ~-' hotels flowing from the Proposed Center as a new major tourist attraction. From the Contract,you can see that-the Bureau,and the Iuntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement listrict that the Bureau administers, together receive approximately twenty percent(20%)of the City's room taxes, a total amount estimated to be$1,160,000 for fiscal year 2006 2007. 4. If Steve Bone does have a conflict such as the one described above,this conflict is even more pronounced due to the widespread opposition to the Proposed Center at Triangle Park,from downtown residents,property owners,taxpayers,and voters. To date,nearly 5,000 Huntington Beach residents have signed a petition opposing the location of the Proposed Center at Triangle Park. The vast majority of these residents live downtown. 5. If Steve Bone does have a conflict similar to the one described above, this conflict would be greatly exacerbated by the massive transfer of wealth,for which the construction of the Proposed Center at Triangle Park would provide the catalyst. I estimate that the loss in property values for residences in the north end of downtown,within a several block radius of Triangle Park,would reach at least tens of millions of dollars in total,if the Proposed Center were built at Triangle Park. Directly mirroring this loss of residential values, the coastal hotels near downtown, including the Milton and Myatt, should have increases 2 ATT ACHMENT I � �, 5�- e - in values also reaching the tens of million dollars in total,if the Proposed Center is'built, caused by their improved revenues and occupancy rates flowing from the Proposed Center. 6. 'On account of this potential conflict of interest for Steve Bone,and possibly ._comparable conflicts for other Board Members,Steve Bone's_and the Board Members' 2009 Form 7009 should he made public at least one month before the Planning Commission's vote on the June DTSP and Draft EII2,currently scheduled.for September 22,2009. To repeat myself, please let me know as soon as possible when I can obtain copies of Steve Bone's and the Board Members' 2009 Form 700s. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. Sincerely yours, Richardson Gray cc: Joan Flynn,City Clerk(Hand Delivered) f ATTACHMENT � - GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ` f CONFERENCE AND VISITORS BUREAU FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT -is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and the HUNTINGTON BEACH CONFERENCE AND VISITORS BUREAU, a California non-profit corporation,hereinafter referred to as"GRANTEE." WHEREAS, CITY desires to grant funds to GRANTEE to perform promotional services, and provide a conference and visitors bureau in the City of Huntington Beach;and GRANTEE has agreed to accept such hinds and to perform such services; NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and-GRANTEE as follows: I_ GRANT OF FUNDS CITY hereby grants to GRANTEE a sum-equivalent to ten percent (10%) of CITY'S ) Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collections each month, payable monthly, following collection of same. 2. PUBLIC PURPOSES LIMTTATION/DURATION OF AGREEMENT All funds granted herein shall be usedonly for the promotion of the.City of Huntington Beach, to attract visitors and convention business, to provide information to persons interested in doing business in the community, to represent CITY on related regional activities such as the Film Commission, to operate a conference and visitors bureau to benefit CITY, and to perform all services as set forth in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. ATTACHMENT NO. 016-333/4145 l In addition to the tasks identified in the Scope of Services (Exhibit A), GRANTEE slial I perform the following tasks: • Attend the City-Council's Downtown Economic Development-Committee meetings. • Conduct status meetings with CITY'S Director of Economic Development no less than four(4) times per year as mutually agreed upon between the Director Economic Development and the President of GRANTEE. • Provide monthly written status reports to CITY'S Director of Economic Development. • Until no longer required by CITY'S Conflict of Interest Code, the Board and President shall annually complete Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest, and file the completed form with the City Clerk. - 3_ TERM:ANNUAL EXTENSION;TE113VE NATION This.Agreement shall:commence on October 1,2006_The initial term of this Agreement is five (5)years_ Commencing October 1, 2011, and.�6 fhe 1st ofOcetober of each succeeding year thereafter,this Agreement shall be annually extended for a new one(1)year term. All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause, upon one (1) year prior written notice to the other party_ In the event of termination, all finished and unfinished documents, exhibits, reports, and evidence shall, at the option of CITY, become its property and shall be promptly delivered to it by GRANTEE. CITY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement for cause upon thirty (30) days written notice to GRANTEE, in the event the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence, that ATTACHMENT NO.-I L 06-33314145 2 17. ENTIRETY F: J The foregoing sets forth the entire Agreement between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed �.. - - by and through their authorized officers 200� HUNTINGTON.BEACH CONFERENCE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,A AND VISITORS BUREAU,a California municipal corporation of the State of corporation: California moo . C- Q1Z ••3 Mayor print name ITS:(circle one)Chairm widen ice President AND City Clerk By= K2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: r f print name r ITS: (circle one) Secretary/ ief Financial CityAttorne f) �st.Secretary-Tneastner� ITIATTE�oD AND APPROVED: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Director of Economic Dev814ment ty Administrator ATTACHMENT NO.�y 06-33314145 9 F.- v RECDvED Council/Agency Meeting Held: -7 1115: 29 /C Council/Agency to: 81'Approved 0 Conditionally-Approved UDeailidY' 111�4u/"City C-le-rk s SignaO& Council Meeting Date: 9/1812006 Department epartment ID Number: ED 06-38 CITY OF HUNTINGTON ,B'EACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CITZANCIL MEMBERS HONORABLE SUBMITTED BY: PEN %0PELCB—R�ETH-G PA, CITY ADMINISTRATOR PREPARED BY: STANLEY SMALEWITZ, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Approve Five Year Grant Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau Beginning October 1, 2006 Statement m!Issue.Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(sy,Analysis,Environmental Status,Affachment(s), Statement of Issue: On May 15, 2006 the City Council approved a five (5) year grant agreement -Vath the Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau with funding set at ten percent (10,%) of the Transient Occupancy Tax(TOT)collections each month beginning October 1, 2006. FundingSource: Funding for the Grant Agreement is included in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2006-07,Account No. 10080101-74020 Recommended Action: Motion to: Approve and authorize execution by the Mayor and City Clerk of the attached five year Grant Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau for 10% of the TOT revenues, beginning October 1. 2006. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the Grant Agreement and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: The Huntington Beach Conference and V'isitors Bureau (HBCVB) was formed in November 1989 to represent the community in the solicitation of leisure travelers, tour groups and conferences- Over the years, the HBCVB has developed annual Huntington Beach Visitors Guides, meeting planners' kits, multi-lingual brochures, a website, and numerous other marketing materials to further the goals of the City relating to conferences and tourism. During the current 2005-06 fiscal year, the Bureau was able to complete the following: • Development of four specialty press kits for birders/naturalists, families, seniors and couples * Launch of the new filming venue website "www-filmhuntingtonbeach-com" • Marketing with Surfing America to host the '06 Junior World Games and '07 World Games ATTACHMEW t4O- REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/18/2006 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 06-38 • Printing a new Dining Guide in a marketing alliance with the H B Restaurant Association A full-page-co-op ad-an the-California-Visitors-Guide - • A 76-page color Huntington Beach Visitors Guide with 150,000 copies distributed • The most comprehensive special events calendar-at"www.surfcityevents.com" • Management of a comprehensive digital photo library of 1,000+ images • Operation of a weekday Visitor Center responding to more than 1,300 walk-in visitors; 1,500 telephone calls from out of town potential visitors; 900 requests from local residents; and. 800 e-mail requests for information annually Through this five_year Grant Agreement, the HBCVB anticipates that new funding Will allow it to continue and expand the programs previously outlined as well as accomplish the following objectives: • Expanded operations of a new Pier Plaza Visitor Center • Completion of a local arts and community project for residents overnight visitors • Printing of Downtown Guide in an alliance with the Downtown Merchants Association The attached Grant Agreement requires either party to give (1) one year written notice to terminate said agreement without cause,-and includes Language that automatically extends the agreement in (1) one year increments each October subsequent to the completion of the initial(5)five year period. On August 5, 2002, at the request of the City's hotels and motels, the City formed a Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District (BID). Through this BID, an additional 1% bevy is assessed on all overnight stays in Huntington Beach and given to the HBCVB. The 7% BID levy generates the same amount each year as this Grant Agreement for 10% of the TOT; and each will generate an estimated $580,000 for the fiscal year 20W07, increasing each year as the local hotels also in their business through better and coordinated marketing. The BID funds, coordinated with the monies provided by the City in the attached Grant Agreement, will 'allow the HBCVB to increase its advertising, marketing and public relations of Huntington Beach as a year-round, overnight destination. Environmental Status: Not Applicable Attachment(s): _-City Cl-ork's Page •- ® - 1. Five year Grant Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the HBCVB for Fiscal Years 2006i07-2010/11 -2- W27 fi11:40 M ATTA(-HNAPNT q •yq REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/19/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 08-003 g Analysis: State law requires-the City Council, Planning Commission, City Treasurer, and City Attorney, among others to file such-Conflict of hiterest Statements:The City.Code acknowledges and-broadens State law to also include those positions designated by the Council. Persons so designated are required to file a Statement upon assuming.their position; an annual statement each April 1,and a Statement upon leaving their-position. The Code requires such persons to disqualify themselves from participating in decisions or :influencing decisions in.which.they-have a conflict,The City's Conflict of Interest Code was most recently amended:in 2005:.Since-then,employee job titles and descriptions.have been,added.deleted, and changedrraaking.it necessa esk n ry to updatelhe Code. Daked em IO ees, boards, comrmissioris, and committees are shown on-"Exhibit B e Staff continues to review all employee,positions for.inc fusion or rerhoval from the list,and the City Attorney staff will be presentim ethics training sessions for all filers on.an ongoing basis to ensure compliance with AB 1234. Council policy requires the City Council, City departments, and-all boards, commissions, and committees to formally review the City Code of Ethics- annually, during the month of January. This Code-is not intended to supersede or invalidate any statute,-ordinance, or - civil service rule or regulation..A slight amendment to the Second Policy Section has been recommended to clarify the requirement of officials to comply-with "local and" state law_ Strategic-Plan Goal:C-2: "Provide quality public services with- the highest professional standards to meet community expectations and needs, assuring that the City is sufficiently staffed and equipped overall_" Environmental Status: NIA Attachment(s): e- 1. Resolution No. -2nng-n9 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Amending its-Conflict of Interest Code. 2. City Code of Ethics. E9.2 -2_ W12008 9:51 AM ATTACHMENT NO. � `lam Resolution No.2008-09 BOARDS,COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES 07 City Council tConvention and Visitors Bureau Design Review Board Planning Commission CONSULTANTS Consultants shall be included in the list of designated officials and employees and shall disclose interests subject to the following limitation: The City Administrator may detennine in writing that a particular consultant, although a"designated position;,'is lured to perform a Fange of duties that is limited in scope andtttis',`is not r&p iced to-fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in Section S above. Such written determination shall include>�dIescription of Consuliant's duties and, based upon that description; a statement'of the extent of disclosure'requirements. The City Adi ministrator's determination is a public record-and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. 18736 3 E9 . 19 EXHIBIT B ATTACHMENT NO. L( February 19, 2008-Council/Agency Minutes-Page 10 of 14 (City Council) Approved A j t for the Orange County the Amended Project Concept Transportation Authority(OCTA)Go Local Grant Program in Partnership with the Cities of Stanton,Westminster, and Fountain Valley to Conduct a Needs Analysitand Transit Connection Study--Approved the amended Go Local;-Step One Project-Concept-overview-to__ _ conduct a needs analysis and transit connection study Submitted by the Director of Public Works. Funding Source: OCTA has allocated up to$100,000 for each Orange County local agency to study alternatives_ City participation funds are not required and not anticipated to be needed to complete the study.effort. (City Council) Adopted Resolution No. 2008-08 Accepting$40,000 in Grant Funds from the Orange County Regional Integrated Waste Management Department for Recycling and Public Education Programs— Adopted Resolution"No."2008-08,'A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Accepting Funds From the Orange'County Regional Recycling and Waste Diversion Grant Program.' Submitted by.the"Director of Public Works. Funding Source: No funding is required for this action. Revenue of$40,000 for recycling and public education programs is anticipated_ (City Council) Approved Project Plans and Specifications and Award Construction Contract in-the Amount of$167,123.40 to Goldete State Constructors, inc:-fo�_the Construction of_Curb Access Ramps at Various locations,MSC-453'and Authorized_ the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute Contract in a Form Approved by the,City Attorney- 1)Approved the project specifications; 2)Accepted the,lowest responsive,and responsible bid submitted by Golden State Constructors, Inc. in the amount of$167,123.40 for MSC 453;.and, 3)Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a construction contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. Submitted by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Economic Development. Funding Source: Funds in the total amount of$180;000 have been,budgeted for this project from Community Development Block Grant(CDBG), FY 2007108,Citywide ADA Ramps,Account No._85782010.82300. The engineer's cost estimate for this project is $170.000. (City Council) Adopted Resolution No. 2008-09 Amending the Conflict of IntereStr Code Requiring Designated Employees and Members of City Boards,Commissions and Committees to File a Statement of Economic interest,and, Reviewed and Approved the Amended City Code of Ethics— 1)Adopted Resolution No.2008-09, 'A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Its Conflict of Interest Code;"and 2) Reviewed and approved City Code of Ethics. Submitted by the City Attorney and the Deputy City Administrator. Funding Source: None. (City Council) Approved and Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute the Trust Agreement with California Public Retirement System(CaIPERS)to Provide investment Services and Prefund Retiree Medical Benefits; Adopted Resolution No. 2008-11 Approving the Agreement with the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust(CERBT) Program; and, Adopted Resolution No. 2008-12 Delegating the Authority to Request Disbursements From the CERBT— 1)Approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the California Employer's Retiree Benefit Trust Program (CERBT) Agreement and Election of the City of Huntington Beach to Prefund Other Post Employment Benefits Through CaIPERS; 2)Adopted Resolution No. 2008-11, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving Agreement With the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Program and Authorizing the Mayor to Sign Such An Agreement on Behalf of the City,' 3) Adopted Resolution No. 2008-12, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington ATTACHMENT NO. 2.100.065 Statements of Economic Interests. Every person appointed to a board,commission,or F committee designated by the City Council resolution adopting the City's Conflict of Interest code,shall file a Statement of Economic Interests with the City Clerk on forms provided by the City Clerk. Statements of Economic Interests shall be filed upon taking office,annually no later than thirty(30) days after the date specified by law,and upon leaving office._Any such person who_fails_to_ftle a_ Statement of Economic Interests as provided in this Section shall automatically vacate the office. (3391- arsa) - 2.100.070 Employment lirrdtation. No person serving on any board or commission shall hold any full or part-time paid office or employment in the Huntington Beach personnel system while so serving,unless otherwise specified (2896IN7) 2.100.080 DufrAon of terms. Members shall serve until their respective successors are appointed and qualified. The City Council shall have the power to fill any vacancies. 'Unless otherwise specified, terms of members of boards and commissions shall be four(4)years,staggered so that the majority of terms shall end in odd-numbered years following the election of four(4)council members and remainder of the teens shall end in odd-numbered years following the election of three(3)council members. (2a9s-s/a7) 2.100.095 Attendance. Any person appointed to any city board,commission,or committee shall automatically vacate the office upon a fifth(5th)unexcused absence during calendar year or upon more than three(3)consecutive unexcused absences at any time during.the tern.ofoffice. Upon request of the absent member,each board,commission,or committee.shall have the authority to determine whether an absence is excused. The appointing authority shall appoint a successor to fill the vacancy. (3124-12/91, 37MM7) - x 2.100 090 ®pen.meetings. All meetings of Boards and commissions shall be open to the public unless -- subject to the closed session exceptions contained in the Ralph M.Biown Act(Government Code §54950). m9r arum 2.100.100 Rules. Each board and commission may adopt such bylaws and rules as may be necessary or convenient for the conduct of its business,subject to approval of the City Council. c m&m7) 2.100.110 Applicability. This chapter shall.apply to all boards and commissions,unless an ordinance enacted after the date of this section establishes different requirements.w24-'2ss;3323-5rss) Huntington Beach Municipaf Code Chapter 2.100 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT NO. , Wine, Linda From: Wine, Linda Oent. Thursday, September 03,2009 4:56 PM o• Barbara Delgleize; Blair Farley; Elizabeth Burnett(E-mail);Fred Speaker;Janis Mantini; John Scandura;Tom Livengood Cc: Hess,.Scott; Fauland, Herb;Wine, Linda; De Coite, Kim;VBasenor,Jennifer Subject: FW:HBTomorrov/s DTSP 9-01-09 comments Attachn*nts: -HBT DTSP Comments 9-01-09.doc From: edkerins@netscape.net[mailto:edkerins@netscape.net] Sent: Thursday,September 03,2009 4:49 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: HBTomorrow's DTSP 9-01-09 comments Please"forward to the planning commissioners. I'm sorry I-was unable to stay-to deliver HBT's DTSP comments on District 1 Tuesday night. However the comments are attached for your review. I was impressed with the range of questions and concerns expressed by the commissioners. I too have walked the streets affected and tried to envision the type of units and density proposed. It just doesn't make sense to me and I would be surprised if it made sense to you.. I would also be surprised if staff could adequately respond to all of your questions,provide you with the options you are seeking and allow time for public review in the short time left before the scheduled public hearing. You may wish to consider that doing the right thing should be priority no.1. Thanks for all your hard work. Ed Kerins SEP : J 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 �HMENT No. ATTA 1 HBT DTSP PC STUDY SESSION COMMENTS 9-01-09 ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO I WAS ASKED TO GIVE STAFF AND CONSULTANTS MY VIEWS ON A FUTURE VISION FOR DOWNTOWN. I SOLICITED IDEAS FROM MY HOME OWNER ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBERS AND HBTOMORROW BOARD MEMBERS. THE VISION WAS FOR A TOURIST AND RESIDENT FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD HAVE THE' FOLLOWING. CHARACTERISTICS: CLEAN SIDEWALKS; PEDISTRIAN FRIENDLY WITHOUT THE CONGESTION AND UBSTRUCTIONS THAT KEEPS RESIDENTS AWAY; UPSCALE COMMERCIAL USES THAT WOULD ATTRACT RESIDENTS AND TOURISTS; THE REDUCTION OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WHO'S SALES COME PRIMARILY FROM THE 'SALE OF ALCOHOL; AND OUTDOOR DINING WITHOUT BREATHING IN AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS. WHEN THE DTS PLAN WAS RELEASED WE FOUND THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT MEET OUR VISION. IT DOES MEET THE VISION OF THOSE WHO WANT 'TO INTENSIFY THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES. THE BENEFICIARIES ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD FINANCIALLY BENEFIT FROM HAVING MORE PEOPLE DOWNTOWN AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE BIGGER IS BETTER. OUR DTSP PLAN COMMENTS .WERE: ENSURE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS DO NOT EXCEED THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR BELLA TERRA II. THE PROPOSED PROJECT CALLS FOR 60 DU/AC AND 5 STORIES VERSUS 45 DU/AC AND 4 STORIES FOR BELLA TERRA II. WITH REGARD TO THE CULTURAL OVERLAY. THIS CONTROVERSIAL RECOMMENDATION APPARENTLY CAME 'FROM THE CONSULTANT - THERE IS NO RECORD OF A COMMUNITY MEMBER SUGGESTING THIS. WE RECOMMENDED THE PRACTICALITY, FINANCING, USAGE, F LOCATION AND OTHER COMMUNITY SUPPORT QUESTIONS BE ANSWERED BEFORE A CULTURAL OVERLAY BE ADOPTED. HBT SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF A CULTURAL CENTER BUT CERTAINLY NOT AT THIS LOCATION DUE TO ITS IMPACT ON ADJOINING RESIDENTS AND INCONVENIENT LOCATION FOR HB RESIDENTS. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT HB RESIDENTS WOULD VOTE YES TO BUILD AND FIND SUCH A CENTER AT THIS LOCATION. OTHER HBT RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE INCREASE IN MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LACK OF UPPER STORY SETBACK WERE ALSO IGNORED. PERHAPS THE EIR'S REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE COULD CONTAIN THESE PROVISIONS. HBTOMORROW HAS SUPPORTED THE PLAZA ALMERIA MIXED USE PROJECT, THE 31 ACRE PACIFIC CITY PROJECT AND THE BELLA TERRA II MIXED USE PROJECT BECAUSE THEY ARE BENFICIAL TO THE CITY, ITS RESIDENTS AND ITS BUSINESSES. HOWEVER WE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE BECAUSE IT WILL INTENSIFY USES TO THE DETRIMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE RESIDENTS. IN SUMMARY, HBT BELIEVES THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND AT A MINIMUM DIRECT STAFF TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: REDUCE INTENSITIES TO THE LEVEL OF THE BELLA TERRA II PROJECT WHICH IS ALREADY 50% HIGHER THAN EXISTING STANDARDS AND SECONDLY REMOVE THE CULTURAL OVERLAY FROM THE PROPOSAL. IT'S A BAD IDEA THAT WILL LEAD TO TIME CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE LITIGATION AND PUBLIC in�IZ'� i_I.�!1! � ED KERINS HBT DTSP COMMITTEE MEMBER $LEP Q 3 z009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1ACHMENT Wine, Linda From: HBWacky4U@aol.com Vent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 4:05 PM o• Wine, Linda Subject: SAVE TRIANGLE SQUARE -My name- Debra Goode and l-own-a-house in"Old Town"Huntington Beach. PLEASE don't take away our rLibrary:and- square. So many people use the library and can walk there rather than have to take a car and get to the huge library. I could go can about the fact that it has been part of this community for many, many years but lately it is obvious that the leaders c,f our town no longer care about preserving anything that is old and dear to us. I will be at the meeting on Wednesday. This is just terrible! Sincerely, Debra SEP 0 8 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT 1ATTACHMENT NO. l Wine, Linda From: Wine, Linda Sent: Tuesday,September 15,2009 7:48 AM ` To: Barbara Delgleize; Blair Farley; Elizabeth Burnett(E-mail); Fred Speaker, Janis Mantini;John ._ Scandura;Tom Livengood Cc: Broeren, Mary Beth; De Coite, Kim; Fauland, Herb; Friizal, Kellee; Hess,Scott; Mulvihill, Leonie;Smalewitz, Stanley;vllasenor,Jennifer,Wine, Linda Subject:- FW:[HBTALK]An Open Letter to CityAttorney Jennifer McGrath From: Blair Farley[mailto:blair@surfdtylocals.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 6:22 PM To:Wine, Linda;Fauland, Herb Cc: McGrath,Jennifer Subject: Re: [HBTALK]An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrathCEME D Can a copy of this be given to the PC asap please. //,1air SEP 15 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. On Sep 14,2009,at 4:39 PM,McGrath,Jennifer.wrote: The documents responsive to Mr. Gray's request are available for inspection and/or copying at the front counter of the City Attorney's Office_ Included in these documents is an open letter stating the City Attorney's position on the status of Triangle Park. The documents will be available altweek. Please advise if you will need additional time to review- Jennifer McGrath F:om: Kim Kramer<kim@ie-mailcom.mm> To: McGrath,Jennifer Cc: Ismoon4Cawerizon.net<Ismoon4Pverizon.net>; hbtalkCla 1;kby.o[g <hbtalkCDbixby.orq>; CITY COUNCIL Sent: Mon Sep 14 09:03:27 2009 Subject: Re: An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath Jennfer, We will be looking forward to receiving the documents. Thank you. Kira McGrath,Jennifer wrote: Kim - First, please note that City Council is not likely to respond as you have invited a Brown Act violation by your request Second, I never represented to you that I would release the confidential opinion. I have consistently advised that I would r ATTACHMENT NG. ( ` craft a public document for release. Third, the title documents will be released via mail and can be made available at any time. ourth, the document I am drafting will be made available the same way. From: Kim Kramer <kim(ae-mailcom.com> -To: McGrath,Jennifer - Cc: Ismoon40verizon.net<Ismoon4@)verizon.net>;. hbtalk@bixby.org <hbtalk@bixby.org> Sent: Sun Sep 13 13:46:52 2009 Subject: Re: An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath So,let me see if I have this straight: 1) We don`t get to see the original opinion letter that you PROMISED we would see. 2) We don't get to see the revised opinion letter. 3) Your response to the Public Records Act will say"We are NOT showing you anything." and 4) You will prepare a public letter next week-I can only imagine how open and transparent that letter will be. When you release your public letter next week,where can we find that? en you release the title documents tomorrow,where can we find that? Kim ATTN: CITY COUNCIL.MEMBERS-Keith Bohr,Don Hansen,Joe Carchio,Gil Coerper,Jill Lardy, Devin Dwyer, Cathy Green Why are there so many secrets with our city government? Why are the Huntington Beach residents excluded from knowing all the facts so that we can make informed decisions? In the name of openness and transparency,will you provide the City Attorney with a "waiver of privilege" so the residents of Huntington Beach can be see these secret documents? Will any of you respond to this e-mail and give us some feedback? 2 ATTACHMENT NO . McGrath,Jennifer wrote: The title documents are being released tomorrow.The confidential opinions will not be released to the public without a waiver of privilege from the City Council From: Kim Kramer <kim0e-mailcom.com> To:McGrath,Jennifer Cc: Ismoon0cDverizon.net <Ismoon4(ci)verizon.net>; hbtalk@bixby.org <hbtalk@bixW.orq> Sent: Sun Sep 13 13:22:48 2009 Subject: Re:An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath Thank you Jennifer. Where can we find the revised opinion letter that was released Wednesday,as well as the original opinion letter, so that we can compare the two and understand the revisions. Also, can you please release the title search documents that you reference.below that revealed the additional facts that required additional review. Respectfully, Kith McGrath,Jennifer wrote: 1 apologize for the delayed response. As you know, a title search revealed additional facts which required additional review. The revised confidential opinion was released Wednesday_ I will prepare a public letter next week. In addition,the response to the Public Records Act will be released Monday. From: Kim Kramer <kim@e-mailcom.com> To: Linda S. Moon <Ismoon4@verizon.net> Cc:HB TALK<hbtalk@bixby.o[g>; HBDRA Board of Directors <kim@e-mailcom.com>; HBDRA Residents <kim e- mailcom.com> Sent: Sun Sep 13 12:43:19 2009 Subject: An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath cc: City Council, Planning Commissioners, HBTALK, HBDRA and other interested parties Dear Jennifer McGrath, If you stand behind these words, then please release your existing Opinion Letter regarding the Measure C status of Triangle Park. The Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association has been asking for this document since May, 2009. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. i� , 5U! In your meeting with me and other HB residents in May,2009,YOU PROMISED us a copy of that Opinion Letter,or a new letter summarizing the contents of that Opinion Letter. s of today, you have NOT RESPONDED.to my many a-mails regarding same,nor have you returned my, iany phone messages. It`s been more than four months. You have also not responded yet to a formal request-submitted this month for a copy of this document under the California Public Records Act. Will you respond?Will you comply?The deadline is September_l8th. The residents of Huntington Beach deserve openness and transparency in our city government and its elected officials-why are you not releasing this document as you promised you would? As an elected official whose job it is to "protect the community" and be "accountable to the electorate" PLEASE RELEASE THIS DOCUMENT AND RELEASE IT NOW BEFORE THE FINAL DTSP IS PUBLISHED !!! Respectfully submitted by: Kim Kramer Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association Linda wrote: he following message was received from City Attorney Jennifer McGrath. My distribution of its content does not indicate my support for the positions stated therein. Linda ToSent:Sunday, September 13,2009 10:47 AM Subject Time to let your opinions be heard! On Tuesday, September 15,2009,the Charter Review Commission of the City of HB will be hearing public input regarding election issues. The meeting is at City Hall from 6 pm-9 pm. The Charter is the Constitution for the City and has not been reviewed in several years. On Tuesday night,the Charter Review Commission is soliciting public input on if the City should have a directly elected Mayor,change the elected City Attorney, City Treasurer,and City Clerk to appointed positions, and other related election issues. Please try to attend and let them hear your thoughts. Invite your friends, neighbors, and co-workers as well! This is my (Jennifer McGrath's) Statement to the Orange County Register on September 10, 2009. I strongly believe the elected offices of City Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer should remain elected. As independently elected officials,each position is immune from inappropriate pressure and can better protect the community and the General Fund by establishing checks -nd balances with the policymakers. Both the Clerk and Treasurer have `. yen elected positions for nearly 100 years. The City Attorney has been an elected position for over 40 years. 4 ATTACHMENT NC ��? Currently,all three elected officials are accountable to the electorate. Dilution of the right of the people to vote does not lead to better government.Under the current system,the City Clerk ensures. --� transparency and the availability of the public records that belong to the citizens. The City Treasurer is able to receive and invest monies on y behalf of the City to ensure the best possible return on investment and _protection from inappropriate,useof funds.And lastlythe City Attorney provides objective legal advice to avoid illegal or improper decisions. None of the previous Charter Review Commissions have recommended that the City Attorney become appointed.No initiative from the public has ever raised this issue either. Ironically,the only people that have placed this issue on previous ballots are current and/or former council-members. Lastly, each time the voters were given an opportunity to make the City Attorney position appointed,the voters have rejected the opportunity. As for the City Attorney specifically, over 55%of the voters in the State of California are represented by an elected City Attorney.As of November 2008,the following Cities have elected iCity Attomeys: Albany, Chula Vista, Compton,Huntington Beach,Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland,Redondo Beach, San Bernardino, San Diego,San Francisco and San Rafael. In fact,the voters of the Chula Vista elected to create an elected City Attorney as recently as November 2008.The ballot argument supporting the Chula Vista measure stated that"An independent CityE€ Attorney,chosen by the people,will be free to fight umethical-behavior and corruption in city government and be independent of Mayoral or City Council influence." hbtalk mailing list hbtalk@bixby.org http /Jwww,bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk hbtalk mailing list hbtalk kbixby.org http://www.bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk ATTACHME 6i Wine, Linda From: Kim Kramer[kim@e-mailcom.com] If ent: Tuesday,September 15,2009 3:20 PM o: HB TALK;HBDRA Board of Directors;HBDRA Residents Subject: [Fwd:An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath] SEP 15 2009 Huntington Baach PLANNING DEFT.-..--- To:HBTALK;HBDRA Bo4dof Directors;HBT-Board ofDirectors;HBDRA-Res City Council Members,The Honorable Mayor Keith Bohr,Planning Commissioners, OC Register,HB Independent and Other Interested Parties, Our Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath was publicly posted on HBTALK below on Sunday 9.13.09. By Monday 9.14.09 the documents that we have been requesting now for four months are finally available. They are linked below for everyone's review: http://www.e-mailcom.coLn obs/HB, CITY ATTORNEY ndf -wage 1 states that Triangle Park is,in fact,an official and-legitimate park of Huntington Beach and subject to protection under Measure C. That is good news and this "park or no park" controversy is finally put to bed. However,Measure C has all sorts of exclusions when there is a library involved . . . so stay tuned. FYI the 1917 deed to the city from the Huntington Beach Company has a covenant that requires Triangle Park to forever remain a public park. That is good news,however, page 2 of the city's document linked above states that this covenant was removed pursuant to a 1921 deed. That is bad news and means that commercial development on Triangle Park is now up for grabs to the highest bidder. Here's the controversy: The 1921 deed referenced on page 2 has been previously reviewed by our attorneys at Palmieri Tyler as well as Vo other attorneys that are local residents and HBDRA members. The independent conclusion of all three attorneys is that the 1921 does NOT remove the deed restriction. i ATTACHMENT NO, Of course,this will most likely require the proverbial legal battle of The City of Huntington Beach vs The Residents of Huntington Beach. Perhaps our Planning Commission and City Council will have the wisdom to avoid all of this litigation and listen to the will of the people. I hope so. _.. More.than 5.500_HB_residents.have signed a_petition asking our city officials-to respect the cultural and historic significance of the Main Street Library and Triangle Park. NEXT UPDATE: "SAVE THE DATES" The Planning Commission is voting on the EIR and DTSP on TUESDAY,OCTOBER 6th at 6:00 PM. This is a Planning Commission meeting that you don't want to miss. It is going to be AWESOMEM Planning Commission decisions will be made in"real time"and the public will be there in force to voice their opinions. The HBDRA is holding our second "RALLY,AT gRIANGLE PARK" on Sunday, October 4th at 2:60 Pm. Everyone is invited including the press,print and broadcast.I will be speaking for about 20 minutes and giving everyone an update on the situation_ F- It's going to be a GREAT RALLY and I encourage you all to attend.. I am sure the Mayor and City Council will be there as well as all of our friends from City Hall. I would like to extend a personal invitation to Mr. Steve Bone and the Board of Directors of the Marketing and Visitors Bureau. Thanks everyone. Kim Kramer Spokesperson Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association P.S.Your donation checks are arriving every day and are greatly appreciated. Please snake your checks (S100 increments preferred; however all amounts gratefully accepted) payable to HBDRA Legal Fund and mail to: 412 Olive Avenue, Suite 616, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i PLEASE DONATE. WE NEED YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT. 2 ATTACHMENT NO, �c C)� Original-Message------- - Subject:An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath Date:Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:43:19-0700 From:Kim Kramer<kimke-mailcom.com> To:Linda S. Moon<Ismoon4@verizon.net> CC:HB TALK<hbtalkkbixby.org>,HBDRA Board of Directors <kim@a e-mailcom_com>,HBDRA Residents<kim o,e-mailcom.com> References:<OKPXOOIZI8ULMH1 J@vms 173013.mailsrvcs.net> An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath cc:City Council,Planning Commissioners,HBTALK, HBDRA and other interested parties Dear Jennifer McGrath, -- If you stand behind these words, then please release your existing Opinion Letter regarding the Measure C tatus of Triangle Park. The Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association has been asking for this document since May,2009. In your meeting with me and other HB residents in May, 2009, YOU PROMISED us a copy of that Opinion Letter, or a new letter summarizing the contents of that Opinion Letter. As of today,you have NOT RESPONDED to my many e-mails regarding same,nor have you returned my many phone messages. It's been more than four months. You have also not responded yet to a formal request submitted this month for a copy of this document under the California Public Records Act. Will you respond?Will you comply? The deadline is September 18th. The residents of Huntington Beach deserve openness and transparency in our city government and its elected officials-why are you not releasing this document as you promised you would? As an elected official whose job it is to "protect the community" and be "accountable to the electorate" PLEASE RELEASE THIS DOCUMENT AND RELEASE IT NOW BEFORE THE FINAL DTSP IS PUBLISHED !!! Respectfully submitted by: im Kramer Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association 3 ATTACHMENT N ....j.,- _,: , Linda wrote: The following message was received from City Attorney Jennifer McGrath. My distribution of its content does not indicate my support for the positions stated therein. Linda ToSent:Sunday, September 13,200910:47 AM Subject:Time to let your opinions be heard! On Tuesday, September 15,2009,the Charter Review Commission of the City of HB will be hearing public input regarding election issues. The meeting is at City Hall from 6 pm-9 pm. The Charter is the Constitution for the City and has not been reviewed in several years. On Tuesday night,the Charter Review Commission is soliciting public input on if the City should have a directly elected Mayor, change the elected City Attorney,City Treasurer,and City Clerk to appointed positions, and other related election issues. Please try to attend and let them hear your thoughts. Invite your friends, neighbors, and co-workers as well! This is my (Jennifer McGrath's) Statement to the Orange County Register on September 10,2009. .I strongly believe the elected offices of City Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer should remain elected. As independently elected officials,each position is immune from inappropriate pressure and can better protect the community and the General Fund by establishing checks and balances with the policymakers.Both the Clerk and Treasurer have been elected positions for nearly 100 years.The City Attorney has been an elected position for over 40 years. Currently, all three elected officials are accountable to the electorate. Dilution of the right of the people to vote does not lead to better government.Under the current system,the City Clerk ensures transparency and the availability of the public records that belong to the citizens. The City Treasurer is able to receive and invest monies on behalf of the City to ensure the best possible return on investment and protection from inappropriate use of funds. And lastly,the City Attorney provides objective legal advice to avoid illegal or improper decisions. None of the previous Charter Review Commissions have recommended that the City Attorney become appointed.No initiative from the public has ever raised this issue either. Ironically,the only people that have placed this issue on previous ballots are current and/or former council-members. Lastly, each time the voters were given an opportunity to make the City Attorney position appointed, the voters have rejected the opportunity. As for the City Attorney specifically, over 55%of the voters in the State of California are represented by an elected City Attorney. As of 4 ATTACHMENT NO. �� November 2008,the following Cities have elected City Attorneys: Albany, Chula Vista, Compton,Huntington Beach,Long Beach,Los Angeles, Oakland,Redondo Beach,San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco and San afael. In fact,the voters of the Chula Vista elected to create an ected City Attorney as recently as November 2008.The ballot argument supporting the Chula Vista measure stated that"An independent City Attorney,chosen by the people,will be free to fight unethical behavior --and corruption in.city government and be independent of Mayoral or City Council influence." hbtalk mailing list hbtalk@bixby.org ham://www.bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk s ATTACHMENT N .__,_.', Wine, Linda From: Richardson Gray[richardson.gray@yahoo.com] � Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:23 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Fw: RE: Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP Recommendations in Memo to the Planning Commission Dear Ms. Wine: Please make this email one of my written public comments for the October 6th public hearing on the DTSP and its EIR. Thank you. Richardson Gray(714-348-1928) ---On Tue,9/22/09,Richardson Gray<richardson.gray@yahoo.com>wrote: From: Richardson Gray<richardson.gray@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP.Recommendations in Memo to the Planning Commission To: KFritzal@surfcity-hb.org Date: Tuesday, September 22,2009, 7:19 PM Hi Again Kellee, Since I have not heard back from you,I will forward this email to Linda Wine to make sure it is a part of the Planning Commission's package on the DTSP'and EIR for October 6th. Just want to make sure I get your -' memo before the meeting. Thanks again. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane 9208 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 SEP 2 2 2009 714-318-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com Huntington BeachPLANNING DEPT. -- On Tue,9/15/09,Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo.com>wrote: From: Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP Recommendations in Memo to the Planning Commission To: "KelleeFritzal" <KFritzal@surfcity-hb.org> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 4:54 PM Hi Kellee-- Thanks for the update. Do you mean this memo will'be a part of the public package distributed at the Planning Commission Public Hearing for the DTSP and its EIR,which I now have heard is scheduled for Tuesday, October 6th at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers? If not please let me know how I can get a copy of this memo? I appreciate your help. Richardson Gray . 415 Townsquare Lane #208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 t TA��11N�I�T N®. AT 714-348-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com --On Tue,9/15/09,Fritzal,Kellee<KFritzal@surfcity-hb.org>wrote: From: Fritzal, Kellee<KFritzal@surfcity-hb.org> -Subject: RE:Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP Recommendations in Memo to the Planning- Commission To: "Richardson Gray" <richardson.gray@yahoo.com> Cc: "Villasenor,Jennifer"<TVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 11:10 AM The memo will be part of the packet that is being set to the Planning Commission. You will be able to receive once the Commissioners have the memo From: Richardson Gray[mailto: richardson.gray@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday,September 09, 2009 8:27 PM To: Fritzal, Keltee Subject: Fw: Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP Recommendations in Memo to the Planning Commission . , E Again Kellee, As I have not heard back from you for a week now,I wanted to follow up to see how I can get a copy of the referenced memo. Please let me know. Thanks. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714-348-1928 rchardson.graygyahoo.com ---On Wed, 9/2/09, Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo.com >wrote: i 2 ATTACHMENT NO. �( From: Richardson Gray<richardson.gray@yahoo.com> Subject: Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP Recommendation_ s in Memo to the Planning Commission To: KFritzal@surfcity-hb.org Date: Wednesday, September 2,2009,5:39 PM Hi Kellee, At the last Downtown Economic Development Committee meeting,you said that you were sending a memo of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's Downtown Specific Plan recommendations to the Planning Commission. I would like to get a copy of this memo. If you can email it to me,that's.great. If not,I can come by and pick up a hard copy. Please Iet me know. Thanks. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach ,CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.graygyahoo.com J 3 ATTACHMENT N0. I�• C� Wine, Linda From: Punongbayan, Nova Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:09 AM To: Wine,Linda Cc: Hess,Scott;Fritzal, Kellee Subject: Fw- Downtown Specific Plan Update meeting Tues Oct 6th Froon: kate@therockandrollemporium.com <kate@therockandrollemporium.com> To: Punongbayan,Nova Cc: Synrgy4 <Synrgy4@aol.com> Sent:Thu Sep 24 08.25:39 2009 10) Subject: Downtown Specific Plan Update meeting Tues Oct 6th tR1 tS V L�tl V Hi Nova: SEP 241009 2009 Regarding: Huntington Beach Date: October 6th 2009 PLANNING DEPT. Time: 6:00 PM . Location:City Council ChamberHB_,2000 Main Applicant:City of HB Request: Downtown Specific Plan Update It's Kate Kirby from The Rods and Roll Emporium at 205 Main Street.t'm writing to express my concern that the special meeting regarding the Downtown Specific Plan was scheduled on a Tuesday night.I can only assume that you do not want attendance from downtown business owners/managers.As you should know, Tuesdays are Surf City Nights street fair and most of the businesses that are active in the community will be busy managing their businesses_ _.,,- ecause this plan has a direct relation to our businesses; 1 request that-you reschedule this meeting to a night when more of us can be present. If that can not happen, I would like it to be added to the public record that this meeting was purposely scheduled so that most of the downtown business ownerstmanagers,whose livelyhood will be directly affected by this plan,would not be able to attend resulting in an attempt to exclude any concerns(opposing or favorable) of the downtown business owners. Regards, Kate Kirby Managing Partner,The Rock and Roll Emporium 205 Main Street,Hunington Beach, CA 92648 714-960-4040 `t ?JA a 8eacn PLANNING DEPT. ATTAC HMENT HMENT N®. �� Dear Linda, ��`' This letter is intended to voice my strong concern about the potential fu re SEE 28 2009 development of downtown Huntington Beach. As a resident of Orange C unty for close to 40 years andspecifically Huntington .Beach for the past ].S rs, I e sep- DEP t city grow and change-exponentially.. Over the years I have spent most o --- weekends of my life at the beach surfing and hanging-out with friends_and_famiiy. I've seen many positive things occur in this city and some negatives things as well. I've come to expect the sort of reciprocation between good and.bad as should others who've lived in any decent sized city during their lives. I'm writing you today to let you know that I'm not against change nor am I a proponent of change. Change as I see it typically lends itself to growth opportunities. Here is the"But" that I'm sure you've been waiting for. The issue we are facing is simply expanding a beach that is already facing overcrowding as it is. I know that other beaches-are also facing this same issue, but I don't think that we should simply except our disposition and further compound the problem through expansion. I believe that there is a fine line between expanding a city for potential revenue growth and overcrowding a city to the point that it looses it's appeal. I think that we are already feeling the frustrations from over crowded surface streets, loitering, more drinking and driving, fights, vagrancy, theft etc. My impression is that these problems have been getting worse and adding more and niorepeople to this city will only"compound these issues. Please consider this'as my disproval of the idea to expand downtown HB. Sincerely, Eric Verkler ATrACHMENT N�. DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE Findings of Fact/ Statement of Overriding Considerations r � City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 September 25, 2009 ATTACHMENT NO, & ! tents" 1` . Con CHAPTER 1 Introduction.................. ...1-1 CHAPTER2 CEQA Findings...............................................................:......................................2-1 .2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................2-1 CHAPTER 3 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives.............................................:.................3-1 3-1 Introduction......................:................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Project Objectives............................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Selection of Alternatives....---.............................................................---......---..........._....3-1 3.4 Project Alternatives Findings......................................................................................3-22 3.4.1 Downtown Specific Pland Update Alternatives......................................3-2-4 CHAPTER 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations ...............................................................3-5 4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................3-5 4.2 Significant Adverse Impacts.................... ...........3-6 4-3 Findings............................................................................................................................3-6 4-4 Overriding,Considerations.......................................................................................3 - 7-8 Table. Table 2-1 CEQA Findings for the The Downtown Specific Plan Update.....................................................2-3 ATTACHMENT N The Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations iu CHAPTER I I nlrodvictJ8�` This d6wffierit greserits-the Findings of Fact and Statement'of-Overriding Considerations that must-be adopted by the City of Huntington Beach (City) pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15091 and 15093,respectively, of the California EnvimnmentalQuali YAct Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) prior to the approval of the Downtown Specific Plan Update (proposed project). This document is organized as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chapter 2 Presents the CEQA Findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including the identified significant cumulative impact. Chapter 3 Presents the alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to the findings contained in Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City must consider and make findings regarding alternatives when a project would involve environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level,or cannot be substantially reduced,by proposed mitigation measures. Chapter 4 Presents a Statement of Overriding Considerations that is required in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA{ Guidelines for significant impacts of the ` proposed project that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The following discretionary approvals by the City of Huntington Beach constitute the proposed project: o General Plan Amendment(GPA) No. 08-007 represents a request for the following: 1) To amend the General Plan Land Use Element by amending the Land Use Map and Land Use Schedule and the Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map within the 336-acre DTSP area to reflect the reconfiguration of the existing 11 districts to seven districts and revisions to development standards, notably increases in allowable building heights and densities as well as the elimination of floor area ratio (FAR)requirements as follows: • To increase the allowable residential density from the currently allowed 25—30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) up to a maximum 50 du/ac (with limitations based on net site area) in areas of District 1,with the exception of certain subdistrict areas. To eliminate existing floor area ratio (FAR) in District 1. • To increase the number of stories from the currently allowed maximum ranging from two stories/30 feet — 4 stories/45 feet to a maximum of four stories/45 feet or 5 stories and 55 feet with a minimum height of 25 feet required in District 1, with the exception of certain subdistrict areas. 2) To amend the General Plan Circulation Element to revise Figure CE-9: Trails and Bikeways as a result of recommendations proposed in the DTSP Update and traffic study for the project. o Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 08-004 represents a request for the following: To update and amend the text of the existing Specific Plan No. 5—Downtown Specific Plan. The Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations X1 If UHIVIUM 1 NU- e o - I Introduction ♦ Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA)No:08-002 represents a request for.the following To update and amend the text of the existing Specific Plan No. 5—Downtown Specific Plan and the Coastal Element;reflecting the changes-.to the Land Use and Circulation"Elements.in addition to clean-up items that would' update the Coastal Element to reflect existing conditions and approved projects. 1.2 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement/IdTt�v� ( CHAPTER 2 CEQA f �: : ®- This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the EIR and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines_ The possible findings for each significant and/or potentially significant adverse impacts are as follows: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR("Finding 1"). (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency("Finding 2")_ (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR ("Finding 3"). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,where feasible,to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State CEQA Guidelines 515091, subd. (a), [2] and [31). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." (See also Citizens of Goleta.Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta I1] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410].) Only after fully complying with the above findings requirement can an agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 CalApp.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727]). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific rationale to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations_ The Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the information that demonstrates the decision-making body of the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered"acceptable." The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta I1, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401].) This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the The Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations e- < 2-1 ATTACHMENT N0.1D - -> Findings logical step between the finding and-the facts in the record (State.CEQA Guidelines 515091).Additional facts that support the findings are.set forth in the Draft EIR,,the Final EIR;staff reports to.the Planning T Commission,and the record of proceedings. Table 2-1 (CEQA Findings for the Downtown Specific Plan Update) summatize the potentially significant impacts of-the EIR that were reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation as well as the project-level and cumulative significant impacts, as currently proposed for certification and adoption of the proposed project. 2.2 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement okmiNc� i�iat � i !�Ihapter 2 CEOA,Findings, 'Table ?A • • or - i • • • - • oe • Im Sfcrfemenf' nt�n'"' Aesthetics Implementation of projects within the DTSP area All individual projects would be required to comply with the City's General Plan,applicable code The City finds that the identified will result in more development and increased requirements, and the development standards and guidelines of the proposed DTSP. Lighting changes or alterations in the project, building heights and residential densities resulting associated with projects will be visible but is not considered significant since the DTSP area is which would reduce the potential in an overall intensification of the area, located within an existing developed downtown area, The DTSP project itself Is not considered impacts described In Section 4,13 Implementation of the project would result in visually offensive to viewers. Potential individual project construction activities will also be to less-than-significant levels, are additional sources of light and glare in the area. visible to viewers.Construction activities are short-term impacts and not considered a significant hereby incorporated into the project, impact to aesthetics, The DTSP project site is not a designated scenic vista nor will it impact a No additional mitigation measures designated scenic vista, Additionally, recommended DTSP Update streetscapes would not are necessary with the reduce any of the view corridors from any streets in the DTSP area with respect to views of the implementation of CR4.1-1. beach, the pier, and Pacific Coast Highway. Additionally, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to trees and rock outcroppings, Air Quality Short-term Impacts The air quality assessment conducted for the project evaluated the highest level of potential The City finds that the identified The analysis demonstrates that the project will impact. The assessment also considered construction activities occurring over the 20-year changes or alterations in the project, result in a significant short-term air quality impact, build-out time frame of the DTSP.Mitigation will reduce NOX emissions,but not to the point that which would reduce the potential specifically for NOX emissions. This is based on they will fall under the SCAQMD's thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions of NOX will impacts discussed in Section 4,2,3 a "worst case" scenario of potentially 50 acres exceed the SCAQMD thresholds even after mitigation, and short-term air quality Impacts will be to less-than-significant levels, are concurrently under construction with multiple significant. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, if mitigated to the greatest extent possible, would be hereby incorporated into the project, projects. reduced to below significant levels. The City finds that even with .— Long-term Impacts GHG emissions are a significant global, national, state, and local factor contributing to climate implementation of all feasible The long-term regional air quality impacts due to change, Therefore, the GHG report prepared by,Mestre Greve Associates Identified potential mitigation measures and compliance the proposed project (primarily due to increased conditions of approval several of which are included In the identified mitigation measures.These with applicable requirements, some . vehicle trips) with the recommended mitigation measures are from CARB Staff Proposal's Potential Performance Standards and Measures, No short-term construction and long- measures will be reduced to some extent. significant impacts to GHG are anticipated as a result of the proposed DTSP, term operational emissions would However, ROG and PM10 emissions would continue to, exceed established rT continue to exceed SCAQMD thresholds and be thresholds, considered significant and unavoidable. The long-term regional air quality impacts due to the proposed project (primarily due to increased vehicle trips)with the recommended measures above will be reduced to some extent, However, the.ROG and PM10 emissions would continue to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds No additional mitigation measures C11 and be considered significant and unavoidable.:Analysis demonstrates that NOx emissions are technically feasible beyond the during construction will exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, even after, mitigation is applied. implementation of mitigation Therefore,short-term air quality Impacts will be significant and unavoidable.Analysis shows that measures MM41-1 through MM4,2- ROG and PM10 emissions will continue to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and be considered 12, significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. All other impact criteria would have a level of less than significant,for cumulative Impacts, Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-3 Ch0l0.terZCEQAFindirf9s Tab QA flnding or the'Downtown Specific PIan,Updqt0 7` 777 Biological Resources Although impacts to biological resources were The mitigation measure, which Is an existing requirement of development projects that may The City finds that the identified found to be less than significant and a separate potentially impact sensitive species, Is included in this EIR for incorporation Into future changes or alterations in the project, analysis for impacts on biological resources is not development projects,as applicable, which would reduce potential required for the DTSP Update, a standard biological Impacts to less-than- mitigation measure was identified through the significant levels, are hereby Initial Study/NOP process for the protection of incorporated into the project. No wildlife species under the Migratory Bird Treaty additional mitigation measures are Act(MBTA). necessary with the Implementation of mitigation measure MM4,14-1, Cultural Resources Impacts on historical resources are considered Development will be reviewed individually to determine potential Impacts on historical The City finds that even with potentially significant since development may be resources, No archeological or paleontological resources were identified in a literature search implementation of all feasible proposed that could impact historical buildings covering the DTSP area. Human remains were discovered on the Pacific City site, and a mitigation measures and compliance and historical resources within the Downtown mitigation measure is proposed to establish a protocol If human remains are discovered on with applicable requirements, Specific Plan Update area. It is not anticipated other DTSP sites, Implementation,of the mitigation measures would potentially lessen the potential remains for cumulative that impacts to archeological and paleontological impact from development on cultural resources by requiring professional expertise for impacts to cultural resources, as resources would occur as a result of the DTSP recommendations on preservation or salvation of historical or cultural'resources in the event discussed in Section 4.4.3. No Update since previously discovered archeological projects are proposed on potentially historic structures/sites, However, because It is currently additional mitigation measures are sites no longer exist and the entire project area is infeasible to determine if specific development proposals under the DTSP would result In technically feasible in addition to the > represents a generally disturbed area. demolition or removal of cultural resources, the DTSP Update's cumulative effects could be implementation of mitigation cumulatively considerable,Therefore,the projects Impacts to cultural/historical resources would measures MM4.3-1 through MM4.3- > be would be considered significant and Unavoidable for both the project and cumulative level, 3. 0 Geology and Soils M Impacts in geology and soils are related to the Because the DTSP Update will allow new construction In the DTSP ated, new buildings will The City finds that the identified z geological activity within the DTSP area, such as need to be outfitted with building measures and techniques designed to shore up the structures changes or alterations in the project, I earthquakes, soil conditions, and water table to withstand geological forces that may come to bear on them, It is likely that some of the which would" reduce the potential z Issues. projects that will be proposed in the DTSP Update will include subterranean parking, like impacts discussed in Section 4.4,3 0 several of the projects that have been constructed (or are under construction) In-the,area. to less-than-signifidant levels, are Because of the shallow depth of groundwater,dewatering'activities;In the DTSP area could be hereby incorporated Into the project. needed during construction of any subterranean levels,such as for parking. Enforcement of the No additional mitigation measures ON building code and all applicable standards will be essential to covering the potential impacts are necessary with the associated with new development In the downtown area. -Implementation of CR4*1 and I mitigation measure MM4.4-1. J 2-4 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations .e - aA lifi Stafi�irierif ifs' �5"Urrilr"` °�tn : - Hazards Impacts in the hazards and hazardous materials The City of Huntington Beach shall require a Phase One assessment on properties within the The City finds that the identified area would occur if hazardous materials are Downtown Specific Plan area,including properties utilized for oil production activities,proposed changes or alterations in the project, encountered during demolition of existing for development to assure that any hazardous materials/contaminated,soils present;on the which would reduce the potential structures or if these materials are utilized during property are identified and remediated in accordance with City specifications.422,429 and 431- impacts discussed in Section 4.5,3 construction or in operations following 92.All native and imported soils associated with a project shall meet the standards outlined in to less-than-significant levels, are construction, including cleaning agents, solvents City Specification No.431-92 prior to approval of grading and building plans by the Huntington hereby incorporated into the project, and other routine materials used in certain Beach Fire Department.Additionally,all work at a project site shall comply with the City's Public No ,additional mitigation measures commercial or restaurant activities. Works Department requirements (e.g., haul route permits), All impacts in this area will be are necessary with the reduced to a level of less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures, in the implementation of mitigation event that previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could measures MM4.5,1 and MM4.5.2. present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction in the project area, construction activities in the Immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that 1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post development and 2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards, Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof, Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified(e.g., Huntington Beach Fire Department). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational D Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to ;Mq I commencement of work in any contaminated area. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction of individual projects will most likely All on-site surface water will be conveyed to a drainage system that includes catch basin filters, The City finds that the identified alter the existing drainage pattern of the sites and With compliance with applicable measures of the Drainage Area Management Plan and City changes or alterations in the project, immediate area by providing impervious surface regulations and procedures, the project will not result in any significant substantial erosion or which would reduce the potential M (e,g.,buildings,concrete,and asphalt). siltation on- or off-site, The proposed DTSP does not include any water wells,and no on-site impacts described in Section 4,63 groundwater would be used. to less-than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated Into the project, Z Individual projects that may be constructed per,the DTSP will result in short-term and long-term No additional-mitigation measures 0 Impacts to water quality. Short-term impacts will occur as a result of construction and project are necessary with the grading activities and are not considered significant,Long-term impacts will occur as a result of implementation of mitigation increased usage of the site by vehicles,and people,-These impacts can'be reduced by measures MM4,6-1 through MM4,6- procedures that protect the quality of'storm water runoff. Water quality implementation of the 5, Individual projects will-I include eom liance with the adopted.Drainage Area Management Plan Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding.Considerations 2-5 ' 'Chapter ! o e Table Q� Findings forthe Downtown • -_. 'ifiC 'P[anUpdat0 and adoption of Best Management Practices pursuant to the City-approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for handling any runoff from the projects which may be implemented per the DTSP, Therefore, impacts to water quality are not anticipated with Implementation of recommended mitigation measures, The Environmental Hazards Element of the City's General Plan identifies flood zone areas based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's(FEMA)Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Portions of the Specific Plan Area lie within the FEMA 100-year flood boundary,According to Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRM), during a 1% chance storm, the area east of Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard would become inundated., to nine feet dee in some areas. Land Use and Planning The proposed DTSP Update project would T the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental impacts to land use and The City finds that the project would require approval of a proposed General Plan planning(adopted for the purpose of avoiding or.mitigating a physical environmental impact)as result in less than significant Impacts Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, and an established by the CEQA criteria..The proposed DTSP Update would revise the existing 11 for land use, and planning as amendment to the Local Coastal Program. DTSP districts by dividing the downtown area Into 7 new districts.Amendments to the General described in Section 4.7.3. No Plant and the DTSP include the adjugtment of densities and 1ntensitles of development within the mitigation is recommended or downtown, as well as Increases in allowable building height.The most significant changes are required. proposed for District 1 and District 4,which would provide for Improved circulation,parking;and pedestrian/bicycle movement, and allow for a.mix of land uses that are visitor and resident serving, The DTSP Update will not,however,substantially alter the existing land use pattern in the DTSP area. The DTSP update does not propose any changes to the Coastal Element(or conflict with the Coastal Act) that would result in physical environmental coastal resource impacts, The DTSP Update does not propose physically dividing an established community, Therefore,the project will not result in significant Impacts in land use and planning. � Noise = Short-Term Noise Impacts Construction noise represents a shod-term impact on ambient noise levels.Noise generated by The City finds that even with Temporary construction noise will result during construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable . implementation of all feasible M building construction of individual projects that generators can reach high levels.The project will comply with the City's Noise Ordinance.If any mitigation measures and compliance Z may be implemented as a result of the proposed projects plan to include pile driving (e.g., for construction of subterranean parking), further with applicable requirements, DTSP, Construction noise related to pile-driving analysis would be needed to determine any impacts'from this activity, The use of pile drivers construction-related noise resulting Z will result in significant and unavoidable impacts, presents the greatest intensity potential for construction noise linpacts.This temporary increase from the proposed project could in ambient noise levels would be noticeable and would likely be cause for human annoyance. result in an exceedance of Long-Term On-Site Impacts Therefore, construction activities associated with pile driving would be considered significant established noise thresholds. No Noise impacts from individual project and unavoidable for both the project and cumulative impacts, Long-term noise impacts resulting additional mitigation measures are developments will derive mainly from the traffic from traffic are not considered to be significant, technically feasible in addition to the generated by site activities. implementation of CR4.8-1 and mitigation measures MM4,8-1 through MM4.8.3; 2-6 Downtown Spelcific Plan Update-Program ElR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations '2�cWA'Flndinq� Chaofer� town Table%2�1 UQ� F1 gS for-ff.0 1131'•Vp Sppcifbc Plan #pdate :7777F�w 47�7777777— N Population and Housing The DTSP Update could result in up to 648 new Based on the significance criteria, the proposed project would not result in any significant The City finds that the project would dwelling units with associated population growth impacts relative to population and housing. Proposed residential development is consistent With result In less than significant impacts (1,562 persons) in the Downtown area through projections developed as part of the General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements and for population and housing as proposed redevelopment of properties within the regional projections for the City of Huntington Beach, described in Section 4.9.3. No specific plan area, mitigation Is recommended or required. Public Services The proposed project would result in the need for Fire The City finds that the identified additional public services relating to fire All projects must be designed with fire protection features as an integral part of,the equipment changes or alterations In the project,. protection, police, schools, parks and libraries. systems or devices identified and agreed upon by the HBFD, Comp*liance and implementation which would reduce the potential With mitigation, impacts to public services will be of fire protection requirements would reduce impact*s to an extent, Because additional fire public service-related impacts less than significant, except for fire, Because personnel, facilities and/or equipment may be needed in relation to future,development discussed in Section 4,10.3,to less- additional fire personnel, facilities and/or proposals per the DTSP Update,and it is unknown as to where or how these additions maybe than-significant levels, are hereby equipment may be needed in relation to future provided, impacts relative to fire protection would be significant and unavoidable for both incorporated into the project. development proposals per the DTSP Update, project-level and cumulative impacts, and it is unknown as to where or how these Police The City finds that even with additions may be provided,impacts relative to fire There are no plans for additional facilities or expansion of current facilities and/or additional implementation, of all feasible protection would be significant and unavoidable. staff, The project will be designed to provide safety measures (e.g., alarms systems, security mitigation measures and compliance Projects would also be required to pay lighting). It Is not anticipated that the project will result in significant Impacts to police services with- applicable requirements, development impact fees to ensure impacts to and/or facilities, significant impacts related to fire > other public services (Le, — libraries, schools, Schools service, personnel and equipment "q parks)are less than significant. The proposed project will have an impact on schools due to the Increased 'development would continue with additional __q (population growth) that may occur as result of individual projects implemented per.the DTSP, development, > Based on the development that could occur,approximately 303 students may be generated due to the DTSP. No additional mitigation measures Parks are technically, feasible beyond the Notwithstanding the proposed DTSP Update development, the City is currently deficient 10 implementation of CR4.10-1 through M acres of parkland to meet its,General Plan objective of-providing at least 5.0 acres per 1,000 CR4.10-6 and mitigation measures z residents, The proposed DTSP Update project requires 7,8 acres of additional parkland/park MM4,10-1 and MM4.10-2. __q space to be added to the overall city parkland inventory,The City has met park requirements z within the DTSP but cumulatively will not meet the standard citywide. Since the proposed 648 0 residential units will generate an anticipated 1,562 new residents and development will be required to provide parks or In-lieu fees,the impact on parks Is not considered significant within I the DTSP area, As such, the DTSP Update project,will not result In a y significant im acts to Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2.7 Chaoter 2 CEaA • o ;u parks, Libraries Based upon the existing city population of 202,250 and the average daily customers of 160 at the Main Street Branch,the additional 1,562 residents anticipated from residential development allowed in the DTSP Update would generate an additional 1,25 daily patrons, a less than significant impact. However, site specific projects are analyzed in the development approval process in the context of a range of public services, Including libraries,Through the entitlement process,the Cit will insure that roject s'ecific It La6ts are ameliorated. Recreation With population increases expected through The City has set its park standard at 5 acres per 1,000 people.The City's current population is The City finds that the identified implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan 202,250 people, according to the U,S, Census, The City currently has 1,007.05 acres of changes or alterations in the project, Update over the next 20 years, recreation parkland/park space.When measured against its population,the City is approximately 10 acres which would _reduce the potential facilities in the City of Huntington Beach could be short of the established standard for parkland/park space, The 648 residential units and other impacts described in Section 4,11,3 impacted by population growth and/or increase in potential new development included In the DTSP update results in a need for the equivalent of to less-than-significant levels, are tourist activities as a result of commercial, 7,8 acres of parkland or parks based on City standards, New developments are required to hereby incorporated into the project, restaurant or hotel construction, comply with Code requirements for dedication of land or in-lieu fees to offset impacts to less No additional mitigation measures than significant. The DTSP Update includes a Cultural Arts Overlay in the downtown area are necessary with the (District 1) that would allow for 30,000 square feet of net new development, which could implementation of CR4.11-1 potentially occur on the Main Street Library site, Although this site is not listed on the City's existing Inventory of parks and recreation facilities,it does provide significant green space in the DTSP area, It cannot readily be determined if and when development may be proposed on this site, Project-specific impacts would be analyzed if and when a development'is proposed, Howevet,the proposed development standards for this overlay area would ensure that there is no net loss of green space on the library site. Transportation/Traffic A traffic study was prepared by Kimley-Horn At the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway,the project will increase the The City finds that the identified Associates, Inc, that evaluated the existing and ICU value by 0,02,to bring it to 0,94.At the intersection of Orange Avenue at Lake Street,the changes or alterations in the project, future conditions with and without the proposed project traffic will cause the intersection to worsen from LOS E to LOS F in the evening peak which would reduce potential 4 project, The study concluded that in Year 2030 hour. in addition, in both Year 2020 and 2030 conditions, the proposed implementation of the impacts described in Section 4,12,3 M. the intersection of Goldenwest Street at Pacific pedestrian-only phases at the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway at 6th Street and Pacific to less-than-sigrificant levels, are Coast Highway will continue to operate at LOS E Coast Highway at 1st Street would reduce the capacity for the movement of vehicle by roughly hereby Incorporated into the project. in the evening peak hour, and the intersection of 30%,and results in LOS E or F conditions in the evening peak hour.The proposed pedestrian- No additional'mitigation measures Orange Avenue at Lake Street will worsen to only phase is the direct cause of the unacceptable Level of Service at these two intersections. are necessary with the LOS F levels of delay. The traffic study also Without the pedestrian-only phases,both intersections would operate at LOS D or better in both implementation of mitigation identifies potentially significant impacts for peak hours. Each of these impacts is significant, and mitigation for these project impacts has measures MM4,12-1 and MM4.12-2. pedestrian-only phased signal improvements at been Identified:All other study intersections are fdrecasted.to o erate at LOS D or better in both 2-g Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding,Considerations Chapter MA • • 0 0 • • • /• • • ' • •• • :.W Irt� Yee meM a` PCH and V St. and PCH and 11t St that are peak hours. identified as a potential option in the DTSP Update. However, mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant, In As new development Is proposed, parking is required to be provided pursuant to the addition, if the option is not implemented, the requirements of the DTSP. The DTSP indicates that all parking for residential and hotel potentially significant impact is eliminated, development is required to.be provided on-site, Parking for commercial(e.g., retail, restaurant) developments is also required to be provided on-site, However; project applicants could apply The parking study conducted by Kimsey-Horn for a conditional use permit to satisfy the parking requirement via payment of.in•lieu fees or identified that it is difficult to find parking 35 days shared parking agreements, Parking is required to meet the minimum code requirements. per year and that there is an actual parking Therefore, development associated with the proposed DTSP Update would not result in deficiency 15 days per year, which would require significant cumulative parking impacts. implementation of supplemental parking measures. However, development as a result of the DTSP Update will not result in inadequate parking capacity as all projects would be required to provide parking in accordance with the codified requirements. Utilities and Service Systems Individual projects that may be developed within Water and Sewer Services The City finds that the identified the DTSP area could require extension of existing Water usage will increase as a result of implementation of the development allowed under the changes or alterations in the project, utilities and service systems. proposed DTSP Update, While the update project itself and,its adoption will not create which would reduce the potential > significant and unavoidable impacts per se, each development project proposed as a result of impacts described in Section 4.13.3 adoption of the Plan will need to be vetted with utility providers,to ensure that adequate water to less-than-significant levels, are supplies are, available, to support proposed_development, With implementation of the hereby Incorporated into the project, recommended mitigation measures, the projects potentially significant impacts to utilities and No additional mitigation measures services will be less than significant. The DTSP Update carries no significant and unavoidable are necessary with the impacts to utilities and services, implementation of mitigation M measures MM4.13-1 through Z The City of Huntington Beach recognizes that there will be impacts, particularly with water MM4.13.5. .� supply and infrastructure issues, from cumulative development in the DTSP area,To ensure Z adequate water supply for future developments, and to be consistent with Senate Bill 610 and ® Senate Bill 221,The .City is requiring a water supply assessment of all new development projects that are subject under the Water Code Section 10912 (a), which includes residential development of more than 500 dwelling units,a commercial building greater than 250,000 sq.ft, a hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms,or a project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units, In the context of other approved and pending projects and anticipated growth, cumulative impacts on water supply would be significant: However, additional water supply analyses conclude that the ro'ects,contribution to cumulative Impacts, which_ represents Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-9 :Chapter N Findings, 00 - '2-1 CEQA ;Findings,for - ® o • . o • a eo • - Irri fiUlerrle�nt %lin` ,5ttiltrii ��nc�n" approximately 1.1 % of the Citywide water demand, would not be significant. Therefore, cumulative Impacts,in terms of water supply,are considered less than significant. While there is a separate study by the City to estimate potential future infrastructure needs in the Downtown Specific Plan area, such as pipes,and fire,°,hydrants. As individual development occurs within the DTSP, additional hydraulic studies shalt,be performed to verify that water pipes are adequately sized to support both domestic and fire protection'for each specific project. Water conservation measures and storm water runoff reg4orlents will also ameliorate much of the cumulative impacts from the proposed DTSP Update,Any.potential cumulative Impacts from the DTSP Update.should be limited by the proposed mitigation measeres, Electrical Services Individual projects will most likely require extension of existing electrical laciOties.With regard to electrical distribution,,It should also be noted that an increase,in density within the DTSP area will likely lead to vertical growth, arnd the,quantity of elevators and.escalators withih.4he DTSP area may increase,thus creating a greater,demand for electricity.Currently,incremental repairs and boosters are'being added as development occurs, Several new circuits and lutes will need to be installed to provide the required supply without impairing the levels of service to the surrounding area, Ultimately, the electrical system in the-area should be:master planned to match the conditions proposed in the DTSP,Update. Each development will be required to pay for the development's share of infrastructure improvements to electrical systems ,per SCE requirements. Natural Gas Services --� The project will require expansion of gas services to serve potential future individual > developments projects in the DTSP area. No significant adverse impacts associated with providing gas service to the project are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Solid Waste Services individual project per the`DTSP Update will be required to implement a recycling program Z pursuant to City code that Will divert a substantial amount of solid Waste,from the landfill and .Z continue to assist the City in meeting the California Integrated Water Management Board's (CIWMB) solid waste diversion goals. The project will comply with federal, state, and local Z statutes and regulations related to solid waste, Q Telephone/Cable/Internet No changes are proposed by the providers to the existing cable,Internet and telephone service systems. No significant adverse impacts associated with providing telephone/cable/Internet service to the project are anticipated. Transit Services --� The project does not negatively impact the existing bus'service lines and no additional facilities 2.1 0 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EiR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations �Chapter 2 CEQAe e Talblle Q,4 Fihdiihg orthe i• a • - • •• • her'` :Sunnrfi`' 77 will be required as a result of the DTSP Update development.Therefore,'no significant adverse Impacts associated with providing public transit service to the project are anticipated, .mod A tJ� ' Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-11 CHAPTER 119 r o Alterin,10fivet,',, 3.1 INTRODUCTION The EIR prepared for Downtown Specific Plan Update project considered three separate alternatives to the proposed project_ Pursuant to Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the primary intent of an alternatives evaluation is to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." This chapter describes the project objectives and design criteria used to develop and evaluate project alternatives presented in the Draft EIR. A description of the alternatives compared to I the proposed project and the findings regarding the feasibility of adopting the described alternatives is presented for use by the City in the decision-making process. 3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The project objectives include the following(not listed in any particular ranked order): • Create an environment that promotes increased revenues to support community services and transform the City's economy. • Provide an established vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that.the next phase of community investment and improvement can begin. • Provide and implement a DTSP land use plan that promotes orderly and viable development and that also meets the needs of visitors (including tourism),residents and businesses. • Provide development standards and design guidelines that encourage development of underused parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture that will complement the existing uses in the DTSP_ 0 Provide adequate parking that is also incorporated into the framework of pedestrian pathways, within the downtown. • Establish and maintain efficient on-site and off-site traffic circulation. • Implement green and sustainable building practices,where appropriate and feasible. 3.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES The range of potentially feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that were taken into account when considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f) were environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably The Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of QMNM9 erations®' 15 it, 3-1 •• -r�1 Findings Regarding Frojinto identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic, project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation,analysis and comparison with the proposed project. 3.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to the proposed project,as well as a description of the specific economic, social, or other considerations that make them infeasible for avoiding or lessening the impacts. The City finds that the adoption of any of the alternatives to the project is infeasible. The reasons for each finding are provided following the description of the alternative,and are further described in the Draft EIR. 3.4.1 The Downtown Specific Plan Update Alternatives As shown below and in Chapter 6 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR, three alternatives were evaluated in comparison to the proposed project. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described.The alternatives that were selected for analysis include: ■i No Project Alternative—In addition to alternative development scenarios, Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analyses of a "no project" alternative. The purpose of examining such an alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the effects of approving the project with the effects of not approving the project. For the purposes of this analysis, the "no project" alternative assumes the DTSP area would continue to allow development under the - - standards and provisions of the existing DTSP. It is difficult to determine the amount of } development that would be proposed under the existing DTSP. However, for comparative purposes,it is assumed that this alternative would result in the least amount of development of all three alternatives due to existing constraints such as buildout of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Development under the No Project Alternative could potentially range from no or very little development to substantial development/redevelopment. As a conservative approach, this alternative assumes very little development would occur and therefore, all topical areas would result in less impacts than the proposed DTSP development potential- s Conservative Market Demand Development Alternative—This alternative assumes development potential based on studying conservative marked demand. The conservative development potential identified per the market demand analysis conducted during the preparation of the proposed DTSP Update identifies the following; 203,350 square feet of retail (213,467 proposed with DTSP Update), 75,783 square feet of restaurant uses (92,332 proposed with DTSP Update), 108,814 square feet of office uses (92,784 proposed with DTSP Update), 268 residential units (648 proposed units with DTSP Update), no hotel development (235 hotel rooms proposed with DTSP Update), and 30,000 square feet of cultural arts center (same as DTSP Update). n Reduced Development Alternative — This alternative would involve a proposed DTSP that would include a 50% reduction in net new development. Therefore, this alternative would propose new development consisting of 106,735 square feet of retail uses, 46,166 square feet of restaurant uses, 46,392 square feet of office uses, 324 residential units, and 15,000 square feet of cultural arts facilities. This amount was selected to create a project alternative that would be a reasonable and fair approach to determining whether a reduced development scenario would meet project objectives,and reduce significant environmental impacts 3.2 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of &MONTf 15 , e• - • o -•• • • • - - • - ® No Project AlternativeA_ As discussed previously, Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analysis of a "no project" alternative. The purpose of examining such an alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the effects of approving the project with the effects on not approving the project This "no project" analysis-must discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not to be approved. The No Project Alternative represents the status quo;development could still occur under the existing Downtown Specific Plan. In summary, the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts; including those that have been determined to be significant and unavoidable (including.air quality, noise and public services). The No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts on air quality, hydrology/water quality, noise, land use, public services, transportation/parking,recreation,and utilities and service systems than those associated with the proposed project. However, impacts to cultural resources (which have been determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources) would not necessarily be reduced by the No Project Alternative. Development allowed per the existing DTSP could continue and could potentially impact historical resources.The potential impacts of the proposed project can be mitigated or have been found to be less than significant for many of the topical areas except for air quality,.cultural resources, and public services. Additionally, the No Project Alternative does not fulfill all of the project objectives identified for the proposed DTSP Update. Findings The City hereby finds that the No Project Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic,social,and other considerations: ■ Would not provide,an established vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that the next phase of community investment and improvement can begin- ® Would not enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality,state-of-the-art development. ® Would not require green and sustainable building practices. ® Would not provide adequate parking since the existing Downtown Parking Master Plan of the Downtown Specific Plan has reached its development cap. Conservative Market Demand Alternative This alternative assumes development potential based on studying conservative marked demand. The conservative development potential identified per the market demand analysis conducted during the preparation of the proposed DTSP Update identifies the following; 203,350 square feet of retail (213,467 proposed with DTSP Update), 75,783 square feet of restaurant uses (92,332 proposed with DTSP Update), 108,814 square feet of office uses (92,784 proposed with DTSP Update), 268 residential units (648 proposed units with DTSP Update), no hotel development (235 hotel rooms proposed with DTSP Update),and 30,000 square feet of cultural arts center (same as DTSP Update). Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement�f- r lXgf�clti[p l Chaptef 3 Findings -e• e • Project Alternative� In summary, the Conservative Market Demand Development Alternative would not reduce or eliminate significant ;environmental .impacts. This alternative woul&still allow future potential "development oppommities, but the uses would be slightly different than those of.the proposed DTSP ,Update. Compared to the total net new development.proposed under the DTSP.Update,this alternative assumes -1-0,117-.square-feet less of_retail-uses,-16,549_square..feet.reduction_in restaurant_uses,16,030_squate_.feet_.._ additional office use, 400 fewer.residential units, 30,000 square.feet of cultural uses (same as proposed project), and no hotel rooms. Although, this alternative would have fewer impacts on air quality, hydrology/water quality, noise, public services, population and housing, transportation/parking, recreation, and utilities and service systems than those associated with the proposed project, there would not be a significant difference in the level of impacts. Additionally, this alternative would not reduce the significant=unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed project. This alternative would not meet the project objectives identified for the proposed DTSP Update to the extent that the proposed project would.This alternative provides less housing,retail and restaurant,and no hotel development(promoting tourism/visitors) and potentially a reduction in increased revenues associated with retail, restaurant and hotel uses. Findings The City hereby finds that the Conservative Market Demand Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental,economic, social,and other considerations: ■ Would not provide the same level of residential and restaurant/retail uses at the project site. a Would not promote tourism/visitors by providing for a new hotel development. ■ Would not provide the desired mix and balance of land uses to meet the needs of residents, visitors and businesses. Reduced Development Alternative This alternative would involve a proposed DTSP that would include a reduction in net new development. Therefore, this alternative would propose new development consisting of 106,735 square feet of retail uses, 46,166 square feet of restaurant uses, 46,392 square feet of office uses, 324 residential units, and 15,000 square feet of cultural arts facilities. This alternative assumes a 50% reduction in development compared to the proposed DTSP Update project. Although the Alternative would fiilfill most of the project objectives identified for the proposed project, it would not reduce significant impacts identified for the proposed project to less-than-significant levels and would not fully realize the goals of DTSP Update. Findings The City hereby finds that the Reduced GPA/ZTA Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic,social, and other considerations: ■ Would not provide the same level of residential and commercial/retail uses at the project site. ■ Would meet the City's housing goals to a lesser degree. ■ WouId meet the City's intent to promote increased revenues to a lesser degree. a 3-4 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statemen i t� �r i r �sb ! Chapter 'o - ent of 6verrid g C-qnsiderations, APT _- 4 Statement, of Overridin- - Con,,S�idelrotfons 4.1 INTRODUCTION Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the adverse environmental effects may be considered"acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The City of Huntington Beach proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding _.. the significant and unavoidable air quality, cultural resources, noise,and public service impacts, as well as cumulative air quality, cultural resources, noise, and public services impacts of the proposed project. This section describes the anticipated 'economic, social, and other benefits or other considerations of the proposed project to support the decision to proceed with the project even though four identified project- specific impacts and four identified cumulative impacts are not mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 4.2 SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS The City is proposing to approve the proposed project and has prepared an EIR required by CEQA.The following impacts are unavoidable because it has been determined that no feasible mitigation is available or the mitigation that could be implemented is outside the purview of the City. Refer to Chapter 2 (CEQA Findings) for further clarification regarding the impacts listed below_ Air Quality • Project Specific — Short-term: Peak construction activities associated with the proposed DTSP would generate air emissions that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. This is based on a "worst case" scenario of potentially 50 acres concurrently under construction with multiple projects. Long-term: Reactive Organic Compounds (ROG) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM,, ) emissions will exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and be considered significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement o t1V lYi�� �a � 3-5 Phapter 4,Statement'ofOverriding Co6siderations • Cumulative — Reactive Organic Compounds (ROG) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM10) emissions will continue to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and be considered significant and - -unavoidable cumulative impacts. Cultural Resources • Project Specific — Impacts to historical resources are considered potentially significant since specific development projects may be proposed that could impact historical buildings and historical resources within the DTSP area, including unrecorded resources than may become significant within the 20-year Plan period. • Cumulative — Implementation of proposed mitigation measures will reduce impacts to cultural resources, however, the cumulative effects could be cumulatively considerable because it is currently infeasible to determine if specific development proposals under the DTSP would result in demolition or removal of historical or cultural resources. Noise ■ Project Specific—Pile driving activities would result in substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. ■ Cumulative — Pile driving activities would result in construction related temporary increases in ambient noise levels,resulting in a cumulative impact. ^ Public Services • Project Specific — Additional fire personnel, facilities, and/or equipment may be needed in relation to future development proposals per the DTSP Update,and it is unknown as to where or how these additions may be provided. ® Cumulative — Any increases in personnel and/or equipment would necessitate the expansion of existing facilities or development of a new station, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts,which cannot be fully determined at this time. Recommended mitigation measures would ensure that the DTSP area is served within established response times and adequate staffing and equipments levels are maintained, however, potential impacts are still considered a cumulative impact_ 4.3 FINDINGS The City has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures and project revisions with respect to the project's impacts, both project-specific and cumulative (see Chapter 2, CEQA Findings). The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project (see Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). The project alternatives evaluated would result in impacts lesser-than or equal to those of proposed project. Despite potential impact reductions, the impacts resulting from the project alternatives, with the exception of the No Project Alternative, are not expected to be significantly i 3-6 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of� e�r c lI _�. Chapter • - - of 6Verrid1na;C6h'S1deratidns different than those that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The Reduced Development Altemative.was deemed to be the environmentally superior project alternative. However, the Reduced Development Alternative would not meet the environmental, social, economic, and other `- considerations outlined in Chapter 3, Findings Regarding Project Alternatives,above. 4.4 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Specific economic, social, or other considerations outweigh the project-specific and cumulative air quality, cultural resources, noise and public services impacts stated above. The reasons for proceeding with the proposed project, even though four identified project-specific impacts and four cumulative impacts are not fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level,are described below. ® Proposed Project Benefit 1. The project would create a healthy mix of land uses that are geared toward creating an urban village that serves as a destination to both residents and visitors. 2. The project would involve the-implementation of development standards and design guidelines necessary to develop of underused parcels with a mix of uses and unique architecture. 3_ The project would involve the incorporation of environmentally sustainable development practices into new development proposals, .including those recommended by the US Green ._ Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program Certification, or Build it Green's Guidelines-and Rating Systems. 4. The project provides for a diversity of transportation opportunities, such as walking, birycling and expanded transit use. 5. The project would result in the incorporation of more public open space areas in key locations and in conjunction with new development. 6. The project will maintain and enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality development consistent with the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan. 7. The project will provide the equivalent of 10-15 percent new residential units as affordable housing, consistent with City requirements and California Redevelopment Law.. 8. The project will implement development standards that encourage mixed-use development. 9. The project considers all available options for additional parking in the downtown core and will ensure that adequate parking is available. l Downtown Specific Plan Update EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of� Fdo , r�tiCXT*J. t ' ' 3-7 •e - • - - e ® - e • e •- • • 10. The project expands the boundaries of parking requirements currently limited to the nine-block Downtown Master Plan area that will encourage consolidation and development of underutilized parcels. 11. The project will create an environment that promotes tourism, which will increase revenues to support community services and- transform--the City's economy into a destination economy. 3-8 Downtown Specific Plan Update Program EIR Findings of Fact/Statement cPJTi ' rFti 1 �? J City .of Huntington Beach PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL .IMPACT REPORT ®raft- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program HUNiTINtGTONt REACH DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE SC N: 2008011124 September 28, 2009 Lead Agency City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach Final Program Environmental Impact Report Downtown Specific Plan Update TACHMENT NO. 1 t C, • f page 1 Contents l' Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program._.—'-_-'_'-----.--_--._—'-'----._----_.-l-1 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................l-1 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and _---__.l-2 _ � � ` ` � � } \ � Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City uf Huntington Beach / ~7 pageii ate, 1 . Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 1.1 Introduction The Final Environmental Impact-Report for the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update project(State Clearinghouse#2008011124)identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project in the areas of:aesthetics,air quality,biological resources,cultural resources, geology and soils,hazards and hazardous materials,hydrology and water quality,noise,public services,recreation,transportation and parking,and utilities and service systems. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires that agencies adopting environmental impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. Specifically,the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval.The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing,e.g. design, construction,or operation(Public Resource Code §21081.6). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP)shall be used by the City of Huntington Beach staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update project.Monitoring shall consist of review of appropriate documentation,such as plans or reports prepared by the party responsible for implementation or by field-observation of the mitigation measure during implementation. The following table identifies the mitigation measures by resource area.The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation,monitoring activity,timing and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor,together with date of verification. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-1 Downtown Specific Plan Updat ATTACHMENT . 1.2 Mrri�ation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix mitigaiiorfMonitoring qnd -/0 / Proqram lftlpk� Cwpbr w VerPf tbn M" tion Measure Docwne*tbn Mon' 7h MWMY Skyable Dad Air Quality MM 4.2.1: During construction activities, the following Best Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning Available Control Measure shall be implemented where feasible: notes on grading and contract prior to Dust Control building plans specifications, issuance of a ° grading and building grading permit • Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas, plans for inclusion • Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times per day. • Cover all stock piles with tarps, • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. • Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. ° Exhaust Emissions Require 90-day low-NORxR tune-ups for off-road equipment, Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. C Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if available. Z Utilize diesel particulate filter on heavy equipment Z where feasible, �i Utilize low emission mobile construction equipment. Utilize existing power sources when available, minimizing the use of higher polluting gas or diesel c� Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-2 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigation Monitoring god Reporting Program '� ca►�orranoeveaa► /w/6986M Measure Dmewi tion Mon R d�k Monl6�r S re Dad generators, • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference, • Plan construction to minimize lane closures on existing streets, A full listing of construction emission controls is included in the Air Quality Assessment for Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan dated April 13, 2009(Appendix B). • Painting and Coatings • Use low VOC coatings and high pressure-low volume sprayers. MM 4.2.2: The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning all diesel-powered equipment used would be retrofitted with notes on building plans contract prior to- after-treatment products(e.g., engine catalysts and other specifications, issuance of a technologies available at the time construction commences)to grading and building grading permitplans for inclusion the extent that they are readily available and cost effective when construction activities commence, Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach, MM 4.2.3:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plarl.check Planning �-I alternative fuel construction equipment(e,g,,compressed natural notes on building plans contract prior to gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline)would be specifications, issuance of a > grading and building grading permit utilized to the extent feasible at the time construction activities plans for inclusion commence, Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be Z approved by the City of Huntington Beach. --i MM 4,2.4: The City shall require that developers within the Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning project site use locally available building materials such as notes on building plans contract prior to City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtpwn Specific Plan Update 1-3 _,pageage �. 1.2 1�;,gation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix o. o e e e o °•eo e ' oo lm nmtion Comp&m Vwftdon 969awn Measure Doamw*don Mon R Monlbr SIO&M Date concrete, stucco, and interior finishes for construction of the specifications and issuance of a project and associated infrastructure. building plans for building permit inclusion MM 4,2.5: The City shall require developers within the project Construction Review and approve Plan check Planning site to establish a construction management plan with Rainbow management plan construction prior to Disposal to divert a target of 50% of construction, demolition, and management plan issuance of a site clearing waste. demolition, grading or building permit (whichever comes first MM 4.6.6:The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction equipment engines will be maintained in good notes on building plans contract prior to condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for specifications, issuance of a the duration of construction. Contract specifications shall be grading and building grading permit plans for inclusion included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach, MM 4.2.7: The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, notes on building plans contract prior to motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit not in use for more than five minutes. Diesel-fueled commercial plans for inclusion motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach, MM 4.2.8: The City shall require that any new development Notes and details on Review and approve Plan check Planning Z within the Specific Plan area provide signs within loading dock building plans building plans prior to areas clearly visible to truck drivers, These signs shall state that Implementation - issuance of truck.,cannot idle in excess of five minutes per trip. prior to issuance of building permit 0 Certificate of Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1.4 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix como verNk�aon M' ' Measure f)oprr►enteNon Mon' R Monlbr S n! Dad Occupancy MM 4.2.9: The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning electrical outlets are included in the building design of future notes on building plans approved contract prior to specifications and issuance of a Sfy & loading docks to allow use by refrigerated delivery trucks. Future building plans for building permit Safety project-specific applicants shall require that all delivery trucks do inclusion not idle for more than five minutes. If loading and/or unloading of perishable goods would occur for more than five minutes, and continual refrigeration is required, all refrigerated delivery trucks shall use the electrical outlets to continue powering the truck refrigeration units when the delivery truck engine is turned off. MM 4.2.10: The City shall require that any new development Notes and details on Review and approve Plan check Planning within the project site provide a bulletin board or a kiosk in the building plans notes and details on prior to lobby of each proposed structure that identifies the locations and building plans issuance of schedules of nearby transit opportunities. Implementation - building permit prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy MM 4.2.11: The property owner/developer of individual projects Contract language and Review and Plan check Planning within the DTSP will reduce operation-related emissions through notes on building plans approved contract prior to implementation of practices identified in SCAQMD's CEQA specifications and issuance of a Handbook and the URBEMIS 42,4, some of which overlap, building plans for building permit inclusion Specific measures are delineated in the DTSP Air Quality Assessment(Volume II,Appendix B). MM 4.2.12: The following measures, based on these sources, M shall be implemented by the property applicant to reduce criteria Z pollutant emissions from projects associated with the DTSP 4 Update.Additionally, support and compliance with the AQMP for z the basin are the most important measures to achieve this goal. The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit facilities and City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update p page 1.5 1.2 N,..,-ration Monitoring and Reporting Matrix •a e e e e e '•ee a ee Mit edon Measure Doae►►entaton MoniWmAcft 77mbig R #*MonhDr S' lure Date implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally, energy conservation measures are included, • Transportation Demand Management(TDM) Measures 1, Provide adequate ingress and egress at all Site plan review Review and approval Prior to site Planning entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling of site plan plan approval at curbsides. Presumably, this measure would improve traffic flow into and out of the parking lot. The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required. 2. Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate and Improvement plans Review and approval Plan check Planning/ provide roadway improvements at heavily congested of improvement plans prior to roadways.Again, the areas where this measure issuance of a Public Works would be applicable are the intersections in and near building permit the project area. Presumably, these measures would improve traffic flow. Emissions would drop as a result of the higher traffic speeds, but to an unknown extent. 3. Synchronize traffic signals. The areas where this Capital Improvement Periodic CIP budget Plan check Planning/ > measure would be applicable are roadway Program budget and review and review prior to Public Works intersections within the project area. This measure individual improvement and approval of issuance of a would be more effective if the roadways beyond the plans improvement plans building permit (7) project limits are synchronized as well, The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required M Z4. Ensure that sidewalks and pedestrian paths are Project site plan Review of site plan Prior to site Planning/ 4 installed throughout the project area. plan approval Public Works Energy Efficient Measures Building& Safety& 1. Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce Project building plans Review of building Plan check Planning thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant and specifications plans prior to A� Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-6 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Miti0ation!'Monftorin'gandReportirigNograrn �� Conp!l�oe Vedfiic*n Measure Dwmw tation Mon' ROWSMMMIbr SOWWM DaID sensors, Reducing the need to heat or cool issuance of a structures by improving thermal integrity will result in building permit a reduced expenditure of energy and a reduction in pollutant emissions,The air quality benefit is unknown. 2. Install energy efficient street lighting. 3. Capture waste heat and reemploy it in nonresidential buildings,This measure is applicable to the commercial buildings in the project, 4. Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planning programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure, This measure reduces the need for cooling energy in the summer. 5, Introduce window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods, 6. Install low-emission water heaters, and use built-in, energy-efficient appliances, Biological Resources. .> MM 4.14.1: Prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities, the project developer shall implement the following mitigation b measure which entails nesting surveys and avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and META species, and appropriate agency consultation. M Z Nesting habitat for protected or sensitive species: Z 1, Vegetation removal and construction shall occur Developer shall submit Review schedule and Plan check Planning 0 between September 1 and January 31 whenever construction schedule field survey report, prior to (including grading and as necessary, issuance of a City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Dovvntoj,vq Specific Plan Update .,nage I.7 ti 1,2 Mw ation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mlitiiqai:ion-'Monitoringand •• • •• I,mpkrnen0�tior► Corrp6ance�elffica60n Mitigation Measure Dodet w*tbn Mon' rmhg R8WWbkMWibr soytum Date feasible. activities)as evidence review and approve grading permit of construction overlap plans indicating or demolition with breeding season, construction limits permit 2, Prior to any construction or vegetation removal If construction occurs Perform periodic field Prior to Planning between February 15 and August 31, a nesting during relevant check to ensure construction or survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of breeding,developer compliance site all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area. shall present a survey distrubance Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days report(prepared by a and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of consultant approved by construction activities and surveys will be conducted the City)to the City in accordance with California Department of Fish and prior to issuance of a Game(CDFG)protocol as applicable. If no active grading permit. If nest nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the are found,developer construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. shall submit plans A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be identifying nest locations and limits of submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. If an construction activities active nest of a MBTA protected species is identified onsite(per established thresholds), a 250-foot no- work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity.This buffer can be reduced in consultation with CDFG and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist. Cu"ifd"ral Resouieces MM 4.3.1: If changes are proposed to properties or buildings Historic resources Review of site plan Prior to project Planning listed in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Historic and report prepared by and building plans approval Cultural Resources Element and/or on any state or national qualified architectural historic register,the City shall require preparation of a report historian M from a qualified architectural historian regarding the significance of the site/structure, Based on the results of the report,further mitigation,such as preservation, restoration,or salvaging of 0 Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1.8 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix i_ Mifigiation Monitoeirig and "•ee a ee . Implemert�Con Campfance Verfflcadan mtot orn Measure Docummi0m Man RespMtkMbniror re Dad materials, shall be identified and implemented as recommended by a qualified architectural historian, MM 4.3.2: During construction activities, if archaeological and/or Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check Planning paleontological resources are encountered, the contractor shall grading plans for prior to be responsible for immediate notification and securing of the site inclusion issuance of a area immediately,A qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist grading permit approved by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Director shall be retained to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural resource finds. If major archaeological and/or Research design and Review and approve Throughout Planning paleontological resources are discovered that require long-term recovery plan,if research design and ground- halting or redirecting of grading,a report shall be prepared required recovery plan disturbing identifying such findings to the City and the County of Orange. activities Discovered cultural resources shall be offered to the County of Orange or its designee on a first-refusal basis. MM 4.3.-3: During construction activities, if human remains are Notes on grading plans Review and approve Plan check Planning discovered,work shall be halted and the contractor shall contact grading plans for prior to inclusion issuance of a the City's designated representative on the project and the grading permit Orange County Coroner until a determination can be made as to > the likelihood of additional human remains in the area, If the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner shall -, notify the Native American Heritage Commission who will ensure C" that proper treatment and disposition of the remains occurs, Geology and Soils Z MM 4.4.1: Future development in the DTSP area shall prepare a Notes on grading plan Review and approve Plan check Public Works/ grading plan, subject to review and approval by the City's and building plans grading and building prior to Building and Z development services departments,to contain the plans for inclusion of issuance of a Safety soils and grading permit P recommendations of the required final soils and geotechnical geotechnical -- City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update age 1-9 , 1.2cigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix 44rm✓, \�I � Implerrrer►fatbn Ccvrq�a►we ver►ficatlon M' Measure Doeum&*dw Mon A ' ' raiing geymsmmonibr softie Dade report, These recommendations shall be implemented in the recommendations design of the project, including but not limited to measures associated with site preparation,fill placement, temporary shoring and permanent dewatering, groundwater seismic design features, excavation stability, foundations, soils stabilization, establishment of deep foundations,concrete slabs and pavements, surface drainage,cement type and corrosion measures, erosion control, shoring and internal bracing, and plan review. Hazy'rdou' iri"Os:.. . MM 4.5.1:The City of Huntington Beach shall require a Phase Phase One assessment Review and approve Plan check Fire One assessment on properties within the Downtown Specific grading and building prior to Plan area, including properties utilized for oil production plans for inclusion issuance of a activities,proposed for development to assure that an grading p Y p building permit hazardous materials/contaminated soils present on the property are identified and remediated in accordance with City specifications 422,429 and 431-92,All native and imported soils associated with a project shall meet the standards outlined in Hold route permit Review traffic Public Works City Specification No,431-92 prior to approval of grading and control/construction building plans by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. management plan > Additionally,all work at a project site shall comply with the City's Public Works Department requirements(e.g., haul route permits). C11 MM 4.5.2: In the event that previously unknown or unidentified Risk management plan Review and approve Plan check Fire soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat and site health and grading plans for prior to M to human health or the environment is encountered during safety plan,if required inclusion issuance of a Z construction in the project area,construction activities in the grading permit 4. immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. o If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall 6� -- Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1.10 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring land Reporting Matrix . • .. . Conp&M MEN wgoon Mamie DoanrmWm Montd ReVmsO Monitor sommm DOOR be prepared and implemented that 1)identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post- development and 2)describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options,including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified(e,g,, Huntington Beach Fire Department). If needed,a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. Hydrology andx ,iteff lity , MM 4,6.1: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits Water Quality Review and approve Plan check Public Works and/or prior to recordation of any subdivision maps,the applicant Management Plan WQMP and ; prior to of any new development or significant redevelopment projects (WQMP) documentation issuance of shall submit to the Department of Public Works a Water Quality grading permit Management Plan (WQMP)emphasizing implementation of LID --I principles and addressing hydrologic conditions of concern. WQMPs shall be in compliance with the current California Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)Santa Ana Region, Waste Discharge Requirements permit, and all Federal, M State and local regulations, Z MM 4.6.2: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits,a Hydrology and Review and approve Plan check Public Works 0 hydrology and hydraulic analysis shall be submitted to the hydraulic analysis analysis and prior to documentation issuance of City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Down A. n Specific Plan Update page 1.11 1.2 kw..-gation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix 4 X IMPP oribibn cmrpkxe IVEIil adon M ' OMmmsure D=flr w*tion Mon A 1- ' R Monibr S M Date Department of Public Works for review and approval(10-, 25-, grading permit and 100•year storms and back-to-back storms shall be analyzed), In addition, this study shall include 24-hour peak back-to-back 100-year storms for onsite detention analysis. The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient,downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100- year frequency. MM 4.6.3: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building Notice of Intent(NO1) Review Plan check Public Works permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance of one or and Waste Discharge documentation prior to more acres of land, the applicant shall demonstrate that Identification(WDID) issuance of a e has been obtained under California's General Permit grading coverage building permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with construction activity Storm Water Pollution by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NO1)submitted to the prevention Plan, if State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the required subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance, SWPPPs shall be in compliance with the current NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with construction activity, M MM 4,6.4: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Landscape plans Review landscape Plan check Public Works/ plans prior to Planning developer or applicant shall submit detailed Landscape Architectural plans by a State Licensed Landscape Architect that issuance of a Z building permit 0 Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach �_. page 1-12 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigqtion,Monitoring and Reporting,Program, Cor*W0 Vertr2ft Mrd wtbn Mean DoarwWw MwiWngAcft Mmlbr signature Dab shall include a designed irrigation system that eliminates surface runoff and meets the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MC-14.52)requirements and a detailed planting plan that specifies appropriate California Native and other water conserving plants materials, In addition,there shall be a maintenance program submitted that addresses the use of fertilizers and pesticides to meet the requirements of the City Integrated Pest Management, Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Guidelines,the Water Quality Management Plan, and the County Drainage Area Master Plan.These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works and Planning Departments. The landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with the approved plan, the maintenance program and the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. MM 4,6.5: Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the Tsunami risk Review plan and Plan check Planning developer shall submit to the City Department of Planning for management plan documentation prior to approval a plan outlining specific planning measures to be taken issuance of a to minimize or reduce risks to property and human safety from budlaing permit tsunami during operation. Planning measures could include but would not be limited to the following; Provision of tsunami safety information to all project residents and businesses, in addition to posting in public locations on site; M Identification of the method for transmission of tsunami watch and warnings to residents, business owners and people on site in the event a watch or warning is C) issued; City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1.13 1.2 Nc:.�ation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix `���✓ iMOMMI tim cornpk=verification M'' Lion Mamie DoanrWWW Mon' rff R Monibr 4 Wattle Date V Identification of an evacuation site for persons on-site in the event of a tsunami warning. Wte MM 4.8.1: Noise attenuation devices shall be used on all Contract language and Review and approve Plan check Planning construction equipment,and construction staging areas shall be notes on grading and contract prior to located as far as possible from any residences or other noise building plans specifications, issuance of a grading and building grading permit sensitive receptors. plans for inclusion MM 4.8.2:Prior to issuance of building permits for residences Detailed noise Review noise ..Plan deck Planning located within the 65 CNEL noise contour, a detailed noise assessment prepared assessment and prior to assessment with noise reduction measures specified shall be by a qualified acoustical ensure measures are issuance of a re ared to show that noise levels in those areas will not exceed consultant incorporated into uild n al p building p submitted plans Buildis permit permit the 65 CNEL outdoor noise criteria, Prior to issuance of permits, a detailed noise assessment with noise reduction measures specified shall be prepared to show that noise levels in the residences will not exceed the 45 CNEL indoor noise standard. The assessment will be based on the architectural plans for each specific project.The reports by a qualified acoustical consultant and shall document the sources of noise impacting the areas and describe any measures required to meet the standard,These measures will be incorporated into the project plans,The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to Issuance of building permits. MM 4.8.3: Prior to issuance of building permits,a detailed noise Detailed noise Review noise Prior to project Planning assessment shall be prepared for mixed-use and commercial assessment prepared assessment and approval projects within 50 feet of any residence to ensure that these by a qualified acoustical ensure measures are � consultant incorporated into _.i sources do not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance limits.The submitted plans z assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer 0 and shall document the noise generation characteristics of the Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Citylof Huntington Beach page 1.14 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitig4tongohitoring and Reotifting Program, � �0^ ConO me Vafc*n M' Measure ReV=bkMbnIbr S07&fe Date proposed equipment and the projected noise levels at the nearest residential use. Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance shall be demonstrated and any measures required to comply with the Noise Ordinance and reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels shall be included in the project plans.The report shall be completed and approved by the City prior to issuance of project approval. Publk,ServiCes MM 4.10.1: New construction within the Downtown Specific Plan Building plans notes Review and approve Plan check Planning/ Area shall be designed to provide for safety measures(e.g., and details building prior to Police alarm systems, security lighting, other on-site security measures issuance of a and crime prevention through environmental design policies)and building permit subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Department and Huntington Beach Police Department, MM 4.10.2: Subject to the City's annual budgetary process, Annual City budget Review budget end Annual City Police/Fire which considers available funding and the staffing levels needed staffing levels budget process to provide acceptable response time for fire and police services, needed for fire and the City shall provide sufficient funding to maintain the City's police services standard, average level of service through the use of General Fund monies. Transportation[traffic! MM 4,12.1: Prior to Year 2020,one of the following mitigation Mmeasure options shall be implemented if the pedestrian-only phase is implemented; z --i Z City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring an;d Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update sage 1.15 f 1.2`\1-1,;gation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Utigation Moftiioring and'Repofting,Program mion I Ca�Vwtw6an mtadm Measure bon Mon 1 _ResMWbb Monibr ' Signature Dad • Implement time-of-day signal timing options that would Capital Improvement CIP budget review Prior to Year Public Works implement the pedestrian only phase during peak Program budget and implementation 2020 or 2030, pedestrian flow periods, such as summer weekends whenever and special event days, and eliminate the pedestrian- improvement is only phases during the morning and evening commute implemented peak periods. (Note; While this option would have the benefit of facilitating peak pedestrian traffic flows during peak activity periods, it would also result in additional delay for vehicular traffic movements during these same peak activity periods.) • If the proposed pedestrian-only phase were to be CIP budget CIP budget review Prior to Year Public Works implemented, and operational at all times, including the and implementation 2020 or 2030, AM and PM commute peak periods, in order to achieve Caltrans encroachment whenever an acceptable Level of Service, a second southbound permit improvement is left-turn lane from Pacific Coast Highway onto 1 PstP implemented Street and a second southbound left-turn lane from Pacific Coast Highway onto 6PthP Street would be needed to mitigate the impact of the proposed pedestrian-only phases. This improvement at either intersection would involve roadway widening and right- of-way acquisition on Pacific Coast Highway,and would require Caltrans coordination and approval, and may be found to not be feasible. C� Removal of the pedestrian-only phase altogether If neither (which would mean not implementing the DTSP mitigation recommendation)would improve the Level of Service option is implemented, .. at both intersections to LOS D or better in both peak removal of hours. pedestrian— only phase t altogether would eliminate �1 Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach page 1-16 Downtown,Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix Mitigati'M Monitoring d�Reporting ° ee ImpkrrtarrlaOb►► Cptbe y Mltigaticn MWsuM Doaer�r►(atnn Mon R f*Mcnibr S' to Date sig.impact MM 4,12.2: Prior to Year 2030,one of the following mitigation measure options shall be implemented: • Implement right-turn overlap signal phasing for Capital Improvement CfP budget review Prior,to Year Public Works southbound Goldenwest Street.This would bring the Program budget and implementation 2030 PM peak hour to LOS D,A right-turn overlap for Street Improvement southbound Goldenwest Street would require that u• plans turn movements on eastbound Pacific Coast Highway be prohibited, AND • Provide two eastbound and westbound through lanes Capital Improvement CIP budget review Prior to Year Public Works on Orange Avenue,This would achieve Level of Program budget and implementation 2030 Service D in the evening peak hour.This improvement Street Improvement would require the removal of street parking on both plans sides of Orange Avenue on either side of Lake Street. AND/OR 0 Installation of a signal at this intersection would achieve acceptable Level of Service operation. M z z 0 4�` City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtnwn Specific Plan Update nage 1-17 iI. 1.2`r.,,�igation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix �. 1 Miti / / Monitoring . 1Reporting Program M Measure 'Doami�en�bon Mon' R Mbno x VirrHicatlon oar lJtilities$endf5iceSq'steyms 4: 11 S re MM 4.13.1;To ensure that there are no adverse impacts Grading and building Review and approval Prior to start of Public Works associated with the future Downtown Specific Plan development plans notes and details of grading and construction projects during construction, Applicant/developer/ building plans builder/contractor shall coordinate with utility and service organizations prior to the commencement of construction.A Project water supply Review and approval separate water supply assessment will be required for individual assessment of water supply projects at the time the project is submitted to the City. assessment MM 4.13.2; Individual development projects within the Downtown Grading and building Review and approval Prior to start of Public Works Specific Plan Area will require connections to existing water, plans notes and details of grading and construction sewer, and utility lines in the City and may require construction of building plans new water pipeline facilities. All connections to existing water and wastewater infrastructure will be designed and constructed per the requirements and standards of the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. Such installation shall be coordinated, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate City departments and applicable agencies. MM 4,13-3; Each development project is required to implement Building plans and Review and approval Prior to Public Works separate water conservation measures that support major water landscape plans notes of landscape plans issuance of conservation efforts, The following water saving technologies can and details and building plans building s be implemented on a project basis to comply with statewide permit water goals and water conservation measures that can further assist in meeting the 20% reduction goal. • Waterless urinals should be specified in all public areas, including restaurants and commercial bathrooms. ' Low-flush toilets should be installed in all new 0 ° 6� Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Huntington Beach I& page 1-18 Downtown Specific Plan Update 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix e, o 'Monitoring e Rep9ftiqg,Program dcn�V&Ncakn M' Maasure D=ffr *ft Mon' rmbg Resmnsbbyonibr sovin Dad residential units and encouraged through rebates or other incentives in existing homes. • Low-flow shower heads and water faucets should be required in all new residential and commercial spaces and encouraged in existing developed properties. • Water efficient kitchen and laundry room appliances should be encourage through rebates for both residential and commercial units. • Landscaping should be completed with drought tolerant plants and native species, • Irrigation plans should use smart controllers and have separated irrigation meters. MM 4.13.4;As individual development occurs within the Hydraulic study and Review and approval Prior to Public Works Downtown Specific Plan area, additional hydraulic studies shall sewer study of hydraulic study issuance of be performed to verify that water pipes will adequately support and sewer study building each specific project.A sewer study shall be prepared for Public permits Works Department review and approval.A fourteen (14)day or longer flow test data shall be included in the study.The location and number of monitoring test sites, not to exceed three,to be determined by the Public Works Department. -D-i _i MINI 4.13.5;As individual development occurs within the Proof of payment of fair Review and approval Prior to Public Works Downtown Specific Plan Area, each development shall be share of electrical of building plans issuance of required to pay for the development's fair share of infrastructure systems infrastructure building improvements to electrical systems per Southern California improvements permits MEdison requirements, z Z 0 City of Huntington Beach Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Specific Plan Update page 1-19 n�A ATTACHMENT NO . 17 EIR NO: 08-00 1 NOT ATTACHED �-� AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT CITY HALI, - 31w FLOOR ATTACHMENT NO.-0- Development Standard Matrix of Changes (ZTA No. 08-004) Proposed District#1 (Downtown Core) 10,000 s.f. net 25' street 25'street frontage 25 street 25'street 25'street site area& 100' frontage and and 2,500 s.f.net frontage and frontage and frontage and frontage on 2,500 s.f.net site area 2,500 s.f.net 2,500 s.f.net 2,500 s.f.net PCH site area site area site area site area 50% None 50% None None None 25 du/ac 30 du/ac <50' frontage: 1 25 du/ac 25 du/ac <25,000 s.f du net site area: 51'—full block 30 du/ac frontage:30 du/ac >_25,000 s.f net site area: 50 du/ac 3573 stories <full block: 35'/3 stories <full block: <100' frontage: Min.25% 3stories/35' 3stories/35' 2 stories/30'; Max.<25,000 Full block:-4 Full block:4 100' but<full s.f site area: stories/45' stories/45' block:3 45'/4 stories; stories/35%full >25,000 s.f. block:4 site area: stories/45' 55'/5 stories 25' along PCH; 15' 15' 15' 15%5' on 5 , None;Parking.'7 all other streets 3`d and Main lots: 10' min.; 15' Streets Mixed Use/Comm.: 5' from ultimate ROW 200%of 5 ,3` ,Main 8c _L ;_Ofed Nor e 10%non- None frontage,not PCH:none;all frontage:min_ residential:none less than 7' others 20%lot aggregate 20%lot width,not less frontage,not less than 7' than 3' >100' street frontage but<half block require 20% of frontage,not less than 7' >half block frontage not less than 7' Widen alley to Additional 5' on Additional 2.5' on Additional None No changes to 24' PCH; 2.5' on 6' 6'St.;Additional ROW required existing St. ROW required to to widen alley requirements widen alley to 24' to 24'—no more —no more than % than '/2 from 1 from 1 side side 9/29/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. `� Development Standard Matrix of Changes(ZTA No. 08-004) Proposed District#1 Downtown Core) NAM' ' 20%lot width, 5 3 ,Main& <100'street 5'from ROW 15' from ROW `Coma rcial/ not less than 15' PCH:same as frontage:min. mixed use: from ROW front yard aggregate 20%lot same"as front setback for that frontage,5' from setback; street;all others ROW Parking lots: 20%lot width, >100' street 10, not less than 15' frontage but less from ROW than half block require 20%of frontage, 15' from ROW >half block frontage 15' from ROW 3' 3' 3' 3' 3' 3' Visitor-serving Visitor-serving Mixed use office/ Mixed Use: Mixed Use: Visitor- commercial commercial on residential;single- CommercialIOff Commercial/Off serving ground floor: family residential ice/Residential ice/Residential commercial office/residentia on ground I above floor street frontage; residential& office above ound floor 10' from 2 nd PCH, 1 ,2" , 10' from 2 nd story 10' from 2" 10' from 2" 10' average story facade 6t':average facade(covered story facade story fagade from ground (covered area) above 2°d story area) (covered area) (covered area) floor facade 15'from ROW; for 4`h and 5d' 3`d&5t`: 10' stories from I"story above 2"d story; Main:no part above 2"d story within 10' of build-to line 1.0 >half block:2.0; 1.5; 1.0 single- 2.0 <half block: 1.5; None half block to family residential >half block:2.0 full block:2.5; >full block:3.0 *Note:Proposed District 1 includes separate development standards for the Cultural Arts Subdistrict 1 A and Neighborhood Subdistrict 1B areas. 9/29/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. Development Standard Matrix of Changes(ZTA No. 08-004) Proposed District#1 —Cultural Arts Subdistrict I Min.25' stireet.frontage and 2,500 s.-C ° N/A net site area None Max.50% Max.25'du/ac N/A(residential not permitted) Max.<100' frontage:2 stories/30'; Max.35' 100'but<full block:3 stories/35'; full block:4 stories/45' 15';5' on 5 ,3 and Main Streets None 10';non_residential:none 20'from adjacent residential 15' from ROW None 3' None Mixed Use: Cultural Arts related uses Commercial/Office/Residential 10' from 2° story fagade(covered None(residential buffer requirements area) adjacent to single-family) <half block: 1.5;>_half block:2.0 None None No changes to existing requirements > 100' frontage;non-residential uses. No net loss of green space equivalent to -5%net site area; 27,944 s.f. Full block—public-plaza reg. 9/29/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. Development Standard Matrix of Changes(ZTA No_ 08-004) Propose District#1 —Neighborhood Subdistrict 1 B 25' street frontage and 25' street frontage and 25' sheet frontage and 2,500 s.f.net site area 2,500 s.f.net site area 2,500 sI net site area 50% None - - None- - <50' frontage: 1 du 25 du/ac 30 du/ac 51'-full block frontage: 30 du/ac 35'/3 stories <full block: 3stories/35' 35'/3 stories; single-family: Full block:4 stories/45' 25' maximum height within front 25' of lot 15' 15, Mixed Use:5' max. Residential: 10' min. Single-family:]5' <100' street frontage: min. None Mixed Use:none aggregate 20% lot frontage, Residential:20%aggregate; not less than 3' 3' min. >100' street frontage but< half block require 20%of frontage,not less than 7' >half block frontage not less than 7' <100' street frontage: min. 5' from ROW Mixed Use: none ( aggregate 20% lot frontage, Residential:20%aggregate; J, 5' from ROW 5' min. >100' street frontage but less than half block require 20%of frontage, 15' from ROW >half block frontage 15' from ROW 3' 3' 3' Mixed use office/ Mixed Use: Mixed Use: residential; single-family Commercial/Office/Resid Office/Residential; single- residential ential family residential 10' from 2° story faVade 10' from 2° story facade 10' from 2° story facade (covered area) (covered area) (covered area) p 1.5; 1.0 single-family 2.0 None; single-family: 1.0 residential Additional 2.5' on 6h St.; Additional ROW required No changes to existing y ,. � Al, Additional ROW required to widen alley to 24, -no requirements a to widen alley to 24' -no more than '/2 from 1 side w .. ` more than '/z from 1 side 9/29/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. `� Development Standard Matrix of Changes(ZTA No..08-004) Proposed District#2 (Visitor-Serving Mixed-:Use) - No minimum parcel size No change 50% No change No maximum density No change 8 stories No change 50' from PCH No change None No change 20' No change 20' No change Hotel and visitor-serving No change. commercial None No change 10 No change Additional ROW dedication No change for Walnut Ave. extension; Ig 20' corridor between Atlanta Ave. and PCH 9/29/2009 NT NO. ATTACHMENT Development Standard Matrix of Changes(ZTA No. 08-004) Proposed District#3 (Visitor Serving Recreation)„ No mimtnum pareel size No change 35%net site area;max. No change - - 25%of site areamay-be-- used for vehicle access and parking No maximum density No change None No change 50' along PCH and Beach No change Blvd. None No change 50' along Beach Blvd. No change 20' all other streets 20' No change Hotel—visitor-serving No change "- recreation None No change 3.0 No change Additional ROW dedication No change isms=, - for Walnut Ave. extension 9/29/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. ? Development Standard Matrix of Changes(ZTA-No.08-004) Proposed District#4 (Established Residential) 25' street frontage 25' street frontage 25' street frontage and No change .-and 2,500 s.f.net site and.2,5.00-s.f net site- 2,500 s.f net site area - - - area area 50% 50% None 50%(no change from District 2) <50' frontage: 1 du <50' frontage: 1 du 25 du/ae <_25' street frontage& 50':4 du 51'—full block 2,500 s.f. site area: 1 >51': 30 du/ac frontage: 30 du/ac du;>25' frontage/2,500 s.f to< 50' frontage/5,000 s.f.: 4 du;>50' frontage& 5,000 s.f.: 30 du/ac 35'/3 stories; front 35'/3 stories <100' frontage: 2 35 /3 stories; 25' and rear 25' of lot: stories/36' maximum height 25' maximum height 100' to<full block: within front 25' of lot 3stories/35' Full block: 4 stories/45' 25' along PCH;all 15' 15' .25' along PCH;all other streets 15' other streets 15' (no change from District 2) <100' street frontage: <100' street frontage: Residential: 10' Single family: 10%lot min. aggregate 20% min. aggregate 20% Non-residential: none width,not less than 3', lot frontage;not less lot frontage,not less 5' max. than 3' than 3' Multi-family:20% >100' street frontage >100' street frontage aggregate lot width but<half block but<half block (<I00' frontage—3' require 20%of require 20%of min.;>100' frontage— frontage,not less than frontage,not less than 7' min.) 7' 7' >half block frontage >half block frontage not less than 7' not less than 7' <100' street frontage: <100' street frontage: 15' Single-family: 5' from min. aggregate 20% min. aggregate 20% ROW lot frontage, 5' from lot frontage, 5' from Multi-family:20% ROW ROW aggregate lot width >100' street frontage >100' street frontage (<100' frontage—5' but less than half but less than half min.;>100' frontage— r block require 20% of block require 20% of 15' min.) k , frontage, 15' from frontage, 15' from ROW>half block ROW>half block frontage 15' from frontage 15' from 9/29/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. Development Standard Matrix of Changes(ZTA No. 08-004) Proposed District 94 (Established Residential) ROW _ ROW: 3' along PCH;all 3' 3' 3'i along'PCH,all other other streets 7.5' streets 7.5' (no change from District 2) Single-and Multi- Mixed use office/ Mixed use Single-and Multi- family residential residential; single- commercial/office/ family residential(no family residential residential change from District 2) 10' fro 2" story 10' from 2" m story 10' from 2" story No change fa�ade_(covered area) facade (covered area) . facade(covered area) 1.0 single-family;no 1.5; 1.0 single-family <half block: 1.5 1.0 single-family;no FAR for multi-family residential >half block: 2.0 _FAR for multi- family (no change from District 2) Additional ROW Additional 2.5' on 6 Additional ROW No changes.to existing dedication required to St.;Additional ROW required to widen alley requirements widen alley to 20' required to widen to 24' —no more than alley to 24' —no '/2 from 1 side more than %2 from 1 side *note: single-family uses in existing District 4 and 6 are currently subject to development standards for District 2. 9/29/2009 ATTACHMENT Development Standard Matrix of Changes(ZTA No.08-004) Proposed District#5 (Pacific City and Waterfront Residential) mg!glimiNo minimum parcel size No change 50% No change - - - --------- -- -- 30 du/ac No change 50' No change 20' No change None No change 25' along Beach Blvd. No change 20' all other streets 20' No change Multi-family residential No change Portion of structures which No change exceed 35' in height will be recessed a minimum of 100' from northern exterior ro , line None No change Additional ROW dedication No change for Walnut extension 9/29/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. I � - - 1 • t . t . i I • - I 1 ; 11� gm- REDrv' `�°`{' e � ' "- `� :r,..�`. ., Oar @ II B No minimun!parcel sh�e � rz�f4aFs � =g } x 1maximumlot coverage; 1 i no-more • 1 of pier- be covered 1 g / r �rq x structure roofed No maximum density 'R- RM 1 (excluding - 1 of pier �P and northwest / K the pier st 1 ailaa (p�� 1 No change Pier/Beach related F s� A: commercial s��'�� • 1 •1 1 i dr1;M.w -.nthgar 9z/7n'att^'�f'�9� � 'asrS� � & • 1. I . ° '� fin �✓rt > 'z r T� NE `�' • 1 • • I 1" s.�s� ; r.: '�. �:a, c.�z. _�Sri 0 • . 1. a a, �, ��i:_� ,i*,�� �, adz � 1' i 0 •' • . 1 1 r / ��`fit �.• � �ie� �-mom' PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM 41, (Updated April 2008—does not include recent Planning Commission action) Address Property Owner Number of Spaces Fees $ 1. 101 Main Abdelmuti 12 72,000 2. -120-Main Wang _ 12 - 4,800. 3. 126 Main Zeidan 2 . 24,000 4. 126 Main Zeidan 6 79,562* 5. 200 Main,#100 Koury 18 108,000 6. 200 Main,#116 "Koury 19 263,536 7. 201 Main Caverly 41 41,000 8. 201 Main Caverly 2 32,$17** 9. 209 Main Gallagher 4 25,673 10. 209 Main' Gallagher. 17- 112,713* . 111. 209 Main Gallagher A 14,106** 12. 211 Main,#B Harlow 21 21,000 13: 221 Main Trainer ' 38 38,000 14. 221 Main Trainer 23 2300 15. 221 Main,#A&B Trainer 4 48,000 16. 221 Main, #F Trainer 4 4,000 17. 221 Main,#F Trainer 10 10,000 18 221 Main,#F Trainer 4 _ 24,000* 19. 428 Main Koury 1 14,106 20. 303 Third Trainer 9 54,000 21. 303 Third Trainer 3 36,720 22. 214 Fifth Koury .11 171,196 23. 411 Olive Agency., -1 16,884.39 APPROVED TOTALS: 263 spaces $1,239,113.30 *Approved - Not Paid/TOTALS: 235 spaces $1,005,954.00 **Revised Payments/TOTALS: 261 spaces . !VK014 40 Approved—not paid* No. 04: 126 Main—6 spaces/$79,562(3rd Floor never occupied) No. 10: 209 Main— 17 spaces/$112,713 (rooftop deck never completed) No. 18: 221 Main#F—4 spaces/$24 000 (Agency/Property Owner) TOTALS: 27 spaces/$216,275 Revised Payments** No. 08: 201 Main— 1 space only/$16,884.39 No. 11: 209 Main— 1 space/$16,884.39 TOTALS: 2 spaces/$33,768.78 Treasurer's Report Paid to date: $743,673.83 Outstanding: $223,358.54 TOTALS: $967,032.37 ATTACHMENT NO. 1� ATTACHMENT NO . 20 NATELSON DALE MART STUDY NOTATTACHED AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR ATTACHMENT N0. � ATTACHMENT NO,. ' 21 DO�VNTOT PARKING STUDY: NOT ATTACHED AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR ATTACHMENT NO.� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Economic Development Department TO: Scott Hess, Director of Planning FROM: Stanley Smalewitz, Director of Economic.Development DATE: September 28, 2009 SUBJECT: Downtown Image Ad Hoc Committee Downtown Specific Plan Recommendations In December 2008, the Downtown .Image Ad Hoc Committee was established by the City Council with the goal of improving the environment of the Downtown. Over the course of the past ten months, this Committee comprised of downtown residents, business owners and property owners, has met to discuss and develop policy recommendations in the areas of public safety, culture, maintenance, and business attraction/variety and nightlife. On June 29, the Committee held a meeting to vote on recommendations made by the various sub-committees dedicated to the above mentioned areas. On August 17, the City Council received the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee and directed staff to proceed with the -_ implementation of those recommendations where feasible and to review applicable resolutions and ordinances (Attachment 1). Among the recommendations that directly relate to the Downtown Specific Plan and Downtown Parking Master Plan, updates are being forwarded to the Planning Department for consideration by the Planning Commission. The following recommendations by the Committee are: Parking/Transportation 1. Transportation. The City should create a more "bike friendly" environment. Late at night, when bars are closing, many patrons empty into the streets creating a loud environment while waiting for taxis. Recommendation: Create a second taxi-cab pick-up zone_ Recommendation: Provide additional bicycle parking. Recommendation: Encourage other forms of transportation, such as the pedi-cabs and shuttle buses between the Downtown, hotels, and other locations. 2. Parking. Retail patrons using free parking on residential streets adjoining Downtown, creates noise, trash, and related problems late at night when the bars close, which places a large burden on the adjoining residential neighborhood. Recommendation: Allow Downtown businesses to purchase and use parking validations for up to three hours. ATTACHMENT NO.o _, Recommendation: Create a way-finding system, incorporating directional signage for parking/retail and restaurants (directing traffic away from residential neighborhoods). Recommendation: Flat (low) rate systems for public parking (7 or 8 pm) to encourage patrons to park in the structure. Recommendation: Allow development to purchase parking stalls in City structures/lots in lieu of developing new parking. Business Attraction/Types 3. Encourage neighborhood serving retail, north of Orange Avenue and encourage with visitor/tourist orientation south of Orange Avenue. 4. Target 30+ Year Olds. The current business variety and attractions primarily target teenagers and young people in their twenties (retail, restaurant, and entertainment.) Recommendation: Encourage new businesses (retail "and restaurant) that target all age groups, including 30+. Examples'include bookstores,wine bar, art gallery, jazz or comedy club, and boutiques. Recommendation: Increase Pierside- activities targeting the 30+ year old residents. Examples include fundraising events, classic rock or soft jazz concerts, and movies. The goal is to create a"Downtown for all demographic'groups living in Huntington Beach. A 5. Create a Balanced Business Variety: The business variety and attractions primarily ._ targets tourists and people living in the greater region. Downtown reaches near capacity on summer weekends and year round on weekend nights (peak time), while on week days (non-peak time), the number of customers and patrons is low. Recommendation: Encourage new business that target local residents and patrons during non peak times. Examples include small (organic) grocery stores, hardware store,' bakery, coffee bar, business services, pet store, child day care, flower shop, bank, medical offices, and personal/business services. The goal is to create a balance of business for locals, tourists, and people living throughout the region, and to create a steady flow of patrons during the peak and non-peak times. 6. Create a Buffer Area around the Core Downtown Area. The core of Downtown has a dense concentration of bars and restaurants ("Entertainment District") driving rents higher and nudging out retail stores. The Entertainment District continues to spread; creating noise, traffic, and trash onto adjoining residential neighborhoods. Recommendation: City should use their various tools of land use, financial incentives, hours of operations, permits license, and persuasion to encourage unique neighborhood serving, land uses on streets surrounding the Entertainment District (Main Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Street, Walnut Street and Pacific Coast Highway between 1st and 6th Street.) Examples include unique uses such as retail stores, business and personal services, wine bar, coffee bars, offices and restaurants. The goal is to create a buffer-area around the Entertainment District with lower impact businesses that do not need to compete with higher rent paying intensive business uses. ATTAWIVILN 11'4U. d Cultural Related 7. Encourage/incentive cultural uses at Pierside Pavilion's movie theater location. In addition, focus on underutilized; ocean front property and views along PCH from 1st to 9th Streets to create a unique opportunity to attract families and provide well rounded entertainment opportunities._ (Pierside Pavilion uses are defined in the OPA approved by City Council on 716109) 8. Encourage new unique businesses at the Library or Art Center, such as a cyber cafe at the library, art school, bookstore, or for-sale art gallery. 9. Preserve our architectural history and preserve architectural integrity with greater emphasis on historic preservation. Analysis As part of.the Downtown Specific Plan process, many of the parking and traffic suggestions that were recommended by the Image Committee have been reviewed. As part of the implementation of the DTSP shuttle buses, additional bicycle parking, directional signage, and the.use of in-lieu fees will be considered. It.should be noted that revised parking fees will be brought to the City Council within the next month and a flat rate is being recommended. The DTSP has recommended a "buffering" of,uses that.creates standards for both, mixed use projects (3.2.14) and residential buffers (3.2.21). The buffers apply to properties that will be close to residential uses, standards, .such as set-backs, loading docks, service areas, and ; trash/recycling enclosures. The retail focus and types of businesses can not be mandated through the DTSP; however, Planning and Economic Development will work to encourage compatible businesses. It should be noted that the City Council has approved a change in the deed restriction at the Pierside Pavilion and the movie theaters have been demolished. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider an entitlement plan amendment to modify the mix of uses at Pierside Pavilion at a public hearing on October 130'. The Planning Department is facilitating an update to the Historic and Cultural Resources Element, which will include an update historic survey. The recommendations are being forwarded to the Planning 'Department and Planning Commission for consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. C Kellee Fritzal, Deputy Director Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner Attachment 1: RCA Downtown Image Committee t ATTACHMENT N Council/Agency Meeting Held: 9117 - Deferred/Continued to: ov 0 Conditionally Approved 0 Denied -,A,-,-!nGi Cle ignatu e Council Meeting Date: 8/17/2009 Department ID Number., ED 09-51 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DON HANSEN, JOE CA CHIO, AN DEViN DWYER PREPARED BY: STANLEY SMALEWITZ, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEV LOPME-- SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN IMAGE COMMITTEE [-S�w7mentof Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Envlronmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: On December 15, 2008, the City Council established an Ad Hoc Committee to focus on improving the environment in the downtown area during the summer months, holidays, and weekend nights.The Downtown,Image Committee has met monthly since February 2009 to study,the various issues. Some of the recommendations will be brought back to the Council with the Downtown Specific Plan. Funding Source: Not Applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Direct the City Attorney and Chief of Police to make necessary amendments to the Entertainment Permit and modify the Fee Resolution regarding penalties; 2. Direct Planning, Community Services, Public Works and Economic Development to review existing policies and activities as recommended by Council. Alternative Action(s): Modify the recommendations and/or do not direct staff to bring back the requested information. ATTACHMENT NO.a�-q ATTACH � REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/1712009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 09-51 Analysis: The Downtown Image Ad Hoc Committee goal was to develop recommendations to improve the image of the Downtown area. The Committee began by developing a fist of all the pros and cons of the Downtown area. That list was then subdivided into five separate areas: Public Safety, Business Variety and Attraction, Cleanliness/Maintenance, Nightlife, and Culture (Attachment 2). The sub-committees met to define the issues, look at suggestions for improvement. Based on the suggestions, recommendations were provided to the Ad Hoc Committee for.consideration. On June 29, the Ad Hoc,Committee voted on the recommendations of the individual sub- committees. Many of the recommendations that were voted on are being addressed as part of the Downtown Specific Plan update process. Public Safety The Police Department conducted-several meetings with the committee members and reviewed the staffing and various concerns regarding the Downtown area. The Committee reviewed many options. The Public Safety recommendations requiring Council direction are: e. 0 Increase Fine Schedule for Entertainment Permit Violations—The current fine schedule is$250 for the first violation, $500 for the second and $1,000 for the third and subsequent violations. Based upon input and recommendations by the'Police Chief, the Public Safety sub-committee determined that the fines were not an effective deterrent. The recommendation is to modify the fine schedule as follows: $500 for the first violation; $1,000 plus five (5)days suspension of the permit for the second violation; $1,000 plus 15 day suspension for the third and any subsequent violation of the permit. Additionally, the entertainment permit would be subject to revocation by the Chief of Police for the fourth and subsequent violations. ® Creation of Standardized Conditions for New Entertainment Permits in the Core Downtown Area —Standard conditions would include such issues as hours of entertainment, hours of food service, prohibition of"Happy Hours", etc. Having standardized conditions is preferred to having the conditions established and implemented by the police department. Businesses with an existing permit would be requested to comply with the established standard conditions upon renewal of their permits. 0 Provide information to all new tenants that will be requesting an ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) license of preferred/desired tenants such as full-service restaurants, and non-desired tenants such as bars or nightclubs. Information would be provided at the Planning and Economic Development counters so that new businesses understand the concerns regarding ABC license early in the application process. -2A- TTACHMENT NO-1, 009 1:14 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION F MEETING DATE: 8/17/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 09-61 • When new Entertainment Permits are issued for businesses adjacent�to a residential area, efforts should be taken to mitigate the impact on the residential area by closely reviewing the type of entertainment and hours of operation. • Establishment of residential permit parking zones in residential neighborhoods surrounding downtown to reduce late night noise and disturbances. Business Variety and Attraction/fthtlife The sub-committee developed lists of desired tenants and also restrictions limiting where certain tenants should be located: These, and other recommendations, are land use issues that will be discussed in the Downtown Specific Plan. The Business Variety and AttractiontNightlife recommendation-for Council direction is: • Downtown patrons park on residential streets to avoid paying for parking, creating noise, trash, and related problems late at night when the bars close,placing a large burden on the adjacent residential neighborhoods. City Council should review the installation of permit only parking on adjoining residential streets after 10 pm. • Creation of a way-finding system incorporating directional signage for parking/retail and restaurants (directing traffic away from residential neighborhoods). • Flat(low) rate systems for public parking (7 or 8 pm)to encourage patrons to park in the structure. Maintenance The sub-committee discussed several issues that will be implemented through the new Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Downtown Business Improvement District Maintenance Agreement. City staff will be working with the Downtown BID in primarily a liaison capacity toward: • Installation of a Business Directory for businesses that incorporates visible markings for parking and public restrooms. There is an ongoing issue with the public attempting to use restrooms where they are not patrons and in public/private space (sidewalks, alleys, etc.). • BID should encourage businesses to take responsibility for their general vicinity. This should include picking up trash and monitoring loitering. • Public Awareness Program —"Don't Trash my HB". -3- 8 5t20091:41 PM No.aa REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/17/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 09-51 `y 2 o Conduct a contest with-local-students-to create a "Don't Trash-my HB"poster (BID could work with the Art Center). o Marketing through City resources (website, reader board) Cultural This sub-committee focused on how to create additional events in the Downtown area, focused on different age groups. Staff recommends that the quarterly art walk suggestion be sent to the Downtown BID for consideration_ • Limitation of installation/de-installation timeframes for beach events. • Create a quarterly Art Walk in Huntington Beach 'using current resources without Main Street closure. Provide a map of locations which could include Huntington Beach History, for example. Could also provide restaurant coupons to encourage local dining. o Other options include:a fundraiser; a theme night,for example, a Nostalgic Night; 'heaters playing old movies: o These ideas could help attract different people to Downtown Huntington Beach so they could experience our nice restaurants. o -Library- use as a venue for book signing and/or poetry reading. o Art Center as the focal point-open up rooms for more art -displays/ demonstrations. o Involve restaurants, such as Cucina Alessa's;which could have the Art of Wine Tasting_ o -Include businesses off Main Street, Surf Museum and restaurants. The new hotel has a lot of space and their restaurant is open until 1:30am on weekends. o Encourage outdoor movies on beach. o Plan events for the fall to give our local businesses a little post- summer boost. If the City Council approves the recommendations, staff would provide additional research and return to the City Council with the appropriate Fee Resolutions, policies and procedures. Strategic Plan Goal: Improve Internal and External Communication. -4- "TTACHMEN 1�f 1:14PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8/17/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 09-51 Environmental Status: Not applicable Attachment(s): Page Number No. Description 1. List of Committee Members Present at June 29"'Meeting 2. List of Downtown Pros/Cons -5_ 8/5/2009 1:14 PM ATTACHMENT NO. ''n ATTACHMENT # 15 ®TSP/®PIMP AMENDMENT - GOALS AND OBJECTIVES v /15/07 STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Vision and Land Use: Establish the vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that the next phase of the community investment and improvement can begin Tourism: Create an environment that promotes tourism to increase revenues to support community services and transform the CitV's economy into a destination economy OBJECTIVE 'I OBJECTIVE 2 OBJECTIVE 3 Create a healthy mix of land uses Implement Development Standards Ensure that adequate parking is' thatrare geared toward creating an and Design'Guidelines that availeible:and is integrated into he .urban-village that serves as.a encourage development of 'framework of pedestrian pathways' destination to both residents and underused parcels with a mix of uses` within}the downtown, taking into f visitors - and unique architecture .account.Pacific City-and'the Strand m Policies a Policies Policies ` 1.a Establish'.a well-balanced mix,.of.land 2.a Implement development standards that 3.a Create clear pedestrian linkages uses that includes,retail,rrestaurant, encourage mixed-use development , from parking areas to core retaiF and office uses while limiting 2.b Establish standards anddes!gri , , areas alcohol-related uses' . guidelines that encourage. 3aiExpand boundaries oftheDPMP to. upgrading/redevelopment of existing .'1.b Correct prior and use-assumptions° encourage.consolidation and ' ' properties that never were realized',and modify development of.underutilized parcels , to refilectcurrent�market-trends : 2•c Revise current Design Guidelines.to 4r . allow market forces to dictate I Consider,ell available options for_ . 1:c 3 Revise the land,use:pian toldentify' . � arc' itectui�e"and form with no specified ' additional parking within the:. locations where:public parking_ architectural style downtown core. shoultl`'be p,rovid`ed above and . '_ 2.d Include"`quolity,'standards"that-will— 3:d Enhance directionalsignage.,to beyond code-required parking v -exctiangeAncreased development;. ` inforrri,rrioforists of avai)able°public 1.d Work closely with the potential.fot,qualityiarctiiteetu`re =- 'parking.structures. t Coastal�Commission andall 1 _' `including °Green",design°methods, .'3.e`„ DPMP'shallbe simplified to be easily, stakeholders early and throughout 2.e Create public,directional signage�to , : .4 understood,by decision makers, the. the,process = new Downtown projects public,,and development community. 1.e ' Land use�re ulations shall account 2.f . Develop a pla i'to provide a pedestrian a . g link,between Pacific City,, 3.f~ Development of a tracking .: r for 2 development.scenarios.=,as a- y,.ahe Strand, sand,Downtown _ � � .. . . f mechanism that can be modified to Main Street Promenade-or-as 3. ', track shifts in land u'se.:that affect#he: current) exists 2.g oevel. Standards and guidelines shall* Y„ ,account for the"promenade",scenario- g: parking,model. ATTACHMENT # 16 A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication TO: Joan Flynn, City Clerk FROM: Jill Hardy, City Council Member ll DATE: October 15, 2009 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 08-001 (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5—DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE) I am hereby appealing the Planning Commission's action on the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 08-001) for the update to the Downtown Specific Plan. On October 6, 2009, the Planning Commission approved and certified the final environmental impact report at a noticed public hearing. I'd like to request that the appeal be scheduled concurrently with the legislative items of the Downtown Specific Plan update tentatively scheduled for November 2, 2009. The primary reason for my appeal is that I believe the final environmental impact report did not adequately analyze and address traffic circulation and parking. Pursuant to Section 248.18 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the City Council shall hear an appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission. N SH:hf n Q C5 {` cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council ' Chair and Planning Commission 0`�? Fred Wilson,City Administrator `"y Bob Hail, Deputy City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning o ' Jim Engle, Director of Community Services a csr Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Robin Lugar, Deputy City Clerk Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner Linda Wine,Administrative Assistant ATTACHMENT # 17 Friday October 16, 2009 To: Joan Flynn, City Clerk R E It V KE City of Huntington Beach 2009 OCT 16 PM 4: 56 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 4 C1"i From: David Rice 11411th St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tel: 714-803-9948 Email: flatrice@yahoo-corn Subject: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 08-001 (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5— DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE). I, David Rice, an individual, am hereby appealing the Planning Commission's actions on the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 08-001) for the update to the Downtown Specific Plan. On October 6, 2009, the Planning Commission approved and certified the final EIR. The reasons for my appeal are listed in summary form below: • The notification area does not adequately cover the actual impacted area as shown in the EIR and supporting documents. • The notification summaries have not adequately explained the plan or its support documents. • The support materials provided to interested parties are fragmented, disjointed, unorganized and beyond a reasonable person's ability to navigate and assimilate. • There was insufficient time to review the final plan and final EIR given the frequent and last minute changes. • Poor document management has significantly impeded the public's right to fair review in violation of CEQA guidelines of providing a good faith effort and full disclosure. Page 1 of 2 • Some elements of the supporting Staff Reports and recommendations are out of date, unfeasible, biased and/or fictional. • The City represents in the beginning of this process, the community was requesting an increase in downtowns developable square footage and a tourists oriented cultural arts center. During subsequent study sessions and meetings, very little or no community comments have supported these assertions. • There are potential conflicts of interest between city officials, property owners and developers that need to be further explored. • The EIR does not adequately address and analyze the following issues: o Parking o Traffic/transportation o Land use /planning o Population / housing o Air quality o Noise o Utilities o Public services o Flooding o New net development potential o Cultural resources o Historical resources o Park/green space requirements o Sea level rise o Light pollution o Increased crime o Liquor license concentration o Aesthetics o Project alternatives o Inconsistencies with the Huntington Beach General Plan o Piecemealing o Public safety o Recreation o CEQA Guidelines o City helicopter use ' a D a v i Ri Date Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT # 18