Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing - Zoning Text Amendment 99-3 - Local Coastal STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Indicates Portions Of The Meeting Not Included In The Statement Of Action Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, November 20, 2000 An audiotape of the 5:00 p.m. portion of this meeting and a videotape of the 7:00 p.m. portion of this meeting are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The regular meeting of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach was called to order at 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: Julien, Sullivan, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer ABSENT: Harman ************************************************************************************************************* (City Council) Adopted Ordinance No. 3483 Amending Chapter 4.2. of the Downtown Specific Plan Updating the Downtown Parking Master Plan (Generally Bounded by PCH/Sixth Street/Acacia Avenue/ Second Street) (440.30) A motion was made by Bauer, second Dettloff to adopt Ordinance No 3483 after the City Clerk read by title - "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 4.2 of the Huntington Beach Specific Plan Relating to the Downtown Parking Master Plan." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Sullivan ABSTAIN: Julien, Garofalo ABSENT: None The meeting adjourned to Monday, December 4, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 0 /s/Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: /s/Connie Brockway /s/ Dave Garofalo City Clerk/Clerk Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss: City of Huntington Beach ) I, Connie Brockway, the duly elected City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on November 20, 2000. Witness my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this 29th day of November 2000. /s/Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach;- ifornia 1 By. De ity Clerk Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: &proved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied #� it C erk' Signature AV4---r Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2000 Department ID Number: PL 00-61 3�L���, 6At<� �1�', �t- zo_o� �e�'�o eYt�_ tJ0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 3` 63 REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administratoro" PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning/ z SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-3 AND LOCAF1' COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-2 (DOWNTOWN ' PARKING MASTER PLAN UPDATE),o,-d, A)o . 3Y931 ,fe9s. 1• doa -ia) 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. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department to amend the Downtown Specific Plan by incorporating the recommended modifications to the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP). The modifications include increasing the total development cap to 710,000 sq. ft., consolidating the two areas within the DPMP, and revising the parking ratios and requirements. The request also includes amending the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) to incorporate the changes to the Downtown Specific Plan. Staff recommends the City Council approve the zoning text amendment and local coastal program amendment (Recommended Action). The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed modifications at their.meeting of October 24, 2000 and took straw votes on specific issues. The vote to recommend formal approval of the zoning text amendment and local coastal program to the City Council failed (3-1) due to a lack of 4 affirmative votes required by the Planning Commission bylaws. As a result, the Planning Commission voted to suspend their bylaws (4-0) and forwards the item to the City Council with straw vote recommendations. Funding Source: Not applicable. PL00-61 -- 11/01/00 11:28 AM x 3 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-61 Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: No formal recommendation is forwarded to the City Council. The Planning Commission deferred a formal recommendation to the City Council due to lack of four affirmative votes on a recommendation. Planning Commission Action on October 24, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-3 AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM NO. 00-2, WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL AND STRAW VOTE RECOMMENDATIONS FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: CHAPMAN, KERINS, LIVENGOOD NOES: BIDDLE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: MANDIC, SHOMAKER, SPEAKER MOTION FAILED (DUE TO LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES PURSUANT TO PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS) THE MOTION MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO SUSPEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY LAWS AND NOT REQUIRE 4 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES AND DEFER THE ITEM TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH STRAW VOTE RECOMMENDATIONS, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: BIDDLE, CHAPMAN, KERINS, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: MANDIC, SHOMAKER, SPEAKER MOTION PASSED The Planning Commission also took the following minute action: THE MOTION MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO CONDUCT A SEPARATE PARKING STUDY AND UPDATE OF THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN DURING SUMMER 2001, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: BIDDLE, CHAPMAN, KERINS, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: MANDIC, SHOMAKER, SPEAKER MOTION PASSED PL00-61 -2- 11/02/00 8:46 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-61 f B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and.adopt Ordinance No.3Z19-3 (ATTACHMENT NO. 3)." 2. "Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and adopt Resolution No.�ceC)-ia7(ATTACHMENT NO. 5)." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Approve'Zoning Text Amendment No. 99,7.3-and-Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 as modified by the City Council with findings and adopt Ordinance No. 3546.3 and Resolution No.'a6do�07 2. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 and direct staff accordingly." 3. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 with findings for denial." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Planning, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: Downtown Specific Plan — (area generally bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Acacia St., Second St., and Sixth St.) Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-3 is a request to amend Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan updating the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) pursuant to Section 247.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). - Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 is a request to amend the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) incorporating the changes to Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan pursuant to Section 247.16 of the ZSO. The Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) is based on the concept of shared parking. Shared parking allows one parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without PL00-61 -3- 11/02/00 8:46 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-61 conflict. Shared parking relies on the variations in the peak parking demand for various uses, based on different activity patterns of adjacent uses by hour of the day, day of the week, and season. The DPMP also recognizes interrelationships among different uses and activities that result in an attraction to two or more businesses on a single vehicle trip. As a result, a single parking space can be used to serve more than one destination within the downtown area. B. BACKGROUND The shared parking concept was approved by the City Council in 1995 with the adoption of the comprehensive update to the Downtown Specific Plan known as the "Village Concept." As part of this update, the specific plan included the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP). The DPMP addresses the parking needs for the area bounded by Sixth Street on the west, Acacia on the north, First Street on the east, and Pacific Coast Highway on the south. The master plan is centered along the Main Street commercial corridor and is separated into two districts by Orange Avenue. The two districts were delineated based on the type of land uses being considered, parking needs and available parking opportunities. Each district specified its own parking requirements and ratios. Area 1, south of Orange Avenue, provided the greatest amount of parking for the visitor-serving and seasonal commercial uses. Area 2, north of Orange, provided less parking as it catered more to year-round residential and neighborhood, short- term commercial uses. No reduction to the required residential parking was approved. 100% of the residential parking in both areas is required to be provided on-site. The Downtown Parking Master Plan was also limited to an overall development cap of 500,000 square feet of commercial activity. This restriction was imposed by the California Coastal Commission upon the.approval of the DPMP. However, this development cap could be exceeded if City-wide code-required parking was provided. Since the adoption of the Downtown Parking Master Plan, the City Council has approved two reviews of the DPMP. In 1996, the DPMP review concluded that adequate parking was provided for the approved mix of uses. The next review conducted in the summer of 2000, again concluded.that the existing parking supply was adequate for the existing mix of commercial uses downtown. However, the analysis revealed that there would be a parking deficit upon final buildout of the master plan. Staff concluded that the existing parking ratios may have been conservative and that further analysis would be completed during Kaku Associates update of the DPMP. PL00-61 -4- 11/02/00 8:46 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-61 Last year, the City initiated the process to update the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) by entering into a contract for consulting services with Kaku Associates. The purpose of the update was to complete the following: 1. Analyze current parking conditions in the downtown area; 2. Determine whether the DPMP was operating as intended; 3. Analyze the existing development cap of 500,000 sq. ft. 4. Project future parking demands based on the proposed buildout; 5. Provide analysis and recommendations on the mix of land uses, parking ratios, development cap and boundary of the DPMP. 6. Develop additional recommendations on the implementation of the DPMP. Community Meeting On September 27, 2000, staff held a community meeting at the Huntington Beach Art Center to present the DPMP Update to downtown property owners, business owners, residents, and interested parties. The City's consultant presented the findings of the study and answered questions. Nine people attended the meeting, most of who were downtown property owners. The majority of the comments were directed to the past actions of the City, the findings, data, feasibility and timing of the study and surveys. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: On October 10, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review and receive testimony on the proposed amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program. Four persons spoke during the public hearing. Each of the speakers were concerned over the timing, facts, figures and conclusions presented in the consultant's parking study. Following the discussion, the Planning Commission continued their action to a special meeting on October 17, 2000 in order for staff to complete further revisions to the draft ordinance/legislative draft, and forward additional information. On October 17, 2000, the Planning Commission continued their action due to lack of a quorum. The item was automatically continued to their October 24, 2000 meeting. On October 24, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised ordinance and supplemental information, and received additional testimony before taking final action. Four speakers spoke during the public hearing expressing similar concerns raised at the first public hearing. PL00-61 -5- 11/02/00 8:46 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-61 The following matrices compare the Planning Commission straw vote actions and staff recommendation regarding the Appendix of the Kaku Report (ATTACHMENT NO. 7A), Ordinance (Downtown Specific Plan), and separate minute action on a new parking survey. The Planning Commission is recommending changes to both the Kaku Parking Report and the Legislative Draft of the Downtown Specific Plan. Staff suggests the City Council should approve the report as submitted. KAKU REPORT (APPENDIX, INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT NO. 7A) Issues Planning Commission Straw Staff Recommendation Vote Action 1. Block A (104/105) on-site 454 Staff disagrees. Do not add 37 parking requirement for (440 for proposed project) on-site spaces Buildout conditions (Refer to Attachment 2) 2. Block H floor area Total 52,250 sq. ft. Staff disagrees. Do not add allowance for Buildout Additional 13,000 sq. ft. office 19,250 sq. ft. of retail conditions PLUS 19,250 sq. ft. retail (Refer to Attachment 2) DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (ORDINANCE) Issues Planning Commission Straw Staff Recommendation Vote Action 1. Parking space credit for Keep existing language Staff agrees only if additional expansion or allowing for credit (if 20,000 sq. 19,250 sq. ft. on Block H is not intensification of use ft. on Block H is not approved) approved (Refer to Attachment 2) 2. Projects over 30,000 sq. Establish requirement in Staff disagrees. Do not include ft. or '/ block shall ordinance as requirement. Include as one provide min. 50% of the of 8 alternative methods to required parking on site address on-site parking (Refer to Attachment 2) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE ACTION The Planning Commission also took minute action recommending the City Council direct staff to conduct a new parking survey and update of the DPMP in July, 2001. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Downtown Parking Master Plan has been in effect for over five years. Statistics received on the utilization of the City's 815 space Main Promenade parking structure (ATTACHMENT NO. 11), as well as continued monitoring of development and parking in the PL00-61 -6- 11/02/00 8:46 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-61 DPMP, indicates that the shared parking concept works and that there have been no parking problems or shortfalls identified in the downtown. There may be occasional summer days that will generate a higher parking demand in the downtown due to sporting events on the beach, entertainment at Pier Plaza, or the Fourth of July Parade. However, all data indicates that there is surplus parking within the downtown area. Since its adoption, the shared parking concept has been tested and proven to work. To further validate the parking analysis, staff has compiled parking statistics for the 815 space Main Promenade parking structure, comparing the summer of 1999 with the summer of 2000. STATISTICS —JULY (Fourth of July Weekend) Time Fri. Fri. Sat. Sat. S„un. Sun. Period 7/Z/99 6/31/00 ::°7/3/99..,., 7/1/00 7/4/99 7/2/00 2 PM E'`°'` : ; 630; 763 Full Full 4 PM592` 580 800-::;; " 657 Full 750 _. 6 PM 670`: 608 78$. 590 430 671 8 PM `697 517 7,4®, 576 361 681 10 PM 76.7` 790 655 545 149.; 497 12 PM § 509 f' 608 ; 4;21,. . ',' 235 97 :: ' 211 1 AM 216 r;1 292 181 a, 145 'may: :;'';'-;'- 128 STATISTICS -AUGUST Time "fi , Fri. Sat. Sun Sun. :. Period 8/4/00 8 /99 s- 8/5/00 ig8 8/6/00 2 PM 543 68_9 717 Fu11`�;�,..x� 656 4 PM jKC,4i7jM441 738d 650 %78fi 617 6 PM 91,61E'0 432 Y 569;s% 508 ,592'`° 416 8 PM 700 520 "" '650 531 454 :.:_.; 369 10 PM 710 568 54+7 450 2,91 302 12 PM 464 1 238 . 374 330 11T8 "", . 89 1 AMv ', 189 147. 139 STATISTICS -SEPTEMBER (Labor Day Weekend) Time jari Fri. Sat. p.Sun:"' Sun. Mor►. Mon. Period 9%3%99 '; 9/1/00 9/2/00 9%5l99' 9/3/0 0 K9%6%99 9/4/00 2 PM 467 586 " '"602''f 689 602 719 4 PM 53 ,", " 388 ; 495;"" 536 552;" 594 ><63k6' 685 6 PM 55_O; 381 r 595s`.,; 361 579 '° 371 418. ,; 590 8 PM 705 445 591 f` 410 10599 340 %%f30:3. wx 300 10 PM 565 ="' 528 525 '- 370 375.; 301 '213 233 12 PM 39 ,0 ,,. 238 250 229 129 ,.. ; .; 131 82 1 AM :194 .; 131 2- 6' y'H 152 jam,,, , .. ., 1n12. 62 Based on the data provided in the tables above, the actual parking demand in the parking structure has been reduced over the past year. In addition, the statistical data depicted PL00-61 —7— 11/02/00 8:46 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-61 validates the current parking analysis and indicates that adequate parking is provided for the downtown consistent with the shared parking concept. Over the past year, Kaku Associates has worked with staff to complete the update of the y DPMP. Prior to completing the parking analysis, Kaku Associates conducted the following surveys: Parking space inventory of the entire study area Parking utilization survey of all parking spaces Parking user survey for a sample of parking facilities Parking duration survey for a sample of parking facilities (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 7) The analysis completed by Kaku Associates is the technical background report for formulating recommended changes to the existing Ordinance. Staff Recommendations f% 1. Consolidate Area 1 and Area 2 within the Master Plan As previously mentioned, the two designated areas were originally established because there are distinct parking needs and opportunities within the DPMP. Each area specified separate parking ratios and requirements. Based on the analysis and update conducted by the City's consultant, the two areas would be consolidated into one (see Attachment No. 7). The consultant recommends consolidating the two areas noting that the parking supply north of Orange Avenue would assist in supporting the demand for the commercial uses located south of Orange Avenue. The consultant further indicates that it is customary that motorists and visitors park and walk a 2-3 block distance to their destination. By combining these two areas, the same parking standards would be applicable throughout the master plan area. Staff agrees with the consultant's conclusions, understanding that although there is a higher demand for parking as one gets closer to the beach, there is ample parking to accommodate visitors during peak summer periods. Staff agrees that the entire master plan area should be regulated under the same parking ratios. 2. Revise the parking ratios and requirements The City's parking consultant has recommended that the existing parking ratios be modified to reflect the anticipated parking demand for the DPMP. In most cases, the revised ratios are slightly higher than the existing ratios, thereby requiring more parking for projects exceeding the allowable floor area specified in the DPMP. This is consistent with the findings made during the 2000 review of the DPMP. The existing and recommended parking ratios are listed below and are discussed in Attachment No. 7. PL00-61 -8- 11/02/00 8:46 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-61 VIM PARFCI"NG RATIOSTPER"1 b"O' ', °FT: OF BUILDING ARE%A Land Use•. ;NOW u, ., Current'`Parkin "Ratio::".< Pco osed ParkinRafio;•: :.. g p,,.,.,>..,, g,: w ,, ,,;,,; 7, ,,.., ,„i..,.. i.. Area 1 Area 2 (South of Orange) (North of Orange) Retail 4.00 (1:250 sq. ft.) 2.50 (1:400 sq. ft.) 3.00 (1:333 sq. ft.) Restaurant 6.67 (1:150 sq. ft.) 10.00 (1:100 sq. ft.) 10.00 (1:100 sq. ft.) Office 1.00 (1:1000 sq. ft.) 2.00 (1:500 sq. ft.) 2.00 (1:500 sq. ft.) Cinema 0.20 (1:5 seats) I N/A 0.30 (1:3.3 seats) Staff supports the recommended ratios based on the analysis completed by Kaku Associates as well as the prior conclusions identified in the 2000 DPMP Annual Review. Staff feels the proposed ratios result in a more accurate projection of the future parking demand after buildout. 3. Increase the overall development cap for the master plan area The analysis conducted by the City's consultant concluded that the existing downtown parking supply of 2,189 spaces easily accommodates the proposed land uses under the existing parking master plan. In fact, the study identified an overall surplus of over 500 spaces during peak summer conditions. However, the study indicated that there might be up to a 130-space deficit resulting from total buildout of the DPMP during the nighttime peak hour on Friday's in July. It should be noted that this deficit does not take into account the 600+ spaces at Pier Plaza. Understanding that there was a deficit identified, the consultant indicates that with implementation of the recommended revisions to the DPMP and the parking measures identified below, the future parking supply would accommodate the anticipated buildout of the downtown. The buildout and proposed development cap for the DPMP would be increased from 500,000 sq. ft. to 710,000 sq. ft. to accommodate for the continued redevelopment of the downtown, as the City approaches the existing development cap. Based on the analysis conducted by Kaku Associates, including the utilization, user, and parking duration surveys, staff supports the recommended increase in the overall development cap. It would be impractical and inefficient to plan and construct public or private parking facilities based solely on one or two peak days during the summer. For the past five years, the empirical data clearly demonstrates there is an excess of parking available downtown. Furthermore, although the beach parking facilities were excluded in the overall count of the DPMP parking supply, visitors often utilize the Pier Plaza parking lots during these peak evening periods while patronizing businesses up Main Street. There are over 600 spaces in the Pier Plaza parking lots that are available to visitors. PL00-61 -9- 11/02/00 8:46 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-61 4. Additional Recommendations The existing DPMP contains parking options that authorize the City's approving body-to ._ impose on downtown development. Kaku Associates recommends:additional parking strategies to improve the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Specifically, Kaku Associates recommends the following: The City encourage all future projects proposing a density of development for a commercial project that is over 30,000 sq. ft. to provide and satisfy at least 50% of its code-required parking. By requiring these larger projects to provide 50% of the spaces, the overall increase in the parking supply would be increased by 100-150 spaces in the study area. The City should require all larger projects utilize on-site attendants (valet service) during the peak season: Parking vehicles in tandem can increase the effective capacity of the-parking supply of the larger facilities. This measure would only be required during the peak summer months (i.e. June-August). The City not engage in a capital improvement program to construct.additional municipal parking facilities to increase the parking supply. Based'on the availability of hundreds of parking spaces within the periphery area-of downtown, including the Pier Plaza parking lots south of P.C.H., there is no justification to add additional City parking facilities to the downtown parking supply. Although these spaces are excluded from the official inventory of the DPMP parking supply, they can be viewed as supplemental spaces that are available for use during peak periods. After reviewing these recommended strategies, staff determined that these measures are addressed within the Downtown Specific Plan. The existing ordinance grants the Planning Commission the authority to impose a variety of parking requirements on projects to reduce parking impacts within the DPMP (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 4). For example, the Planning Commission may require valet service be offered as part of a development; require additional on-site and/or off-site parking; and require payment of in-lieu fees. The proposed ordinance includes amended or added parking measures incorporating the recommendations by Kaku Associates. 7. SUMMARY The Kaku study confirms that the current and future parking supply is adequate to accommodate current and future demand. The analysis concludes that the study area has sufficient excess capacity to accommodate increases in parking demand. PL00-61 -10- 11/02/00 8:46 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-61 Based on the analysis performed by the City's consultant, the statistics on the City's Main Promenade parking structure, the review of the five years in which the DPMP has been in ,..—operation, and the conclusions substantiated from the Kaku-:Associates;analysis, the DPMP has been tested and proven to!work since its'adoption in 1995 and reveals that there:have been no parking problems. Local Coastal Program Amendment The request includes an amendment to the City's Certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). Resolution,40 (ATTACHMENT NO. 5) transmits the adopted ordinance to the California Coastal Commission for final approval. The ordinance will take effect immediately upon certification of the LCP amendment by the California Coastal Commission. Environmental Status: The proposed amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan, and to the Downtown Parking Master Plan land use and development potential are consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan and have been analyzed under the General Plan EIR No. 94-1, and the Redevelopment Plan Merger EIR No. 96-2. Attachment(s): City Clerk's . - Number No. Description 1. Findings for Approval 2. Planning Commission Straw Vote Motions 3. Ordinance No. -3'1Y3 (Staff recommendation) 4. Legislative Draft (Staff recommendation) 5. Resolution No. ,;?004-1o7 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 24, 2000 7. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 10, 2000 ,3; 7A. Kaku Report dated September 27, 2000 8. Memo from Planning Commission Chairman Gerald Chapman dated October 27, 2000 9. Memo from Planning Commissioners Gerald Chapman and Tom Livengood dated October 26, 2000 », 10. Letters in Opposition 11. 1 Main Promenade Parking Structure Statistics RCA Author: Herb FaulandMayne Carvalho PL00-61 -11- 11/02/00 8:46 AM Wit: 4� _ ,,' `���`° 5,;;. :•.. �u: 'ass �.�: �.>,;�`, �i,�;,;:r �a%�::��. :.fir �.�",,�:', :,...n,�z�. ... „„ %„y Gov.. �p .�,,,,._.,, �y ,�•�.. D.%h.>-?_:„`�,.,�. � ,� . . . .:. ,. ,,,; .<� .:`gym„ww.:� ,»,'. .;� ��,• .,''.„ =u�� �a�s�u,�<. ���• E''"�� ��"�� �, a v ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-2 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that projects involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does to require the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration. Furthermore, the Downtown Specific Plan and Downtown Parking Master Plan land use and development has been analyzed under the General Plan EIR No. 94-1, and the Redevelopment Plan Merger EIR No. 96-2. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-3: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3 is consistent with the objectives,policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The update of the Downtown Parking Master Plan specifies new development thresholds based on the anticipated parking demand for the downtown commercial core. The new development cap is a result of a comprehensive parking study conducted on the projected parking demand following buildout of the downtown. Furthermore, the maximum development potential would not exceed the existing floor area restrictions established during the General Plan Update (1994) for each of the downtown land use designations. 2. In the case of a general land use provision,the zoning text amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The proposed ordinance will allow visitor serving commercial related uses compatible with existing uses in the downtown. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The zoning text amendment will allow for the continued redevelopment of the downtown area including visitor serving commercial uses consistent with the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program. 5. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The zoning text amendment will provide for ample parking opportunities based on projected downtown development. All proposed developments would be required to receive separate review and approval of entitlement applications. (OOSR61)—10/10/00 Attachment No. 1.1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-2: 1. The Local Coastal Program amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to revise the Downtown Specific Plan to incorporate the Downtown Parking Master Plan Update is consistent with the 1996 General.Plan designations by providing for ongoing visitor-serving uses. 2. The update to the Downtown Parking Master Plan is in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act that encourage visitor-serving uses. The Local Coastal Program Amendment promotes the City's Local Coastal Program goals and objectives by allowing for continued redevelopment of the downtown commercial corridor. Furthermore,the amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Coastal Element by ensuring that adequate parking is provided in all new development in the coastal zone by utilizing new parking standards specific to the coastal zone in conjunction with the development of off-site parking strategies. 3. The Local Coastal Program amendment conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The Downtown Parking Master Plan Update precludes the use and calculation of all parking spaces on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway. The proposed amendment will not interfere with public access or view opportunities. (OOSR61)— 10/10/00 Attachment No. 1.2 •.0 ,,,. .. ::� �.. �:.. ,.... .�. - .,,:` .�«° .. -.. ,,,»ate KZk- ,.i ya�n .. »... v� F..:.�-. <.g�,, ., � .:, _K:�« �� .e < ,�„�, '- ,,, � � �� � .>:9.,... .,..,, .,w.,..,��...... ,,,,,c � ,,. .... ... .,. ...., c� ,`a�4a s.aye... ......, � ,.,,..;_�v�`�as..,. .....�,.�... .o ,;;✓,,,� .. .,,, ... ., ate. ,....._ .. .. z:r�- �tYs�s�; „,,,...:' ��,; �. yam„, „, ,,,<,;;M,,.,,. ::' ,;; r.. .._.........,:a�i,;,, - �,,, .>. .r-.�ev <,,, ter.. HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2000 STRAW VOTES ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-2 (DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN UPDATE) A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD,SECONDED BY CHAPMAN,TO TAKE STRAW VOTES AND REVIEW DEVELOPMENT CAPS ON A BLOCK-BY-BLOCK BASIS,CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins,Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES:None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic,Speaker MOTION PASSED BLOCK"A" A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD,SECONDED BY CHAPMAN,TO APPROVE BLOCK "A"DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING FIGURES WITH MODIFICATIONS TO REQUIRE 440 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES VS. 403 SPACES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON BLOCKS 104/105, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES:Kerins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic,Speaker MOTION PASSED BLOCK"B" A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD,SECONDED BY CHAPMAN,TO APPROVE BLOCK "B"AS PRESENTED CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES:None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic,Speaker MOTION PASSED G:\Robin\Vardoc\straw votes BLOCK"C" A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD,SECONDED BY CHAPMAN,TO APPROVE BLOCK "C"AS PRESENTED CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins,Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES:None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic,Speaker MOTION PASSED BLOCK"D" A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD,SECONDED BY CHAPMAN,TO APPROVE BLOCK "D" AS PRESENTED CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES:None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic,Speaker MOTION PASSED BLOCK"E" A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY CHAPMAN,TO APPROVE BLOCK "E"AS PRESENTED CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins,Chapman,Livengood NOES:Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic, Speaker MOTION PASSED BLOCK"F" A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD,SECONDED BY CHAPMAN,TO APPROVE BLOCK "F"AS PRESENTED CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins,Chapman,Livengood NOES:Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic,Speaker MOTION PASSED G:\Robin\Vardoc\straw votes BLOCK"G" A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD,SECONDED BY CHAPMAN,TO APPROVE BLOCK "G"AS PRESENTED CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins,Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES:None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic,Speaker MOTION PASSED BLOCK"H" A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD,SECONDED BY BIDDLE,TO APPROVE BLOCK"H" WITH MODIFICATIONS TO INCREASE THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF RETAIL FLOOR AREA TO 39,250 SQ.FT.,IN ADDITION TO THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN OFFICE FLOOR AREA OF 13,000 SQ.FT.,AND TO ELIMINATE THE 100 RESIDENTIAL UNITS,CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES:Kerins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic, Speaker MOTION PASSED BLOCK"I" A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD,SECONDED BY CHAPMAN,TO APPROVE BLOCK"I" AS PRESENTED CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins,Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES:None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic, Speaker MOTION PASSED A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY CHAPMAN,TO RETAIN SEPARATE FLOOR AREA CAPS AND PARKING SUPPLY FOR AREAS ONE AND TWO,CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES:Kerins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic,Speaker MOTION PASSED G:\Robin\Vardoc\straw votes A MOTION MADE BY CHAPMAN,SECONDED BY KERINS,TO APPROVE ONE SET OF ,PARKING STANDARDS FOR BOTH AREA ONE AND AREA TWO AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CONSULTANT,CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins,Chapman,Livengood NOES:Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic,Speaker MOTION PASSED A MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD,SECONDED BY KERINS,TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-2 (DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN UPDATE),WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE,FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins,Chapman,Livengood NOES: Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic,Speaker MOTION TO APPROVE FAILED DUE TO A LACK OF 4 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS,TO SUSPEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS AND NOT REQUIRE 114 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES"AND DEFER THE ITEM TO THE CITY.COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION,CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins,Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic, Speaker MOTION PASSED A MOTION MADE BY KERINS,SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD,TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO COMPLETE A PARKING SURVEY AND DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN UPDATE IN JULY,2001,CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES:None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker,Mandic, Speaker MOTION PASSED G:\Robin\Vardoc\straw votes i� � ;6;;:= >x a°: sii/e �bs r r £ y ,,�, �.�:'„ a. .,F,,- .�� a,',:.,,,: irrr,, �,;; 5` F'.a S,as. es'1• %f � <::: x' `:� :'>Y: -a-., �,. aF Ate,": a:'< '3y','•x::•k L, �Sr\�:b ���n»n `<S c...i.. °u'��a�aF,.•q�.:;1..:�:- .xt,, `.P..� i s. ( #f�A.kEh yak:�c a`i"•�, y.'r��2�� �;� ...: �' �d�;r. 1" tOINb : I!-6-00 ORDINANCE NO. 3483 " AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 4.2 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 4.2.14 of the Huntington Beach Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.2.14 The Downtown Parking Master Plan The Downtown Parking Master Plan is based on a shared parking concept. Shared parking in effect allows one (1)parking space to serve two (2) or more individual land uses without conflict. Shared parking relies on the variations in the peak parking demand for different uses. In other words,parking demands will fluctuate in relationship to the mix of uses by hour, day of week, and season. The proper mix will create an interrelationship among different uses and activities which results in a reduction of the demand for parking. The Downtown core area is centered along the Main Street commercial corridor. This commercial corridor divides into two (2) distinct areas, north and south of Orange. The area which encompasses the Downtown Parking Master Plan is identified on the area map (Figure 4.1). Area 1 - The area south of Orange Avenue along Main Street provides the greatest amount of public parking opportunities both off-street and on-street. Area 1 has the greatest number of visitor-serving and seasonal commercial uses including year round entertainment. This area also has the greatest concentration of expanded commercial, restaurant and office uses, and therefore, the majority of the public parking spaces are provided in this area. Expanding commercial activity in this area remains the focus of the Downtown Master Plan, however, no additional parking for new or expanded commercial,restaurant and office uses should be required provided the total square footage and mix of uses do not exceed the Master Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to purchase property for a public parking facility. Area 2 - The area north of Orange Avenue along Main Street provides limited amounts of public parking opportunities. This area is still part of the Downtown core. However, the commercial uses in Area 2 cater more to year-round residents, therefore, additional on-street short-term parking is provided. The existing Downtown public parking facilities are not conveniently located for use in this area, thus, a combination of expanded on-street and on-site parking may be necessary for new or expanded commercial uses. The commercial activity remains primarily service-related commercial; the existing supply of on-street and on-site parking should be sufficient for anticipated uses. The mix of commercial and residential activities can justify a parking reduction and additional parking may not be necessary if development does jmp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 1 not exceed the Master Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to purchase property for a public parking facility. City-owned and controlled public parking in the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) area shall be consistent with the City's certified land use plan. The DPMP is structured to protect beach user parking by providing adequate public parking within the Downtown area. The DPMP encourages the use of the City-owned and controlled parking sites within the DPMP area. To encourage the use of the City-owned public parking facilities, parking controls such as time limits, and parking rates may be adjusted to maintain the desired use of these spaces by patrons and employees of the downtown area. A validation program for the City-owned public parking structure has been established as an incentive for the use of the structure by the patrons and employees of the downtown area. Any changes to the program shall be submitted to the Executive Director to determine if an amendment to the Specific Plan is necessary. The Downtown Parking Master Plan anticipates a total development scenario of approximately 715,000 square feet of commercial activity. The DPMP has development thresholds of 144,000 square feet for restaurant, 300,000 square feet for retail, 126,000 square feet for office and 145,000 square feet for miscellaneous development. Area 1 will contain approximately 626,000 square feet of commercial development, with the remaining 89,000 square feet in Area 2. The Planning Department shall be responsible for monitoring the development square footage per land use and the number of parking spaces within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area. An annual review and monitoring report of the Downtown Parking Master Plan shall be prepared by the Planning Department and presented for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Following the review by the City Council, the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission for review. The Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall include, at a minimum: 1) amount and type of development square footage approved during the annual review period; 2) total amount of square footage in the Downtown Parking Master Plan area; 3) an inventory of existing parking spaces; 4) a parking utilization study; 5) an assessment of parking demand compared with parking supply; 6) a determination of whether adequate parking remains to serve development allowed up to the total development cap. If the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report indicates that the parking supply is inadequate to serve the approved level of development or if the development square footage exceeds the amount described above (up to 715,000 square feet total), all development within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area shall provide parking consistent with Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, unless and until new parking to meet the identified demand is approved and constructed. Changes between one or more of the individual use categories may be allowed as long as the total square footage does not exceed 715,000 square feet provided there are corresponding changes in the other use categories to assure adequate parking remains. jmp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 2 Parking shall be provided for each Area. If a project is built in Area One that requires more shared parking than is available in Area One, credit from Area Two shall not be used. If a project is built in Area Two that requires more shared parking than is available in Area Two, credit from Area One shall not be used. Although the Downtown Parking Master Plan distinguishes between the location and type of parking resources available in Area 1 and Area 2, the adjusted parking requirement for both Area 1 and Area 2 is the same (Figure 4.2). The common parking requirement is based on the shared parking concept for the entire master plan area. Existing and proposed building square footage and uses identified in the technical background report prepared by Kaku Associates (Sept., 2000), entitled"Downtown Parking Master Plan Update," (Appendix - Existing and Proposed Land Use Analysis Blocks A- I) are parked within the public parking supply within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. In the event a property owner demolishes his/her existing building, and rebuilds a new building of equal square footage and use, no additional parking shall be required. Any code required parking spaces provided on-site shall be credited for any expansion of square footage or intensification of use. All required parking shall be calculated based on the reduced requirements of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The Planning Commission or City Council may impose one (1), all, or a combination of the following requirements to ensure that adequate parking is provided for each development: 1. Require projects over 30,000 sq. ft. or one-half(1/2) block in size provide 50% of the code-required parking identified in Figure 4.2. 2. Require that any parking in-lieu fees be full cost recovery based on the parking requirement for specific uses. However, allow that these fees be paid over an amortization period, with appropriate security provided by the applicant to guarantee payment. 3. Require valet parking once the maximum build out of restaurant activity has been obtained. 4. Commercial projects greater than 10,000 square feet in size shall be required to submit a parking management plan consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. 5. Require valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities, and during the peak summer season. 6. Require the applicant to provide additional on-site and/or off-site parking for any development. 7. Develop parking options which may generate additional parking for any development. 8. Develop a sign program to direct motorists to primary parking facilities within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. jmp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 3 SECTION 2. Figure 4.2 of the Huntington Beach Specific Plan is hereby amended as follows: DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN CODIFIED PARKING REQUIREMENTS Land Use Huntington Beach Code New Parking Standard Retail 1:200 1:333 Restaurant 1:100 1:100 Office 1:250 1:500 Note: At any time it deems necessary, the Planning Commission may require additional on-site parking to meet the parking demands generated by a use or development. SECTION 3. The Map of the Parking Master Plan is hereby amended as shown on Attachment A hereto. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of November , 2000. (Z6��Q� �.� Mayor ATTEST: /� �IJ, oto,6 "' APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk L8 City Attorney ��I tJ6 U REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INIT ED AND APPROVED: City&ministrator Planning ector jmp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 4 ;.' , , AT,T'ACH' ', �,,ENT,,,� LEGEND MNG MASTER P A. Mai ier Two B. Piersid Pavl' n/Pier Colony C. Second Rehab. D. H.B. Pro ade _ E. Third BI k st h F. Post Ice BI \ AR 2 G. Square sf� H. orth Block East s� `car Art Center Block — i I 1 ti� L ORANGE AVE.. OWE ' AVE. YY•' WALNUT ------ - ----______- IL . ..s .. LEGEND PAQFIQP0aT WY. PARKING MASTER PLAN A. Blocks 104/105 B. Pierside Pavilion/Pier Colony C. Second Block Rehab D. Main Street Promenade E. Plaza Almeria F. Post Office Block G. Town Square H. •Fourth Block East I. 'Art Center Block 13 Ord. No. 3483 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a re ular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of November, 2000, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of November, 2000, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Julien, Garofalo I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Independent on ' ,2000 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California g:/ordinanc/ord bkpg.doc ORDINANCE NO. 3 ��3 A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDIN CHAPTER 4.2 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN RELA G TO THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN The City Council o the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section .2.14 of the Huntington Beach Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.2.14 The Downtown Parking MastPlan The Downtown Parkin Master Pl n is based on a shared parking concept. Shared g p g p parking in effect allows one (1)par .ing space to serve two (2) or more individual land uses without conflict. Shared parking�relies on the variations in the peak parking demand for different uses. In other word\alongg kig demands will fluctuate in relationship to the mix of uses by hour, ek, and season. The proper mix will create an interrelationship among differd activities which results in a reduction of the demand for parking. The Downtown core area is centered alin Street commercial corridor. This commercial corridor divides into two (2reas, north and south of Orange. The area which encompasses the Downi g Master Plan is identified on the area map (Figure 4.1). Area 1 - The area south of Orange Avenain Street provides the greatest amount of public parking opportunities both off-street and on-street. Area 1 has the greatest number of visitor-serving and seasonal commerci�uses including year round entertainment. This area also has the greatest concentration of expanded commercial, restaurant and office uses, and therefore, the majority of the public parking spaces are provided in this area. Expanding commercial activity in this area remains the focus oft •e Downtown Master Plan, however, no additional parking for new or expanded commer4al, restaurant and office uses should be required provided the total square footage and Nix of uses do not exceed the Master Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to'Purchase property for a public parking facility. Area 2 - The area north of Orange Avenue along Main Street provides lIn ed amounts of public parking opportunities. This area is still part of the Downtown cor However, the commercial uses in Area 2 cater more to year-round residents, t erefore, additional on-street short-term parking is provided. The existing Downtown p blic parking facilities are not conveniently located for use in this area, thus, a combi tic of expanded on-street and on-site parking may be necessary for new or expanded commercial uses. The commercial activity remains primarily service-related commercial; the existing supply of on-street and on-site parking should be sufficient for anticipated uses. The mix of commercial and residential activities can justify a parking reduction and additional parking may not be necessary if development does jmp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 1 R J� not exceed the Master Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to purchase property for a public parking facility. City-owned and controlled public parking in the Downtown Parking Master Plan PMP) area shall be consistent with the City's certified land use plan. The DPMP is structured to protect beach user parking by providing adequate public parking within the Downtown area. The DPMP` encourages the use of the City-owned and controlled parking sites within the DPMP` area. To encourage the use of the City-owned public parking°facilities, parking controls such as time limits, and parking rates may be adjusted to maintain the desired use of these spaces by patrons and employees of the downtown area. A validation program for the City-owned public parking structure has been established as an incentive for the use of the structure by the patrons and employees of th"b downtown area. Any changes to the program shall be submitted to the Executive Dire to determine if an amendment to the Specific Plan is necessary. n Parking r Plan anticipates a total development scenario of The Downtown a king Master p s p approximately 710,000'square feet of commercial activity. The DPMP has development thresholds o.144,000 square feet for restaurant, 295,000 square feet for retail, 126,000 square feet for office and 145,000 square feet for miscellaneous development. Area 1 will co !am approximately 626,000 square fee of commercial development, with the remaining 84,000 square fee in Area 2. The Planning Department shall be responsible`for monitoring the development square footage per land use and the number of parking spaces within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area. An annual review and monitoring report\of the Downtown Parking Master Plan shall be prepared by the Planning Department and presented for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Following the review by the City Council, the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission for review. The Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall include, at a minimum: 1) amount and type of development square footage approved during the annual review period; `!� 2) total amount of square footage in the Downtown Park>ng Master Plan area; 3) an inventory of existing parking spaces; 4) a parking utilization study; 5) an assessment of parking demand compared with parking su, ly; 6) a determination of whether adequate parking remains to serve development allowed up to the total development cap. If the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report indicates that the parking supply is inadequate to serve the approved level of development or if the development square footage exceeds the amount described above (up0 710,000 square feet total), all development within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area shall provide parking consistent with Off-Street Parking and Loading_ProvisNons of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, unless and until new parking to meet the identified demand is approved and constructed. Changes between one or more of the individual use categories may be allowed as long as the total square footage does not exceed 710,000 square feet square feet provided, jmp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 2 there are corresponding changes in the other use categories to assure adequate parking gem ains. Although the Downtown Parking Master Plan distinguishes between the location and type ofparking resources available in Area 1 and Area 2, the adjusted parking requirement for both Area 1 and Area 2 is the same (Figure 4.2). The common parking requirement is based on.the shared parking.concept for the entire master.plan area. Existing and proposed building square footage and uses identified in the technical background report prepared by Kaku Associates (Sept., 2000), entitled "Downtown Parking Master Plan Update," (Appendix - Existing and Proposed Land Use Analysis Blocks A-I) are parked within the public parking supply within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. In the event a property owner demolishes his/her existing building, and rebuilds a new building of\�equal square footage and use, no additional parking shall be required. All required parking shall be calculated based on the reduced requirements of the Downtown Parking N&tter Plan. The Planning Commission or City Council may impose one (1), all, or a combination of the following requirements to ensure that adequate parking is provided for each development: 1. Require projects over 30,000 sq ft. or one-half(1/2) block in size provide 50% of the code-required parking identified innFigure 4.2. 2. Require that any parking in-lieu fees be full cost recovery based on the parking requirement for specific uses. However, allow that these fees be paid over an amortization period, with appropriate security provided by the applicant to guarantee payment. 3. Require valet parking once the maximum build out of restaurant activity has been obtained. 4. Commercial projects greater than 10,000 square feet i size shall be required to submit a parking management plan consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. 5. Require valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities, and during the peak summer season. 6. Require the applicant to provide additional on-site and/or off-siteiparking for any development. 7. Develop parking options which may generate additional parking for any development. 8. Develop a sign program to direct motorists to primary parking facilities within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. SECTION 2. Figure 4.2 of the Huntington Beach Specific Plan is hereby amended as follows: jmp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 3 i DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN CODIFIED PARKING REQUIREMENTS Land Use Huntington Beach Code New Parking Standard Retail :200 1:333 Restaurant 1:1 'p 1:100 Office 1:250 1:500 Note: At any time it deems necessary, the Planning Commission may require additional on-site parking to meet the parking demands generated by a use or development. SECTION 3. The Map of the Parking aster Plan is hereby amended as shown on Attachment A hereto. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become fective immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council o ' he City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 52000. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO RM: City Clerk o � City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Ib �" INI TED AND AP OVED. City Adnfifniistrator Planning Dir ctor jmp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 4 NM. fir; � i `n OLD LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4.2.14 The Downtown Parking Master Plan The Do iitown Parking Master Plan is based on a shared parking concept. Shared parking in\effect allows one (1)parking space to serve two (2) or more individual land uses witho�t conflict. Shared parking relies on the variations in the peak parking demand for di,J erent uses. In other words, parking demands will fluctuate in relationship to the mix of uses by hour, day of week, and season. The proper mix will create an interrelationship among different uses and activities which results in a reduction of the de a d for parking. The Downtown core area is centered along the Main Street commercial corridor. This commercial corridor divides into two (2) distinct areas, north and south of Orange. The area which encompasses the Downtown Parking Master Plan is as identified on the area map (Figure 4.1). Area 1 - The area south of%Or ,ge Avenue along Main Street provides the greatest amount of public parking opportunities both off-street and on-street. Area 1 will have has the greatest number of visitor serving and seasonal commercial uses including year round entertainment. This area, also lie has the greatest concentration of expanded commercial, restaurant and�c ice uses, and therefore, the majority of the public parking spaces s4eald e are provided in this area. Expanding commercial activity in this ar\remains the focus of the Downtown Master Plan, however, no additional parking for ner expanded commercial, restaurant and office uses should be required provided the to(al square footage and mix of uses do not exceed the Master Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to purchase property for a public parking facility. Area 2 - The area north of Orange Avenue along Main Street provides limited amounts of public parking opportunities. This area is still part a the Downtown core. However,the commercial uses in Area 2 cater more o the year-round residents, therefore, additional on-street short-term parking is provided. This ffiro A i The existi -Down owntown public parking facilities are not conveniently located for use in this ar a, thus, a combination of expanded on-street and on-site parking may be necessary for ew or expanded commercial uses. The commercial activity remains primarily serece-related commercial; the existing supply of on-street and on-site parking sh ,uld be sufficient for anticipated uses. The mix of commercial and residential activitie can justify a parking reduction and additional parking may not be necessary if development does not exceed the Master Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to purchase property for a public parking facility. City-owned and controlled public parking in the Downtown Parking Master plan (DPMP) area shall be consistent with the City's certified land use plan. The DPMP is structured to protect beach user parking by providing adequate public parking within the Downtown area. The DPMP encourages the use of the City-owned and controlled parking sites within the DPMP area. To encourage the use of the City-owned public parking facilities, parking controls such as time limits, and parking rates may be adjusted to maintain the desired use of these spaces by patrons and employees of the downtown area. A validation program for the City-owned public parking structure has been established as an incentive for the use of the structure by the patrons and LEGISLATIVE DRAFT \. Require that any parking in-lieu fees be full cost recovery based on the parking \requirement for specific uses. However, allow that these fees be paid over an amortization period, with appropriate security provided by the applicant to guarantee payment. 3. Require valet parking once the maximum build out of restaurant activity has been obtained. 4. Commei\lXprojects greater than 10,000 square feet in size shall be required to submit a parking management plan consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. 5. Require valet and/ kremote parking for special events and activities, and during the peak summer season. 6. Require the applicant to'\whic e additional on-site and/or off-site parking for any development. 7. Develop parking options may generate additional parking for any development. . 8. Develop a sign program to diKect motorists to primary parking facilities wit in the Downtown`Parking Master Plan. Downtown Parking Master Plan Codified Parking Requirements New Parking Standard (�teduaion-F }- Land Use H.B. Code Area-l-South Arrc&2 North - \ (P-exsent.�educed)- (Remwtage-Red ueed) . Retail 1:200 1.250- 1: 3 3 3 g_ -(25'r�}- Restaurant 1:100 -I- 50- 1 :10 0 Office 1:250 -1:1'`444- 110- 1: 5 0 0 _45 � =0-Gx4\ (5sIyu)- Note: At any time it deems necessary, the Planning Commission may require additional on-site parking to meet the parking demands g"rated by a use or . 'development. Figure 4.2 15 LEGEND KING MASTER P A. Mai ier Two B. Piersid Pavi' n/Pier Colony C. Second Rehab. D. H.B. Pro ade \ _ - E. Third BI k st F. Post ice BI / y AR 2 n Square H. orth Block East Art Center Block 0 �- ORANGE — — — AVE . (HWf ` AVE. ' \ In #.i<',':•'.?1 ;' r•.• i•:'?h.•. l'7 N ____ ___ WALNUT AVE. :`+mac:• % •+ro•.}\'�� ....+.'(+,'�M- $.:.. N LEGEND �.PAQFIUOA;T WY PARKING MASTER PLAN A. Blocks 104/1 , 5 B. Pierside Pavili in/Pier Colony C. Second Block Rehab D. Main Street Promenade E. Plaza Almeria F. Post Office Block i,. G. Town Square H. Fourth Block East i 1. 'Aft Center Block 13 i �wsrPxcoq r .w LEGISLATIVE DRAFT employees of the downtown area. Any changes to the program shall be submitted to the Executive Director to determine if an amendment to the Specific Plan is necessary. T e Downtown Parking Master Plan anticipates a total development scenario of approximatel 710,000 square feet of commercial activity. The "��� PMP has development thresholds of 100,000144,000 square feet for restaur&t, 250,000 295,000 square feet for retail, 100,000126,000 square feet for office anS\5O;000145,000 square feet for miscellaneous development. Area 1 will contain approximately 950,009 te 400,000 626,000 square feet of commercial development, with the remaining )0,000 84,000 square feet of activity eese ing in Aria 2. It sh ll be th- «os«...asib;l;ty 4tl,o The Planning Department shall be responsible for to monitoring the development squarkfootage per land use and the number of parking spaces within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area. An annual review and monitoring report of the Downtown Parking Master Plan shall be prepared by the Planning Department and presented for review by the Planning Commission and City Co'nncil. Following the review by the City Council, the Downtown"Karking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission for review. The Downtown Parking Master Plan`annual review and monitoring report shall include, at a minimum: 1) amount and type of development squarfootage approved during the annual review period; 2) total amount of square footage in the Downtown Parking Master Plan area; 3) an inventory of existing parking spaces; 4) a parking utilization study; 5) an assessment of parking demand compared Wkth parking supply; 6) a determination of whether adequate parking remains to serve development allowed up to the total development cap. N4 — submi 4ed to the gxeectiye fli eecaraf crnTcvcsacccr- vo . If the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report indicates that the parking supply is inadequate to serve the approved level of development or if the development square footage exceeds the amount described above (up to 500,000 710,000 square feet total), all development within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area shall provide parking consistent with Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, C-94, unless and until new parking to meet the identified demand is approved and constructed. Changes between one or more of the individual use categories may be allo w\ed as long as the total square footage does not exceed 500;000 710,000 square feet, a provided there are corresponding changes in the other use categories to assure adequate parking remains. The @*istifig base square f etag@ shall l,o -As a L a ' .1.,the etia,o.,t ., T7,,ed by the ,, ingto Beael-, Dl.,,,-ifig !''.,,.,.,, � T l� 7 1999 t:tla.l Tl.,.,>,-,t.,..%14ti tingto Re--Ae-, -12-m-4-c-ing Master-Plan. Although the Downtown Master Plan Update distinguishes between the location and type of parking resources available in Area 1 and Area 2,t4e LEGISLATIVE DRAFT \afe neeessaf�, fro eh of+ho ^ . the adjusted parking requirement meted for both Area 1 and Area 2 is the same (Figure 4.2). The common parking requirement is based on the shared parking concept for the entire master plan area. Exist Viand proposed building square footage and uses identified in the technical background report prepared by Kaku Associates (Sept., 2000), entitled `Downtown Parking Master Plan Update," (Appendix — Existinl�and Proposed Land Use Analysis Blocks A— I) are parked within the public parking supply within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. In the event a propert�yowner demolishes his/her existing building, and rebuilds a new building of equal square footage and use, no additional parking shall be required. w.18« ro 1 r ,rkir, . PaGOSPFON,;dodo s;+o -4;A11 he ..ro.l:te fee- ., c f sqoafe &Ota^� ~*�~� ^^* ^~ of„a^. All required parking shall be calculated based on the reduced requirements of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. ea 1 144 A ea the 1 f l�t �al? retail ~,,1 ;~ . o o~c=o,zcrr- thigy thee-per'Ee-44t And t401,P4 :Y €iv eFse14fespestively.-The O f4e ro 0 0~+b y- AN'@ Per-eefit 144 Additien, he;.ter~,,1„~ � o ~�,, t,. a 4 w t1 ;stiii, eode uir-e lean-t of o�o !1\ r, rk;,,.. a,60 for-a th;r.1 t+ !1\ �" ..b ...,...�..�:1..«...���.,_a�� Spccve -e�vcrT�Tnrcraeuc cv�rty-�7 parkiagspase-fer- ever-5, 4414 SOAf Thi d>lstie is baSeEl 014 Stif-V S-sv+1dffetOE1:b)'-tom theater:in4ustf-y.:These r-edllstieAs-resegaize thlct ' Rd '';ff-r^ tial affEl Gaptiie inagi&t eelsepts. 9*pandiagee 44,tom* e s the feetis-eTthe Master-Plan, however .1.1i+i.,aa r >\T ,rk;r fn flowor- 1 d sea�a�e siai;-�esta�l aatand a€fuse useScheu1ld :be fe e4 The-a}ajef:it , of pabiis ,,.+„r,;+:as . ~tl y a :~ + .,is+ h,sfea ~,1 the .„ ro nt p_aA1 s"p1 e*eeeds-the pafkia gde�d. T .,This ~ rk;„�8„~~h'' Will e0iltifflaO + be E + previ�led the total „aro footage � ,1 � + d +h M + plan +' t--.. .,:1,......_., ...,.,ccr�-c c�zv-iivc-ersotAA4 N-�xra tef:plcn pr- jeetivas The 645, shall ,-e-t.,:r. +ha o~+;or, +o ,. r haso r V,_R_r+„ for- a „hl' paFkifig f l'+ rea 2In Area 2 arutzil -And A-ff; oqa,' �)'44Y Pe=eel3*. va�cxx xvicixx�iicc yiliCe^Se iTea�eat Fvas 1`'e41�ee4 reroaniZ@S +h++ho ro+.,:t a +;,>;+ > Will be 'ly 1 + + b J �xxxxxaiLxxTeviiv�ci'�~^a "" �c�v7r-rrxs-cv 1A 1Tes=4e its off S14OFtcWRc H sheppiagtripfi The al-4ee�arrkif Fe del eat Ctm6ti6a . h., oa n +ho .41 P44MhRr.of o#;, e ft,,,,i+ionA44 1 +ho + Pafkiiig, �., c..,..,vu vz nroizid0c n@htindrndPnrccr4i-o£+h • k ' r + \o oft ,••ti* r � va�czvczxrvrczz�i��7~~a�i'ciag-�eg�l�r®�aen�e ewe e������rg Inc,„Wv,+.,,,,,, r.,,hl;,. r..,rk;~,T fn,,:l;+;as ., not .. +l 1 + a f-Ofose+1,' s afea, x ,• ea S•cicvrcara�ir Site�cirri r ccvv.mrivr l of:e*paa4ed-eeMaa�eFeiai lases 14@W@i=eFPrevi4iag '~,e al aetivity r;l,W s of +0 1lawr-eial, +ha a istiiig s '~pl S StFe,+ ,441 , N sit@ pafkifigrhAl cb t� aje6t smor c�6�pated SBS � ra e dv e� must be cafe f 1ly r ,1 for-must be z6�'�s'll!'Yi� The a3i4 Yesida14:.,1 ae4N';+,os , sti . k„ab ,1,,,.+;roo„ a ,1 ,1,1•+' 1 \1 + h a~Jo f.J ., Yar aiay aer.@cca�if development does 44At exeeed4464 r 4asterTlaapxeJeettvt�S�The a}c7-Sha�� -etas the order, to r r..h.,se r ~eA), for . „hlie ,,,.,rk: f'1'+ y. The Planning Commission or City Council may impose one (1), all, or a combination of the following requirements to ensure that adequate parking is provided Ar each development: . 1. Require projects over 30,000 sq. ft. or one-half(1/2) block in size provide 50% of the code-required parking identified in Figure 4.2. or site .,r 4ig for-all r 'eets half(1 2) Week o + ..,t,._..�...5 �.,. _.t„�j.��...r3ixv-zxcerr-�rl�vo�rr6rveeeviZxrsrez ^tea•,.... •.... a>�.:::..:�.. ., .. \.i• rtir>'os>;;e;: .,�r•P�, . v:;.. VA AM- ,iwl... RESOLUTION Rb. 2000-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2000-2 AND REQUESTING ITS CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN UPDATE) WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and Public Resources Code Sections 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. 2000-2, 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. 2000-2, and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Certified Huntington Beach Coastal Land use Plan and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: , SECTION 1: That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2000- 2 consisting of Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby approved. SECTION 2: That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to consider, approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2000-2. SECTION 3: That pursuant to Section 13551(b) of the Coastal Commission Regulations, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2000-2 will take effect jmp/planning/reso coast amend/10/19/00 1 automatically upon Coastal Commission approval, ia"s provided in Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513 and 30519. SECTION 4: The amendment becomes effective immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of November , 2000. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Attorney r1f. 14 ►ofj9`6z-7 INIT T D AND APPR VED: City Adminis ator Planning Dir ctor jmp/planning/reso coast amend/10/19/00 2 EXHIBIT #A Res. No. 2000-107 ORDINANCE NO. 34,83 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 4.2 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 4.2.14 of the Huntington Beach Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.2.14 The Downtown Parking Master Plan The Downtown Parking Master Plan is based on a shared parking concept. Shared parking in effect allows one (1)parking space to serve two (2) or more individual land uses without conflict. Shared parking relies on the variations in the peak parking demand for different uses. In other words, parking demands will fluctuate in relationship to the mix of uses by hour, day of week, and season. The proper mix will create an interrelationship among different uses and activities which results in a reduction of the demand for parking. The Downtown core area is centered along the Main Street commercial corridor. This commercial corridor divides into two (2) distinct areas, north and south of Orange. The area which encompasses the Downtown Parking Master Plan is identified on the area map (Figure 4.1). Area 1 - The area south of Orange Avenue along Main Street provides the greatest amount of public parking opportunities both off-street and on-street. Area 1 has the greatest number of visitor-serving and seasonal commercial uses including year round entertainment. This area also has the greatest concentration of expanded commercial, restaurant and office uses, and therefore, the majority of the public parking spaces are provided in this area. Expanding commercial activity in this area remains the focus of the Downtown Master Plan, however, no additional parking for new or expanded commercial, restaurant and office uses should be required provided the total square footage and mix of uses do not exceed the Master Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to purchase property for a public parking facility. Area 2 -The area north of Orange Avenue along Main Street provides limited amounts of public parking opportunities. This area is still part of the Downtown core. However, the commercial uses in Area 2 cater more to year-round residents, therefore, additional on-street short-term parking is provided. The existing Downtown public parking facilities are not conveniently located for use in this area, thus, a combination of expanded on-street and on-site parking may be necessary for new or expanded commercial uses. The commercial activity remains primarily service-related commercial; the existing supply of on-street and on-site parking should be sufficient for anticipated uses. The mix of commercial and residential activities can justify a parking reduction and additional parking may not be necessary if development does imp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 1 Exhibit A ) OF 7 Res. No. 2000-107 not exceed the Master Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to purchase property for a public parking facility. City-owned and controlled public parking in the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) area shall be consistent with the City's certified land use plan. The DPMP is structured to protect beach user parking by providing adequate public parking within the Downtown area. The DPMP.encourages the use of the City-owned and controlled parking sites within the DPMP.area. To encourage the use of the City-owned public parking facilities,parking controls such as time limits, and parking rates may be adjusted to maintain the desired use of these spaces by patrons and employees of the downtown area. A validation program for the City-owned public parking structure has been established as an incentive for the use of the structure by the patrons and employees of the downtown area. Any changes to the program shall be submitted to the Executive Director to determine if an amendment to the Specific Plan is necessary. The Downtown Parking Master Plan anticipates a total development scenario of approximately 715,000 square feet of commercial activity. The DPMP has development thresholds of 144,000 square feet for restaurant, 300,000 square feet for retail, 126,000 square feet for office and 145,000 square feet for miscellaneous development. Area 1 will contain approximately 626,000 square feet of commercial development,with the remaining 89,000 square feet in Area 2. The Planning Department shall be responsible for monitoring the development square footage per land use and the number of parking spaces within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area. An annual review and monitoring report of the Downtown Parking Master Plan shall be prepared by the Planning Department and presented for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Following the review by the City Council, the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission for review. The Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall include, at a minimum: 1) amount and type of development square footage approved during the annual review period; 2) total amount of square footage in the Downtown Parking Master Plan area; 3) an inventory of existing parking spaces; 4) a parking utilization study; 5) an assessment of parking demand compared with parking supply; 6) a determination of whether adequate parking remains to serve development allowed up to the total development cap. If the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report indicates that the parking supply is inadequate to serve the approved level of development or if the development square footage exceeds the amount described above (up to 715,000 square feet total), all development within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area shall provide parking consistent with Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, unless and until new parking to meet the identified demand is approved and constructed. Changes between one or more of the individual use categories may be allowed as long as the total square footage does not exceed 715,000 square feet provided there are corresponding changes in the other use categories to assure adequate parking remains. jmp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 2 exhibit A 2 o4 , Res. No. 2000-107 Parking shall be provided for each Area. If a project is built in Area One that requires more shared parking than is available in Area One, credit from Area Two shall not be used. If a project is built in Area Two that requires more shared parking than is available in Area Two, credit from Area One shall not be used. Although the Downtown Parking Master Plan distinguishes between the location and type of parking resources available in Area 1 and Area 2, the adjusted parking requirement for both Area 1 and Area 2 is the same (Figure 4.2). The common parking requirement is based on the shared parking concept for the entire master plan area. Existing and proposed building square footage and uses identified in the technical background report prepared by Kaku Associates (Sept., 2000), entitled "Downtown Parking Master Plan Update," (Appendix - Existing and Proposed Land Use Analysis Blocks A -I) are parked within the public parking supply within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. In the event a property owner demolishes his/her existing building, and rebuilds a new building of equal square footage and use, no additional parking shall be required. Any code required parking spaces provided on-site shall be credited for any expansion of square footage or intensification of use. All required parking shall be calculated based on the reduced requirements of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The Planning Commission or City Council may impose one (1), all, or a combination of the following requirements to ensure that adequate parking is provided for each development: 1. Require projects over 30,000 sq. ft. or one-half(1/2) block in size provide 50% of the code-required parking identified in Figure 4.2. 2. Require that any parking in-lieu fees be full cost recovery based on the parking requirement for specific uses. However, allow that these fees be paid over an amortization period, with appropriate security provided by the applicant to guarantee payment. 3. Require valet parking once the maximum build out of restaurant activity has been obtained. 4. Commercial projects greater than 10,000 square feet in size shall be required to submit a parking management plan consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. 5. Require valet and/or remote parking for special events and activities, and during the peak summer season. 6. Require the applicant to provide additional on-site and/or off-site parking for any development. 7. Develop parking options which may generate additional parking for any development. 8. Develop a sign program to direct motorists to primary parking facilities within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. imp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 3 Exhibit A 3 0'F 1 Res. No. 2000-107 SECTION 2. Figure 4.2 of the Huntington Beach Specific Plan is hereby amended as follows: DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN CODIFIED PARKING REQUIREMENTS Land Use Huntington Beach Code. New Parking Standard Retail 1:200 1:333 Restaurant 1:100 1:100 Office 1:250 1:500 Note: At any time it deems necessary,the Planning Commission may require additional on-site parking to meet the parking demands generated by a use or development. SECTION 3. The Map of the Parking Master Plan is hereby amended as shown on Attachment A hereto. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become:,effective immediately,upon certification by the California Coastal Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of November ,2000. Mayor ATTEST: 49��� APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk p `I ` /SI1us-' City Attorney �� REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INIT ED AND APPROVED: City ministrator Planning ector jmp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 4 __Exhibit A al= -7 Res. No. 2000-107 `Y 'a S: '6= rg. 5 of 1 - Exhibit A -- Res. No. 2000-107 LEGEND KING MASTER P A. Mai ier Two B. Piersid Pavi ' n/Pier Colony C. Second Rehab. D. H.B. Pro ade E. Thud BI k st F. POst Ice BI ♦\ 4. y AR 2 G. Square s� H. orth Block East Art Center Block 1 � 1.. ORANGE -- _ AYE. OWE AVE. NLO - ce) N --- -------- —WALNUT ------ - -------------- • '`.'^�: �:JjYi' !vtY ': ..vd<A+A�y �'�O4:jJC:t:4 —— ———— ———— • ~�M�' ."•�'' `{.>:4 :'>l.vC: �<iC:G:}YlC'.Y/.Fn::1••.N:',,l•�6.. V :��$."...::fyC:� }t•' !.��<.:�,t,�w ':�MxR:/..�jj�y .�`�Q�Y� : a . ... LE GEND .b::...........:.....�..::<.��.a.,:.art?: �:''. ...• :.... �, .„_PALjFIQCOL�T WY PARKING MASTER PLAN _ A. Blocks 104/105 ' B. Pierside Pavilion/Pier Colony C. Second Block Rehab D. Main Street Promenade E. Plaza Almeria F. Post Office Block G. Town Square H. -Fourth Block East I. Art Center Block 13 i -- �VST�ICDQ -- - Exhibit A — °F -7 Res. No. 2000-107 Ord. No. 3483, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of November, 2000, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of November, 2000, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Julien, Garofalo I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Independent on ,2000 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy Citv Clerk of Huntington Beach, California g:/ord inanc/ordbkpg.doc Exhibit A �] 0f -7 __ Res. No. 2000-107 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 the 6th day of November, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Julien, Garofalo City Clerk and ex-officio &rk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California �,s�aY 4..� �L�P�� � ��%`s� �gc�k ���c�i,�Y x�ayy� .,a���f�� n; � -� _ .._� s 'N� ..:�" ��.; �'.��S �..: _ .� ..b� .i.�yX:.,k1 ,t';, _. ... .�.,kv.�s. A.. x:' ., �.. �:e.. � �:xr E�'i ..�.�i: '��'y a.: x 'gr.. a ,,.�.,, si ,�., �6 >- .,...e..� ,;,;.,,, �:-',�7,,;:0,:`:,,: sax V�. »:� .;- �<.�- .: • „mCi" of=Hxuntin "ton Beach Plannin Departmenit : q y. i . HUNTI T NBA >W:• """ -", ...k.:::..s.. ,....�.,i•:;%'„?r:,.,,.„r,,,;;;.,.-yar .,:,,iH"2Afe�.,wz):ia'flwfv"„ J'"a',y TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner ] DATE: October 24, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-2 (Downtown Parking Master Plan Update- Continued from the October 17,2000 meeting) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Planning, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: Downtown Specific Plan—(area generally bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Acacia St., Second St., and Sixth St.) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the October 10, 2000 meeting,the Planning Commission continued their action to a special meeting on October 17, 2000, directing staff to complete the recommended revisions to the draft ordinance/legislative draft prior to final action. The subject entitlements were automatically continued from the October 17, 2000 Planning Commission meeting due to lack of a quorum. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo from Planning Commissioner Tom Livengood dated October 17, 2000 2. Parking Space Inventory comparison dated October 17, 2000 3. Letter from John Tillotson dated October 17,'2000 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 17, 2000 (with revised Attachment) SH:HF:WC:rl (OOSR68)- 10/24/00 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Planning Commission Communication TO: PLANNING'COMMISSION FROM: Tom Livengood, Planning Commission Member/A DATE: October 17, 2000 SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN 1) Does the Kaku Associaties,Inc. draft plan provide accurate, up-to-date information to support the consultants recommendations? 2) Do the downtown economic activity indicators for the last five years comparing sales tax revenue generate support staffs recommendations? 3) Can private on-site parking be used in the parking inventory count to support Block One development? 4) Should-parking be separated for.Areas One and Two? 5) Can the public shared parking plan absorb the off--site parking required for Block One- A, the CIM,243,610 square foot project? 6) Is there adequate parking on-site in Area Two,Block H,to increase square footage by 20,000 square feet? 7) Should 100 DU's be proposed for Block H? - 8) Should large projects provide 50%, 75%, or 100%on-site parking? 9) Parking ratios: Approve a reduced downtown ratio or maintain the 1995 ratio? 10) What should the mix of development and square footage caps for each Block be? Attachments from October 10 meeting 6.95 and 6.103. These ten issues need to be part of the decision making process. c: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Scott Hess,Principal Planner Herb Fauland, Principal Planner Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner File ATTACHMENT NO. 10/17i00 TUE 16:08 FAX 310 394 7663 KakU ASSOClateS. inc. w uuz PARKING SPACE INVENTORY EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY 1999 OFF-STREET BLOCK PAZ ON-STREET PRIVATE PUBLIC TOTAL A 60 119 57 236 e 32 285 0 317 C 34 20 0 54 D 36 0 826 862 e nla n/a n/a rJa F 42 60 0 (AREA 1 TOTAL 204 484 683 1,571 0 59 44 0 103 H 75 78 0 153 1 22 21 0 43 ARFA2TOTAL 156 143 0 299 AREA 1 a 2 TOTAL 360 627 883 1,970 FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY OFF-STRE T BLOCK PAS ON-STREET PRIVATE PUBLIC TOTAL A 22 403 0 425 B 32 285 0 317 C 42 20 0 62 D 36 0 826 862 E 36 168 0 204 F 42 80 0 102 AREA 1 TOTAL ir 210 1 936 826 1,972 0 69 44 0 103 H 75 78 0 153 1 22 21 0 43 AREA 2TOTAL 166 143 0 299 AREA 18 z=10TAL 366 1,079 826 2,271 ATTACHMEN_1' 11(�_:. _:- �o%7�do MLOTSON ENTERPRISES 15272 Bob Chia Road Hunlalgton Bach,CA 9N9 (714)89S•9SS2 FAX ql4)895.6321 - ,'4-•~���w ,�iK 'h:rcu Mr.'a lea:. .iyr5 `�i.ia �:�'.'lw.e4- � MM1 M_� _ - _ To: Mr.Jerry Chapman,Chaiman Fax: 714/374-1648 Planning Commission and Members From: John H.Tillotson,Jr. Date: October 17,2000 Re: Downtown Parking Plan Pages: 2(incl.cover sheet) CC: ❑Urgent ❑For Review ❑Picric Comment ❑Please Reply ❑Please Recycle a is my underslanding thatuw PtannwV Con nissoon vA be considering the Oowc,mwn PafknV Plan Someftes tt ings seem to maim wise on paper but don t really wok tlratway in Practice - Perhaps my explaining our speclfw experience at Vim Aknena wig be of some value in your deliberatom As we an know parking is expensive to build-Sornetimes as much as$15.000.00 Per space.At Plaza Almeda we have 178 CpmnrercW Parl&V Spaces we have 10AW suguare feet Of offices fury occupied and we have sppmx;mafey 24000 square feet of ReW Space which is 50% ,,copal Our parking sbucwm on any given day is no more than zu%'oecwo&Only on t— occasions has it been tub in over one year of operation and our parking nines are vwY sandarL0 tint of the City s sbucbne if you were to go today and walk our eutwhure you would note thatthe SOUMM is mostly empty in my opinion you do rot now have orwodd you have in the foreseeable kd=a perking shoriacge in"downtown area. C i'vtLTilloteoti Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AT .f . :�:--. 5 o f=H' "f" "APT �Pu & h ..,.:.l.-az'r;�ni ns De` ar,n;r^,T wes.:n� KA , ,,, � r E t MTF R:EwP i NUNTINGTON BE CH ", . E,5� M, .i�;' i.�L '`xFe ✓e�';:}:' ":aaic�Li, ,.:=Y`i.,,. :'."k;x TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner WC, DATE: October 17, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO: 99-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-2 (Downtown Parking Master Plan Update - Continued from the October 10, 2000 meeting) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Planning, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION:. Downtown Specific Plan—(area generally bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Acacia St., Second St., and Sixth St.) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3 request: - Amend the Downtown Specific Plan by.updating the Downtown Parking Master Plan. - Revise the commercial parking ratios and requirements. - Increase the overall development cap for the parking master plan area from 500,000 to 710,000 sq. ft. • Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 request: - Amend the City's Local Coastal Program incorporating the changes to the Downtown Specific Plan. • Continued Item Planning Commission meeting October 10, 2000. Planning Commission continued their action directing staff to complete the recommended revisions to the draft ordinance/legislative draft prior to final action. Staffs Recommendation: Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program No. 00-2 based upon the following: - General Plan goals and objectives that ensure development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure and public services. - Allow for increases in development capacity that are consistent with the types and densities of uses depicted on the Land Use Plan consistent with the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan and Downtown Parking Master Plan. - Allow continued downtown redevelopment consistent with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan. ATTACH E TIID . RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward to the City Council for adoption." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Recommend modifications to Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 and forward the draft ordinance to the City Council." B. "Recommend denial of Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 and forward the draft ordinance to the City Council." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-3 is a request to amend Section 4.2.14'of the Downtown Specific Plan updating the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP)pursuant to Section 247.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). Local Coastal'Program Amendment No. 00-2 is a request to amend the City.'s Local Coastal Program (LCP) incorporating the changes to Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan pursuant to Section 247.16 of the ZSO. ANALYSIS: The item was continued from the October 10, 2000 meeting to allow staff the opportunity to complete the recommended revisions to the draft ordinance. The specific revisions are as follows: 1. Separate the floor area thresholds for each area. Rather than only identifying an overall threshold for the entire DPMP (i.e. 730,000 sq. ft.), the revised ordinance separates the two areas (i.e. Area 1 with 626,000.sq. ft.) preventing the ability to exceed the thresholds from either area. Staff supports the recommendation to define the two areas and the separation of the development thresholds for each area. The Ordinance and Legislative Draft have been revised to incorporate the separate figures and descriptions. 2. Revise the floor area projections for Block H to include an additional 20,000 sq. ft. Staff does not support the recommended increase in floor area on Block H. The anticipated commercial development on Block H was envisioned to be similar to that of Block G (Town Staff Report- 10/17/00 2 (OOSR64) ATTACHMENT NO. Square)with ground level retail and office above. Also, because new residential development has occurred on Lake Street,the usable area for commercial development has been reduced to the Main. Street frontage. Staff does not believe the site can accommodate 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial development. Furthermore, a total of 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial would be greater than that at Plaza Almeria(41,000) and that anticipated for Block F(41,760). 3. To require all projects over 30,000 sq.ft. in size to provide a minimum of 50%.of the parking on-site. Staff generally supports the concept and includes this provision in the draft ordinance. However, staff feels that the existing ordinance provides the decision makers with flexibility. Staff believes the addition of the recommendation to the.7 listed as well as the maximum development thresholds and minimum required number of parking spaces adequately addresses future development. 4. Identify the Land Use Analysis Tables in the Appendix of the Kaku Report identifying all of the thresholds and parking on a block-by-block basis. The ordinance has been revised to reference the Appendix in the Kaku Report,which indicate the maximum development potential on a block-by-block basis. 5. Maintain the existing parking ratios for each area. Although staff identifies the two distinct areas, staff does not support maintaining the existing parking ratios. Based on the analysis completed by the City's parking consultant, staff feels that the entire master plan should utilize the same parking ratios. These ratios would apply for any development exceeding the thresholds identified in the Land Use Analysis Tables (Appendix). Staff received a memo from Planning Commissioner Tom Livengood in reference to his concerns on the DPNIP Update (Attachment No. 4). A staff response to each of Commissioner Livengood's issues is included in the memo. The Planning Commission also requested staff complete a block-by-block comparison in the buildout figures identified in the 1995 DPW and 2000 DPMP (Kakis Study). The comparison is included in Attachment No. 5. ATTACHMENTS: t Cnuaectec� Findinoc f�i,Y� ,mot 2 Tlroft Ordinaace t yi&C�1 - a►soxe da co�so�� 3 T giSladu Tl aft ey d) 4. Memo from Planning Commissioner Tom Livengood dated October 11, 2000 5. Proposed Development Comparison(1995/2000 Land Uses) SH:HF:WC:rl Staff Report- 10/17/00 3 (OOSR64) ATTACNYMENT.NO. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Planning Commission Communication TO: PLANNING"COMMISSION FROM: Tom Livengood,Planning Commission Member SUBJECT: DPMP 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS DATE: October 11,2000 RECOMMENDATION Recommend modifications to Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-3.and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-02 and forward draft ordinance to the City Council. The 1995 Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) designates two areas in the Plan. Area One, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)to Orange Avenue; and Area Two, Orange Avenue.to Acacia Street. Definition of the two areas is provided in the ordinance (Section I).and Legislative Draft (Section II). The recommendation is to maintain these two distinct areas. A) Revise the 1995 (DPMP) recommended caps on square footage: 1995 2000 Area One 400,000 626,000 Area Two 100,000 104,000 Total: 500,000 730,000 Staff Response: Staff supports the recommendation to define the two areas and the separation of the development thresholds for each area. The Ordinance and Legislative Draft have been revised to incorporate the separate figures and descriptions. B) Revise square footage projections for Block A in Area One and Block H in Area Two (Section III): Coultrup (Existing) CIM (Proposed) Recommended Block A (104/105) 42,000 sq. ft. 234,000 sq. ft. 234,000 sq. ft. Block H 32, 250 sq. ft. 52,250 sq. ft. Note: Coultrup included 80 condominium units which are not in the comparisons. Staff Response: Staff does not support the recommended increase in floor area on Block H. The anticipated commercial development on Block H was envisioned to be similar to that of ATTACHMENT NO: Block G(Town Square) with ground level retail and office above. Also, because new residential development has occurred on Lake Street, the usable area for commercial development has been reduced to the Main Street frontage. Staff does not believe the site can accommodate 50,000 sq.ft. of commercial development. Furthermore, a total of 50,000 sq.ft. of commercial would be greater than that at Plaza Almeria (41,000) and that anticipated for Block F(41,760). C) Require projects over 30,000'square feet provide 50% of parking on-site. Staff Response: Staff generally.•supports the concept and,includes this provision in the draft ordinance. However, staff feels that the existing ordinance provides the decision makers with flexibility. Staff believes the addition of the recommendation.to,the 7.1isted as welfas the maximum development thresholds and minimum required number of parking spaces adequately addresses future development. D) Establish projected development square footage and include as an addendum (Section IV details recommendations). Staff Response: Development projections identified in Appendix.of the'Downtown Parking Master Plan Update (Sept. 2000). E) The.ordinance permits changes between one or more of the individual categories as long as the square'footage does not exceed square footage caps-in-each area"provided there are corresponding changes in.the other use categories to assure adequate.parking remains". Staff Response: Staff supports the recommendation to modify the language to separate the maximum development thresholds by area (i.e. max. 626,000 sq.ft. in Area 1). F) Maintain the 1995 (DPMP)parking ratio: Area One Area Two Retail 4.00 2.50 Office 1.00 2.00 Cinema 0.20 N/A Restaurant 6.67 10.0 Staff Rgponse: Although staff identifies the two areas with their own development thresholds, staff does not support maintaining the existing parking ratios. Based on the analysis completed by the parking consultant,staff feels that the entire master plan should utilize the same parking ratios for any development that exceeds that thresholds identified in the Land Use Analysis Tables (Appendix). GARobin\Vardoc\OORL0039 -2- 10/11/00 -------- i ! AT NO. t�;. G) The 1999/2000 DPMP annual review includes a survey taken September 11 and September 24, 1999. Peak usage of the parking structure was taken July 5, 6, and 7 from 1995 to 1999. The third quarter sales tax revenue (July—September) shows sales on a downturn with 1998, 1999 showing improvement in the downtown core area. Using this data to justify,major changes in,parking is a.concern. It is recommended the 2001-2002 survey and parking study be done in July, 2001. Completion of projects in the area and the trend to increased sales will build a better base for future projections of parking needs and mix of uses (retail, office, etc.). .Staff Response: The required annual reviews and monitoring reports will continue to analyze parking utilization during these peak summer periods. No change to the existing or proposed ordinance is recommended Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by minute action, recommend to the City Council that a parking study be conducted next year concurrent with the DPMPAnnual Review. I-J) Future parking studies should not include periphery parking located in residential areas. Private, posted parking should continue to be.included in parking inventory for daytime use. This parking should not be included in evening parking inventory since these spaces are not open to the public. Staff Response: Aside from identifying the number of spaces in the periphery of the master plan for the analysis, the periphery parking has not, and will not.be included in the DPMP parking analysis. The parking supply identified upon buildout of the DPMP is 2,271 spaces. Downtown Core Third Quarter Sales Tax Revenue (July—September) Downtown Core % Change 1995 121,292 1996 99,891 17.64% 1997 98,526 -1.37% 1998 118,478 20.25% 1999 126,942 7.14% *Downtown Core Area includes the following business addresses: Pacific Coast Highway, 102-698(even numbers only);Main Street, 101-816;2nd Street;3rd Street;5th Street;6th Street;Lake Street;and Olive,Orange& Walnut Avenues. G:\Robin\Vardoc\OORL0039 -3- 10/11/00 I ATTACHMENT NOL____� Staff Response: The sales tax revenue figures for the Downtown Core do not include Ruby's, Duke's, or Chimayo's. They are included in the Main-Pier Redevelopment sales .tax revenue figures. Comparison of Square Footage: Block A Coultrup CIM Retail 12,000 89,860 Restaurant 201000 44,210 Office 10,000 6,430 Hotel 0 103,110 Total: 42,000 234,000 Note: Coultrup included 80 townhomes Block H Existing Recommended Retail 32,250 39,250 Office 0 13,110 Total: 32,250 52,250 Comparison of Parkin: Block A Coultrup CIM(1995) CIM (2000) Retail 48 (1/250) 359 (1/333) 270 Restaurant 133 (11150) 295 (1/100) 442 Office 10 (1/1000) 6 (11500) 13 Hotel 0 (1.1/rm) 153 (1.1/rm) 153 Total 1995 DPMP: 191 813 878 On-Site 0 (1) 403 (2) 403 Off:Site Shared: 191 410 475 (1) Council Action (2) Planning Commission,Consultants Recommendations Block H Existing(1995) Recommended (2000) Retail 81 196 Office 0 52 81 248 Note: 1995 DPMP recommended a total of 20,000 square feet. G:\Robin\Vardoc\OORL0039 -4- 10/11/00 ATTACHMENT.NC'_. DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON (10/11/00) 1995 LAND USES 2000 LAND USES BLOCK A BLOCK A Retail: 30,953 sq. ft. 118,338 sq. ft. Restaurant: 22,798 sq. ft. 51,693 sq. ft. Office: 40,299 sq. ft. 40,779 sq. ft. Other: 0 sq. ft. 103,110 sq. ft. 80 DU/B&B 12 DU B&B 12 DU Total: 94,050 sq. ft. 313,920 sq. ft. BLOCK B BLOCK B Retail: 27,834 sq. ft. 27,834 sq. ft. Restaurant: 31,773 sq. ft. 31,773 sq. ft. Office: 16,000 sq. ft. 16,000 sq. ft Other: 30,000/1750 seats 30,000/1750 seats 130 DU 130 DU Total: 105,607 sq. ft. 105,607 sq. ft. BLOCK C BLOCK C Retail: 37, 365 sq. ft. 37, 815 sq. ft. Restaurant: 29,785 sq. ft. 28,335 sq. ft. Office: 22,175 sq. ft. 23,975 sq. ft. Other: 1,600 sq. ft. Police 1,600 sq. ft. Police Total: 90,925 sq. ft. 91,725 sq. ft. BLOCK D BLOCK D Retail: 24,073 sq. ft. 24,073 sq. ft. Restaurant: 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Office: 3,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Other: 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Total: 32,073 sq. ft. 32,073 sq. ft. (GAHMPARKI NG\200000MP) ATTACHMENT NO."., �� Development Comparison October 11, 2000 Page Two 1995 LAND USES 2000 LAND USES BLOCK E BLOCK E Retail: 19,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. Restaurant: 0 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. Office: 8,000 sq. ft. 11,000 sq. ft. Other: 68 DU 42 DU Total: 27,000 sq. ft. 41,000 sq. ft. BLOCK F BLOCK F Retail: 24,200 sq. ft. 24,760 sq. ft. Restaurant: 4,000 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft. Office: 13,000 sq. ft. 13,000 sq. ft. Other: 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Total: 41,200 sq. ft. 41,760 sq. ft. SUBTOTAL - Area 1 Retail: 163,425 sq. ft. 247,820 sq. ft. Restaurant: 93,356 sq. ft. 135,801 sq. ft. Office: 102,474 sq. ft. 107,754 sq. ft. Other: 31,600 sq. ft. 134,710 sq. ft. TOTAL: 390,855 sq. ft. 626,085 sq. ft. BLOCK G BLOCK G Retail: 25,000 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft Restaurant: 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Office: 4,700 sq. ft. 4,700 sq. ft. Other: 89 DU 89 DU Total: 29,700 sq. ft. 29,700 sq. ft. (G:\H FPARKI N G\200000M P) ATTACHMENT NO. Development Comparison October 11, 2000 Page Three 1995 LAND USES 2000 LAND USES BLOCK H BLOCK H Retail: 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. Restaurant: 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Office: 0 sq. ft. 13,000 sq. ft. Other: 100 DU 100 DU Total: 20,000 sq. ft. 33,000 sq. ft. BLOCK BLOCK Retail: 2,500 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. Restaurant: 7,946 sq. ft. 7,946 sq. ft. Office: 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Other: 10,575 sq. ft. 10,575 sq. ft Total: 21,021 sq. ft. 21,021 sq. ft. SUBTOTAL - Area 2 Retail: 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 sq. ft. Restaurant: 7,946 sq. ft. 7,946 sq. ft. Office: 4,700 sq. ft. 17,700 sq. ft. Other: 10,575 sq. ft. 10,575 sq. ft. TOTAL: 70,721 sq. ft. 83,721 sq. ft. TOTALS AREAS 1 & 2 Retail: 210,925 sq. ft. 295,320 sq. ft. Restaurant: 101,302 sq. ft. 143,747 sq. ft. Office: 107,174 sq. ft. 125,454 sq. ft. Other: 42,175 sq. ft. 145,285 sq. ft. GRAND TOTAL:461,576 SQ. FT. 709,806 SQ. FT. PARKING: 1984 spaces Z271 spaces (GAHPPARKI NG\200000MP) ATTACHM►NIT NO.- , , , r f e Yc.^.��,,,R•:R C�.,�n�� > <`:r,.rlr..ti;�i..f�f:ri•;•%'�f' •�...%.: ,.:\Y:C: ! rl`'4R�iRYa Y/,^ :.. .� . L't✓. +'f' .., ",,,.,.�.. •.irC3:`yQ 5?�.�\�.��1`l:.. 5••:��Siir.(,+tes'1";: e.M,i�.n: ........... .�n:< �3•» nhacR<d�", ";v;�,.�ze'r'`«z;:"''"' •ca':�f�.i'siS::ai�,a cf:«> •�` a: j$ •:... .i..,':.. ?'(fP b ':,"�'x?'fvs °//i"vi •�!...,, w � %. • .Ci of`H4untm Eton Beacha Plan.nin De artgment y- g ° g R:.,...,,.:: 1f 1 f. �� .y," � R� •'• � f %. w;.3, ors. \ ..•,1 HUNTINGTON BEACH t,Sal � S'-;r F •'%';'-`.-' � i ` ••- TO: Planning Commission FROM. Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner DATE: October 10, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-2 (Downtown Parking Master Plan Update) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach,Department of Planning, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: Downtown Specific Plan—(area generally bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Acacia St., Second St., and Sixth St.) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3 request: - Amend the Downtown Specific Plan by updating the Downtown Parking Master Plan. - Consolidate the two designated areas within the Master Plan. - Revise the commercial parking ratios and requirements. - Increase the overall development cap for the parking master plan area from 500,000 to 710,000 sq. ft. • Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 request: - Amend the City's Local Coastal Program incorporating the changes to the Downtown Specific Plan. • Staff s Recommendation: Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program No. 00-2 based upon the following: - General Plan goals and objectives that ensure development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure and public services. - Allow for increases in development capacity that are consistent with the types and densities of uses depicted on the Land Use Plan consistent with the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan and Downtown Parking Master Plan. - Allow continued downtown redevelopment consistent with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward to the City Council for adoption." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Recommend modifications to Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 and forward the draft ordinance to the City Council." B. "Recommend denial of Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 and forward the draft ordinance to the City Council." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-3 is a request to amend Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan updating the Downtown Parking Master Plan(DPMP)pursuant to Section 247.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 is a request to amend the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) incorporating the changes to Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan pursuant to Section 247.16 of the ZSO. The Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) is based on the concept of shared parking. Shared parking allows one parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict. Shared parking relies on the variations in the peak parking demand for various uses, based on different activity patterns of adjacent uses by hour of the day, day of the week, and season. The DPMP also recognizes interrelationships among different uses and activities that result in an attraction to two or more businesses on a single vehicle trip. As a result, a single parking space can be used to serve more than one destination within the downtown area. Last year,the City initiated the process to update the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) by entering into a contract for consulting services with Kaku Associates. The purpose of the update was to complete the following: 1. Analyze current parking conditions in the downtown area; 2. Determine whether the DPMP was operating as intended; 3. Analyze the existing development cap of 500,000 sq. ft. 4. Project future parking demands based on the proposed buildout; 5. Provide analysis and recommendations on the mix of land uses,parking ratios, development cap and boundary of the DPMP. 6. Develop additional recommendations on the implementation of the DPMP. Staff Report- 10/10/00 2 (OOSR61) Background The shared parking concept was approved by the City Council in 1995 with the adoption of the comprehensive update to the Downtown Specific Plan known as the "Village Concept." As part of this update, the specific plan included the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP). The DPMP addresses the parking needs for the area bounded by Sixth Street on the west, Acacia on-the north, First Street on the east, and Pacific Coast Highway on the south(Attachment No. 2). The master plan is centered along the Main Street commercial corridor and is separated into two districts by Orange Avenue. The two districts were delineated based on the type of land uses being considered, parking needs and available parking opportunities. Each district specified its own parking requirements and ratios. Area 1, south of Orange Avenue, provided the greatest amount of parking for the visitor-serving and seasonal commercial uses. Area 2, north of Orange,provided less parking as it catered more to year- round residential and neighborhood commercial uses. Parking requirements for the two districts were separated by land use. No reduction to the required residential parking was approved. 100% of the residential parking in both areas is required to be provided on-site. The Downtown Parking Master Plan was also limited to an overall development cap of 500,000 square feet of commercial activity. This restriction was imposed by the California Coastal Commission upon the approval of the DPMP. However,this development cap could be exceeded if zoning code parking was provided. Since the adoption of the Downtown Parking Master Plan, staff has completed two reviews of the DPMP. In 1996, the DPMP review concluded that adequate parking was provided in the DPMP for the approved mix of uses. The next review conducted in the summer of 2000, again concluded that the existing parking supply was adequate for the existing mix of commercial uses downtown. However, the analysis revealed that there would be a parking deficit upon final buildout of the master plan. Staff concluded that the existing parking ratios may have been conservative and that further analysis would be completed during Kaku Associates update of the DPMP. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed revisions to the Downtown Parking Master Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Policy 2.1.3: Limit the type, location, and/or timing of development where there is inadequate public infrastructure and/or services to support land use development. Policy 2.1.5: Permit increases in development capacity consistent with the types and densities of uses depicted on the Land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy LU 7.1.1, when it can be Staff Report- 10/f 0/00 3 (OOSR61) demonstrated that additional transportation improvements have been implemented or are funded, or demands have been reduced (based on highway level of service and vehicle trips). B. Coastal Element Policy 15 l: Ensure that adequate parking is provided in all new development in the coastal zone utilizing new parking standards specific to the coastal zone in conjunction with the development of off-site parking strategies. The update of the master plan specifies new development thresholds.based on the anticipated parking demand for the downtown commercial core. The new development cap is a result of a comprehensive parking study-conducted on the projected parking demand following buildout of the downtown. The maximum development potential would not exceed the existing floor area limits established during the General Plan Update (1994) for each of the downtown land use designations. Environmental Status: The proposed project is covered under Statutory Exemption Section 15262 Feasibility and Planning Studies of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)which states that projects involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does to require the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration. Furthermore, the exemption is-adequate because the Downtown Specific Plan and Downtown Parking Master Plan land use and development potential has been analyzed under the General Plan EIR No. 94- 1, and the Redevelopment Plan Merger EIR No. 96-2. Coastal Status: The revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan will require an amendment to the City's adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP). Prior to forwarding the revised ordinance to the California Coastal Commission,the City Council must first take action on the LCP amendment. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Department's Concerns: Throughout the process, draft copies of the Downtown Parking Master Plan Update were circulated for review by the appropriate City Departments. The comments received have been incorporated into the DPMP Update as applicable. Staff Report- 10/10/00 4 (OOSR61) Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on September 28, 2000, and notices were sent to property owners of record within the boundary of the master plan, Downtown City Council subcommittee members and attendees, individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), and interested parties. As of October 4, 1999, one letter opposing the request has been received (Attachment No. 7). -- Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): August, 2000 Zoning Text Amendment is a legislative action, thus not applicable ANALYSIS: The Downtown Parking Master Plan has been in operation for over five years. Statistics received on the utilization of the City's 815 space Main Promenade parking structure (Attachment No. 8), as well as continued monitoring of development and parking in the DPMP, indicates that the shared parking concept works and that there have been no parking problems or shortfalls identified in the downtown. Staff realizes that there may be occasional summer days that will generate a higher parking demand in the downtown due to sporting events on the beach, entertainment at Pier Plaza, or the Fourth of July_ Parade, compounded by our climate. However, prior and current data indicates that there is ample parking within the downtown area. Staff feels that it is a common misconception that there is insufficient parking available in the downtown. The fact is, many people expect to find available parking directly adjacent to their destination, and decide against walking for any given distance. It is within downtown areas that one should expect to walk a block or two to get to one's destination. Staff feels that since its adoption, the DPMP and the shared parking concept has been tested and proven. To further validate the parking analysis, staff has compiled parking statistics for the 815 space Main Promenade parking structure, comparing the summer of 1999 with the summer of 2000. STATISTICS -JULY (4' of July) Time Fri: Fri. =Sat. .:' Sat. Sun.":'."" Sun. Period 9/3%99 9/1/00 9/4199'° 9/2/00 '-9%5/99_e 9/3/00 2PM ,R630;"v J` 763 Full" Full K.Ffa' ln,+ 4 PM ': ;F 592 580 800 657uil 750 6 PM 670,,.;. 608 7$8:"? 590 430 671 y.; y 8 PM :697; ' 517 740 576 361;.;,—o 681 10 PM 767 790 S45 149"'"` 497 n � ; 12 PM ,u`509,a 608 421"` 235 `°"9:7: 211 . ';$: 1 AM 145 128 Staff Report- 10/10/00 5 (OOSR61) f STATISTICS -AUGUST Time Fr ::�' ..,,, .;: xw. k;� i.., Fri. ;5'at:` Sat. Sun:; ..: Sun. Period :;816/99" 8/4/00 p8/7/99 8/5/00 &/8/99' 8/6/00 2 PM "';'_: �. ;; M;�a�° 689; 717 �- Full 656 4 PM :r 786 617 A. 647t 441 ; 738 650 h.,. 6 PM a °610, 432 fir' S6r9y 508 ;592 416 8 PM 740' , 520 650 531 454 v"'` 369 10 PM 710 ``°-° 568 .1547.,.;;; 450 291`~= 302 12 PM ''.. 238 z '.; 89 F464 ;-- 374°° 330 m£" 118 1 AM 91 189 Yyhl . 139 y > STATISTICS SEPTEMBER(Labor Day) Time H. Fri:. Fri. " . ;. _' - ,Sat. Sat. Sun. Sun. 11Iori:° Mon. Period 9/3/99'°r" 9/1/00 9%4%99 9/2/00 9%S/9P9 9/3/00 9%6%99 9/4/00 ;f 2 PM %' ,.. 467 522 . . 586 °; ,602 689 ' 719 4 PM a& 4 s H\ ," 6 ,t.F 685 :537. 388Y 4°95 536 594 %63: 6 PM %%55:0 381 371 595 361 5;79%,.' 418`" 590 8PM 705--- --� 445 y "'.591' 410 599 340 "`' 303 " 300 10 PM 565,;;s'' 528 a'Ej25: 370 w` %375 301 ='`':2:13 233 12 PM MW 397 238 �9I.`" 250 229 129 62 "131 82 [ I AM , 94;,•,,y,�,. 131 ;216"""�`�` 152 '�1;;12�°�� w;;°��,;,:. Based on the data provided in the tables above, the actual parking demand in the parking structure has been reduced over the past year. In addition, the statistical data depicted validates the current parking analysis and indicates that adequate parking is provided for the downtown consistent with the shared parking concept. Over the past year, Kaku Associates has worked with staff to complete the update of the DPMP. Prior to completing the parking analysis, Kaku Associates conducted the following surveys (see Attachment No. 6): • Parking space inventory of the entire study area • Parking utilization survey of all parking spaces • Parking user survey for a sample of parking facilities • Parking duration survey for a sample of parking facilities The analysis completed by Kaku Associates is the technical background report for formulating recommended changes to the existing Ordinance (Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan). The proposed text changes to the ordinance are included in the Legislative Draft (Attachment No. 4). Kaku Associates proposes the following revisions to the Downtown Parking Master Plan(Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan): Staff Report- 10/10/00 6 (OOSR61) 1. Consolidate Area I and Area 2 within the Master Plan As previously mentioned, the two designated areas were originally established due to the conclusion that there are distinct parking needs and opportunities within the DPMP. Each area specified separate parking ratios and requirements. Based on the analysis and update conducted by the City's consultant, the two areas would be consolidated into one (see pg. 74 of Attachment-No:6). The consultant recommends consolidating the two areas noting that the parking supply north of Orange Avenue would assist in supporting the demand for the commercial uses located south of Orange Avenue. The consultant further indicates that it is customary that motorists and visitors park and walk a 2-3 block distance to their destination. By combining these two areas, the same parking standards would be applicable throughout the master plan area. Staff agrees with the consultant's conclusions, understanding that although there is a higher demand for parking as one gets closer to the beach, there is ample parking to accommodate visitors during peak summer periods. Staff agrees that the entire master plan area should be regulated under the same parking ratios. 2. Revise the parking ratios and requirements The existing parking ratios were established in the 1995 DPMP based on the shared parking concept. Because of the shared parking concept, all of the commercial ratios were lower than typical strip center parking requirements. The reduced ratios were adopted based on different peak parking demands, because people who work and live in an area also shop in that same area, and because patrons who come to the downtown generally shop at numerous locations on a single auto trip (1995 DPMP). Following the parking analysis,the City's consultant recommended that the existing parking ratios be modified to reflect the anticipated parking demand for the DPMP. In most cases, the revised ratios are slightly higher than the existing ratios, thereby requiring more parking for projects exceeding the allowable floor area specified in the DPMP. This is consistent with the findings made during the 2000 review of the DPMP. The existing and recommended parking ratios are listed below and are discussed on pg. 75 of Attachment No. 6. �4. a��>,:;''^�•x� .:. .. h, ,,.iiy, :tire, /sec:,.:,, y�✓N,y,;y .,,...h Y ,,.� ;ti x •�3 C urrentyFarkirig"Ratio ro lit �.. ,.... . �.:�. s,� .:,•, :,. Po rig Ra secl Parki Area 1 Area 2 Retail 4.00 (1:250 sq. ft.) 2.50 (1:400 sq. ft.) 3.00 (1:333 sq. ft.) Restaurant 6.67 (1:150 sq. ft.) 10.00 (1:100 sq. ft.) 10.00 (1:100 sq. ft.) Office 1.00 (1:1000 sq. ft.) 2.00 (1:500 sq. ft.) 2.00 (1:500 sq. ft.) Cinema 0.20 (1:5 seats) N/A 0.30 (1:3.3 seats) Staff supports the recommended ratios based on the analysis completed by Kaku Associates as well as the prior conclusions identified in the 2000 DPMP Annual Review. Staff feels the proposed ratios result in a more accurate projection of the future parking demand after buildout. Staff Report- 10/10/00 7 (OOSR61) 3. Increase the overall development cap for the master plan area In approving the 1995 Downtown Parking Master Plan, the California Coastal Commission stipulated an overall development cap of 500,000 square feet of commercial activity. By placing thresholds on each type of land use, the Coastal Commission was satisfied that implementation of the DPMP would function as intended. The Coastal-Commission also:permitted the City the ability to shift-the square footage figures under individual land use categories provided the overall cap is not exceeded. An annual review and monitoring report was required to be reviewed and approved by the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission. The analysis conducted by the City's consultant concluded that the existing downtown parking supply of 2,189 spaces easily accommodates the proposed land uses under the existing parking master plan. In fact, the study identified an overall surplus of over 500 spaces during peak summer conditions. However, the study indicated that there would be up to a 130-space deficit resulting from total buildout of the DPMP during the nighttime peak hour on Friday's in July. Understanding that there was a deficit identified, the consultant indicates that with implementation of the recommended revisions to the DPMP and the parking measures identified below, the future parking supply would accommodate the anticipated buildout of the downtown. The buildout and proposed development cap for the DPMP would be increased from 500,000 sq. ft. to 710,000 sq. ft. to accommodate for the continued redevelopment of the downtown, as the City approaches the existing development cap. The additional commercial floor area is proposed on Blocks A and H (Attachment No. 2). The specific square footage figures of the proposed buildout are listed in the Appendix of the DPMP Update (Attachment No. 6). It should also be noted that the-proposed parking generation rates used to project future parking requirements were adjusted upward to include a 10% contingency factor, which is a typical adjustment used in the planning of parking systems (pg. 47 of Attachment No. 6). Based on the analysis conducted by Kaku Associates, including the utilization, user, and parking duration surveys, staff supports the recommended increase in the overall development cap. Staff feels that it would be impractical and inefficient to plan and construct public or private parking facilities based solely on one or two peak days during the summer. For the past five years, the empirical data clearly demonstrates there is an excess of parking available downtown. Furthermore, although the beach parking facilities were excluded in the overall count of the DPMP parking supply, visitors often utilize the Pier Plaza parking lots during these peak evening periods while patronizing businesses up Main Street. There are over 500 spaces in the Pier Plaza parking lots, which exclude the Duke's valet area, that are available to visitors. 4. Additional Recommendations The existing DPMP contains parking options that authorize the City's approving body to impose on downtown development. Kaku Associates recommends additional parking strategies to improve the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Specifically, Kaku Associates recommends the following: Staff Report- 10/10/00 8 (OOSR61) • The City encourage all future projects proposing a density of development for a commercial project that is over 30,000 sq. ft. to provide and satisfy at least 50% of its code-required parking. By requiring these larger projects to provide 50% of the spaces,the overall increase in the parking supply would be increased by 100-150 spaces in the study area. • The City should require all larger projects utilize on-site attendants (valet service) during - the peak season. Parking vehicles in tandem can increase the effective capacity of the parking supply of the larger facilities. This measure would only be required during the peak summer months (i.e. June-August). • The City not engage in a capital improvement program to construct-additional municipal parking facilities to increase the parking supply. Based on the availability of hundreds of parking spaces within the periphery area of downtown, including the Pier Plaza parking lots south of P.C.H., there is no justification to add additional City parking facilities to the downtown parking supply. Although these spaces are excluded from the official inventory of the DPMP parking supply, they can be viewed as supplemental spaces thatlare available for use during peak periods. After reviewing these recommended strategies,.staff determined that these measures are addressed within the Downtown Specific Plan. The.existing ordinance grants the Planning Commission the authority to impose a variety of parking requirements on projects to reduce parking impacts within the DPMP (see Attachment No. 4). For example, the Planning Commission may require valet service be offered as part of a development; require additional on-site and/or off-site.parking; and require payment of in-lieu-fees. The,proposed ordinance includes amended or.added parking measures incorporating the recommendations by Kaku Associates. Summary The Kaku study confirms that the current and future parking supply is adequate to accommodate current and future demand. The analysis concludes that the study area has sufficient excess capacity to accommodate increases in parking demand on up to 513 spaces under peak summer conditions. However, under future buildout conditions, the analysis indicates that the downtown area has a potential parking deficiency on Friday nights in one summer month. The report indicates that the downtown parking supply could potentially be impacted during peak nighttime periods (8 PM- 10:00 PM) on Fridays in July (pg. 69 on Attachment No. 6). The projected deficit is 130 spaces throughout the DPMP study area. The peak period on Saturday is at 3:00 PM where the parking supply would accommodate the projected demand. The recommended measures would only be required on Fridays in July and perhaps on several weekends and holidays. Staff agrees with the consultant's recommendation not to construct additional municipal parking facilities. It would be economically infeasible to build additional parking for a deficiency that may occur on Fridays from 8 PM to 10 PM after buildout of the master plan. Notwithstanding the fact that the beach parking facilities were excluded in the overall DPMP parking Staff Report- 10/10/00 9 (OOSR61) supply, visitors would certainly be able to utilize the beach parking lots during these peak evening periods when beach parking is available. Based on the review and analysis performed by the City's consultant, as well as the review of the five years in which the DPMP has been in operation, staff feels that a 60 space deficit for peak evening periods would easily be.addressed with the implementation of the recommended parking strategies. The City's Main Promenade parking statistics, the continued monitoring of the DPMP, and the conclusions substantiated from the Kaku Associates analysis, reveals that there have been no parking problems over the past five years. Staff feels that the DPMP has been tested and proven since its adoption in 1995. Community Meeting On September 27, 2000, staff held a community meeting at the H.B. Art Center to present the DPMP Update to downtown property owners, business owners, residents, and interested parties. The City's consultant presented the findings of the study and answered questions. Nine people attended the meeting, most of who were downtown property owners. The majority of the comments were directed to the past actions of the City, the findings, data, feasibility and timing of the study and surveys. ATTACHMENTS: 7. dated Geteber-3,-2000 SH:HF:WC:rl Staff Report- 10/10/00 10 (OOSR61) \\ ayrs,�;,.,��. ..�; i r'�H:/f' "�� �.`%•... .;�s;;:v, r��' .,'tje-„����;••>3i�,;;;�;";;;r; �' '� ��,�::�,:: �:�,• � ;��ia�� ,_, � ,,,,� ,yam..;,,:t::;;",.,a a�3� '�;;;;, i�'� \:':i�s la�.� .�; A',,. �<rm .<ls;N,..z•..,,,. ,sr�. a�.aav",i m #"S #-rm•'g:� --:- ..,.,. -K .tea^ --.1:-,�k^•' �.^..t.:-'a�a :-r.sue� W 4 �>�•.,��°�'h-1x�,;,��.. ^r IV —Alf ;iT 0 D, r ra SICfsr pr"`Ty P .x> ram.^ `r in " 7' 'sky: 1. 6d8+4 dy'r 44 4� .. f. ... s S/,.-•' . .rrf, rt.� i? �.w. n�;y�.:.J' .'..L �' err 3Ft• .. i5 jnL . ..- fl..� ray' .,.:.o ..r.:.. ,>�`-. 4.,,, .N._--�• eo,w�., �S—•-,.r.P:J;_ _•:...•. -.. ("��•.,,;'� a �:�. Q ,. ♦ : a a{` -kFii r1v`�9e' ; 4 •t'�' >~�'�` �, �,ff Y""".''rye, • 5#�Adz h . r d y P )day e7.7Yy Far t 7 klss � n• k 1 '4a r}•,,1 ' r rr r•r� � ir ra 5 �'yd�.>s 2i>� vyvrj{u. tk`�.'4.."v'-� �5 7. dry �zcvI .�t .�r�Y •r�r� s t, r r i 1 `t.. r -� a s• �4 yy"'rn`s.:a'f 4r F by• z 4,,. r ? 1 '' 4q �,. <+4 T f ': rtr y F r IvZ Ch. .... •' x�y- '{ ,,,/�A..� .'- "r f t l4 i � ! t ?`C -is .- �. , f «raysp. k C � 9Yr. µr.�•K'._ �'in*l �,.t'�/I r :, _ '.... n - ,_,.,, � , �.:.� fy':• 4.. � -Jr :F ��ra�GU '� � ` r , >N to' m t• +.i'ft,an+"•'L ',7mi.0 i'�"t}e z:. � ..G:� �' ` .Y{ .nt® -t '`t•SC ,< r4 i _ CD ...r 3 L .Z'1 r.r 1 s' •' c ptav, u +,Sc}1 R •°• . "y i'F v i.:, 3 i Q r;a.•: ','lt tk. 5 no GP Q 1 J (or jjo ir -Y, �b�..t+t'l + y '. ,.. T ,tea r ,., �" �� '�x,`�,p"z•�� ,s,,, #, r�»._ r. rpF.�"'`. 1__ ` •-. �::v .s.x f .:...,r •i O. --. -- ,.. y O i t� _ �`• �� :x t,��t�.", +�� 4 {�A�+j, a!_ ►: 'r Ns r.•r( t'{• - :; - r 7r - t T� . M1'{, 'v��.�jYy .. ; ^r.F"R��r .r .. 1 3 `b .. .: ., .., �'i E x4 S�t fR 't 9 J V•� �!�"•4F� ��.•r�tY tM } :. ',. ,';• •;'� r i.Eh r•' +. �,' �,17 r���y�L��. �s,'�y y€,jr•nth n� i7 '+,-1'r ��.^� ,y� A �'• s•,y4 !; -iv r�,..,, r t:�'Y �.' s :° • arq r r%`'r -- \1i 1 _ *e3 ^i: y b?-�j•�t�.y`�' 't,�'!�7'�`*� ��y� , � w t • ,.; �:s"+ � �F S -+ , � � ry.r. �vA"ry�s�, w ��� `zr..,n��. � at"' ,� r e'. O Z :.: '.his"..•/ri¢Mie¢_ ..... + .-.. �, ...+ .; _. '" �. ..•.;"� 1... yr. �.- Sad" �r�� erx•� - � a e:�... _ .z 1.,,r v - �v. a r`+43 ai,� rfy kit s�= :i .vr _ 4 i, tSr.»r axe Giwr*`"5Yd ,j M f..r r' 5ryt,{ r'•$`X5^:;M^ ,'G � C 1 tr'y 1{] .1 Y A+C'h''. D•{ i �yT S r F Y \V �'s L� .. %a'v1 tis:�' •� - y`k .. i 7 y . r'i tf•�.: sr Y tT v,z,.� u. ,7„ ._ � =,.;i�. '.;j"ax e" 4 r�} -vY`'v^y�S:k .5�rJ''r' .�`��`"''k•.�'S�� 1.''m f- �,1 S.,y ��j,. `>Rv�r ya�'� ,s,;�sa..} -t�..-:;- ';.vt'. � -.;.•. •:::•= ��r :�y�•�"'"+���,vi.�y n;n���a.. _ * �� gKV '�:. _.:.:! .,•S!.f 3..r�T3�..;� .r +..•»"`' � .' x t ..,_� ., f tih n.."�r'nirt rr� � 'e, ;yr`� ''.'7;c r .i? , .a"vU ' '�'�y'i?. rt y:,. „•..r ,r <'? lt. : ytiaut r .� �. -,, �r�v��}s+h .e r t'° 'i #°c+,` ,< ) „'. ?�r5,; .+r4'. �f#, � •a..r^. 11.` - - .5.. -n:f:yS - x? -:.. "",5 n,'-y-, ' ,y� -F S is xr. S ,✓ :` '4 r x��, t5, a ,'y^�..n, s r � rx cS J. ti f i � '{' ' .; '�Y i' �)� t•�.-'rS�'a.W��^vt',r�''� d 'C;` i., J ski'�G.iv '�'•��'L��YViGhY�.i Ar r",.� �'''-,,s, {�. -.y• R� .ar 5�rE. � J+:d' ro�� r-,14`i••s- $ {,;Y1• S s .r a. 4 x-. r r _ 3 x .d -.Y _ •",. rl..✓ ,alr `skxa r"'+.,`t''2 k� ., ' r ` 2.'. $j n, - r ,a's. ' '?.ti-". _ t{ { -x+k.'ry. �. T r '�`' .,t 'sn ""i F+..x 4.. rp -a.< r�-� a+'r x .v v ,•.e )f•td:, "4: :. :xt t r t .�u� ... �rr'�;d`�'Sy�'yV'+�' lr"9. .� txs {f , v�"L"�'! ;«:'�'' )'�. _ ;^ i4`:;.:,s. .sr.'r?� !"*T '� a �'zry { '4d'n,�"•'}'',M: DRAFT DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING MASTER PLAN UPDATE September 2000 Prepared for: THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Prepared by: KAKU ASSOCIATES, INC. 1453 Third Street, Suite 400 Santa Monica, California 90401 (310) 458-9916 Ref: 1224 ATTACHMED ' iW - TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary I. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1 Study.Scope...................................................................................................... 1 StudyArea Boundaries...................................................................................... 1 DataCollection Program ................................................................................... 3 II. Parking Inventory........................................................................................................... 4 On-Street Parking Spaces................................................................................. 4 Off-Street Parking Facilities............................................................................... 4 III. Parking Utilization.......................................................................................................... 10 Weekday.Parking.Utilization Surveys................................................................ 10 Saturday Parking Utilization.Survey.................................................................... 17 IV. Parking User.Survey...................................................................................................... 23 UserSurvey....................................................................................................... 23 User Survey Results - Friday..........................:.................................................. 25 User Survey Results.-Saturday.....................................................................:.. 26 Comparison of Friday and Saturday Results..................................................... 26 V. Parking Duration............................................................................................................. 30 VI. Analysis of Parking Demand ......................................................................................... 33 PeakingCharacteristics..................................................................................... 33 Development of Methodology............................................................................ 38 Parking Generation Rates................................................................................. 38 Analysis of Existing Parking Demand................................................................ 47 Issues................................................................................................................ 53 VII. Future Parking Demand ................................................................................................ 55 ForecastingMethodology.................................................................................. 55 Future Land Forecasts ...................................................................................... 55 PeakParking Demand................. ..... ................................................................. 56 Analysis of Future Parking Demand.................................................................. 60 VIII. Strategies for Downtown ............................................................................................... 65 Analysis of Potential Parking Needs.................................................................. 65 Evaluation of General Strategies....................................................................... 70 Analysis of Potential Future Parking Scenarios................................................. 72 AIME N� ATT CH � IX. Recommended Parking Master Plan............................................................................. 74 Strategy 1: Modified Parking Code Requirements ............................................ 74 Strategy2: On-Site Parking............................................................................... 74 Strategy 3: Parking Management Techniques .................................................. 74 Strategy 4: Use of.Supplemental Supply.of Parking.......................................... 75 Appendix ATTACHMENT NO. LIST OF FIGURES NO. 1 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 2 2 Inventory of On-Street Parking Spaces......................................................................... 7 3 Inventory.of.Off-Street..Parking Spaces......:.................................................................. 9 4 Results of Utilization Survey-All Spaces,(Friday)......................................................... 13 5 Results of Utilization Survey-All Spaces (Saturday).................................................... 19 6 Location of User Surveys............................................................................................... 24 7 Location of Duration Surveys ........................................................................................ 31 8 Variation in Monthly Parking Utilization of City Structures............................................. 34 9 Base Parking Utilization Under Peak Summer Conditions (Friday)............................... 36 10 Base Parking Utilization Under Peak Summer Conditions (Saturday) .......................... 37 11 Hourly Variation of Parking Demand by Land.Use (Friday)........................................... 40 12 Summary of Utilization.Survey (Friday)......................................................................... 41 13 Hourly Variation of Parking Demand by Land Use.(Saturday) ...................................... 43 14 Summary of Utilization Survey (Saturday)..................................................................... 44 15 Existing Parking.Demand Under Peak Summer.Conditions (Friday) ............................ 51 16 Existing Parking:Demand..Under Peak.Summer..Conditions (Saturday)........................ :52 17 Hourly Variation`of Parking:Demand as Percentage of Peak Demand .. (Friday).............................................................................................................. 58 18 Future Parking Demand Under.Peak:Summer Conditions (Friday)............................... 59 19 Hourly Variation of Parking Demand as Percentage of Peak Demand (Saturday).......................................................................................................... 62 20 Future Parking Demand Under Peak Summer Conditions (Saturday).......................... 63 21 Future Parking Supply.............................................................................. ..... 64 ................ 22 Projected Parking Demand for Potential Block A Development.................................... 67 ATTACHMEENT NO. , LIST OF TABLES NO. 1 Parking Space Inventory ............................................................................................... 5 2 Inventory-of.On-Street.Parking Spaces......................................................................... .6 3 Summary of Parking Utilization - Base Conditions (Friday)........................................... 11 4 Summary of Parking Utilization -On-Street Spaces (Friday) ........................................ 15 5 Summary of Parking.Utilization - Off-Street Spaces (Friday)......................................... 16 6 Summary of Parking Utilization - Base Conditions (Saturday) ...................................... 18 7 Summary of Parking Utilization - On-Street Spaces (Saturday).................................... 21 8 Summary of Parking Utilization -Off-Street Spaces (Saturday).................................... 22 9 Summary Results of User Survey (Friday) ............................. 27 10 Summary Results of User Survey.(Saturday)................................................................ 28 11 Results of Parking Duration Survey............................................................................... 32 12 Land Use Inventory in Downtown Parking Master Plan Area - BaseConditions.................................................................................................. 46 13 Parking Demand Ratios by Land Use Type:Derived from Surveys............................... 48 14 Land.Use Inventory in Downtown Parking Master Plan Area - Existing.Conditions.........:................................................................................. 50 15 Analysis of Existing.Conditions - Peak Parking Demand............................................... 54 . 16 Proposed Parking.Ratios.for Downtown Huntington Beach........................................... 54 17 Land Use Forecasts for Downtown Parking Master Plan Area - BuildoutConditions............................................................................................ 57 18 Results of Analysis of Future Parking Demand............................................................. 61 19 Parking Demand by Month as Percentage of Peak Demand........................................ 69 20 Results of Analysis of Monthly Parking Demand............................................................ 69 21 Parking Demand by Day of Week as Percentage of Friday.......................................... 69 22 Results of Analysis of Parking Scenarios...................................................................... 73 23 Proposed Parking Ratios for Downtown Huntington Beach .......................................... 75 ATTAC M,CI IT N0 �' DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .The analysis of existing,parking=nditions in,-the Downtown-.study.area.,indicates.that.the, current supply :of parking is .adequate to accommodate current demand.:, The analysis indicates .that overall the study area has..sufficient excess. capacity to.:accommodate increases in parking demand up to 513 spaces under peak:summer conditions. : ANALYSIS'OF FUTURE CONDITIONS . The analysis of future parking demand in the downtown area,has,indicated:that.a potential deficiency would .exist in the:study,area with buildout of.the::master land use plate..._At closer inspection, the results indicate that the deficiency in Area 1 .(south of.Orange Ave.) ; could be as high as 130 spaces with a surplus of:1.15'spaces in Area 2 (north of Orange; Ave.). A review of these future conditions reveals the following: . • Although it appears that the localized deficiency in Area 1 may'6e.as high as.130 spaces, the size of the"downtown"area,is.such that most of the parking supply:located.in Area 2 can conveniently'serve the ; needs of Area 1'. Therefore, the local needs are not as.relevant as the . overall study area needs in.the of the future - requirements for downtown. They analysis,of future'parking=conditions,assumes that other thanahe,. potential development on Block A, no,"additional"parking supply would. be provided by any of the new projects in the area. Although the specific nature of these projects-is not known at this time, the total future density of development projected for the.area in the buildout :. scenario over and above that projected for_ Block A is about 73,000.; square feet of commercial development. . RECOMMENDED.IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The recommended parking improvement program for.the Downtown Huntington Beach;:. Parking Master Plan includes the following four strategies: " Strategy 1: Modified Parking Code Requirements It is recommended that the City Parking Code Requirements.for the Downtown Parking Master Plan be modified from the current requirements to the proposed rates.::" .As indicated in Table 23 on page 75, it is recommended that the same rate be used for both Areas 1 and 2. The table indicates the current rates including separate rates for`the two. .' areas under existing conditions.. . It is also recommended that the provision that.allows_ applicants to pay an in-lieu fee be maintained. This allows the City to maintain its flexibility in addressing each individual applicant's requests. i - ATTACHIVE J Nth. Strategy 2: On-Site Parking : It is recommended that the city encourage all future projects proposing a density :of development for a commercial project that is over 30,000 square feet to provide and. satisfy at.least 50% of:its-city::code-required.-parking requirement., ft,lisi,estimated th at requiring these.projects`.to.°`develop:50%:,of.-the-spaces:-would add---a1otal`:Of 1,00. o' 150 spaces to .the study area's:,inventory. If this: policy,were :successfully':implemented throughout the.,study area;-the'.majority .of the,implied,parking:`deficiency`under,buildout conditions could be'addressed:with existing.and future supply. Strateuy 3: Parking Management Techniques : It is recommended that the City.require larger projects in the area, such as the;:potential,; development on Block A, to utilize on-site attendants during the peak season: The use"of these attendants would allow the parking managers to provide valet service to patrons and other users of.the system and allow for the'use of tandem parking in.the facilities.. By. parking vehicles in .tandem and,,using.,the aisles;.the effective.capacity,of.the,parking _•;';:: - . supply of these.larger facilities-can be:increased: This measure is..only.-required-during the peak summer.months, Le.,.June:through-August, and :would=:help::address;..the,.implied: parking deficiency that is projected in the:study area at buildout. Strategy 4: Use of Supplemental Supply'of-Parking It is-recommendedthat the.City.:of Huntington Beach not engage.in,a°capital improvement program to construct additional parking facilities to add to the supply of parking: A'review of the current parking inventory in the periphery area.of downtown, Block_s B1 to F2,;-and .. .: the beach parking"south of Pacific Coast Highway indicates that there are hundreds`of,, existing parking'spaces in the area that'are unoccupied during the_peak nighttime periods.:::: _•` The results of the utilization 'surveys and observations made during .these` surveys indicates that there over 300 unoccupied parking spaces within'a 2 to.:3 block radius of,the downtown area. Although these spaces cannot be include in the official .inventory.,of '. parking for the Downtown Parking Master Plan Area, they can be viewed as supplemental.:'. spaces that are available for use during key critical periods. :During the nighttime peak; even in the summer months, ,many of these spaces are available and can accommodate,:- :,.: ;. -•.:,= the excess demand that is projected to occur,at buildout. The fact that these projected deficiencies only occur for about:.35-days of the.year is,not = '. : adequate justification to engage in a building program to add new.parking facilities t6the'', parking supply. ATT C ray d�T �� . �.�... I. INTRODUCTION The City of Huntington Beach proposes to update its downtown parking master plan that was adopted by the City Council in 1995. 'The plan was prepared.with:shared.parking..concepts in the downtown area; especially at"night and on weekends. In August,1999,,.the,City of-,Huntington Beach contracted with Kaku Associates, Inc. to conduct a study to analyze. current parking conditions in.the downtown area.and to prepare recommendations toward,the update of the parking master plan for.the area. This report documents the results of this analysis-and includes the study background, existing conditions, future,conditions, issues which must be addressed, and a recommended parking improvement program for the City. The Huntington Beach Downtown.Parking Master Plan has a.maximurn development threshold for uses to ensure the proper mix of uses and the proper function of the shared parking concept. The maximum threshold is 500,000 sq. ft. with a commercial/retail threshold of 250,000 sq. ft., an office threshold of 100,000 sq. ft., a restaurant threshold of 100,000 sq. ft. and a miscellaneous threshold of 50,000 sq. ft. The 500,000 sq. ft. of development activity in the DPMP shares the total inventory of parking spaces. STUDY SCOPE The scope for this study,.which was developed in conjunction with the.City of.,.Huntington.Beach, -assumed that performance.,of the.study would be separated-into following.eight tasks: • Task 1 - Initiate Project and Review Data • Task 2 - Document Existing Parking Supply • Task 3 - Establish Existing Parking Demand • Task 4 -Assess Current Parking Conditions • Task 5 - Project Future Demand • Task 6 - Identify And Review Alternative Strategies • Task 7 - Evaluation of Alternatives • Task 8 - Recommended Parking Management Plan STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES The Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan study area has been defined as the area generally bounded by 1st Street on the east, 6th Street on the west,.Pacific Coast Highway on the south, and Acacia Avenue on the north. The study area includes the entire downtown area along Main Street but does not include the beach area or the beach parking facilities. Figure 1 illustrates the study area boundary as defined above. 1 ATTA =n � �� ___- O I 1 � I 1 1 , x , Fl F2 OLIVE ^AVCr ' _ . z ; - o 1 = z Q `� o v,��:� �:� . 1 z D 2 WALNUT AVIN ism LEGEND: -Downtown Parking Master Plan Boundary -Study Area Boundary -Area 1 -Area 3(Periphery) • • • • -G1(ONSTREET) NOT TO SC&E -Area 2 A -Block Identification KAKU ASSOCIATES FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA 2 ATTACHMENT NO.' DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM The assessment of existing parking conditions includes several activities directed at the development of a comprehensive and detailed data base for the parking system in the downtown area of Huntington Beach (henceforth referred to as "Downtown"). The necessary elements of this data-col lection:effort,include-,Task,2 Document Existing,,Parking�Supply, ,the inventory,of all public and those privately-ownedz,spaces that are:available:.to-thel-general-.,public,:.residents.and business employees and customers.within the study area, and..Task.3 Establish.Existing.Parking Demand and Task 4 Assess-Current Parking Conditions, a-parking-utilization,survey by.time of day for these spaces, a duration survey for users of these spaces, and`a direct survey of..users in the Downtown area. As illustrated in Figure 1,-the study area-has been,sub-divided into 3 Areas: 1, 2, and 3. .Areas 1 and 2 constitute the actual area:.for the`Downtown Parking Master,Plan...Area 3,..the periphery area, represents the area outside the parking master plan area but within thestudy area. These three areas were further subdivided into 16 subareas, which are referred to as Blocks, to assist with the presentation and analysis of the parking data. The specific components of the analysis described above include: • Parking space inventory of the entire study area • Parking utilization survey.of all spaces • Parking user'survey for a sample of parking facilities • Parking duration survey for a sample of parking facilities The,results of the- parking data!collection;effort are:summarized,in the following,chapters. The parking inventbry'•is,summarized:in Chapter.II, the-results:of,the.,parking.utilization surveys in Chapter III, the results of,the ,survey of parking space users in -Chapter .IV, and the data summarizing duration and length of stay in parking spaces in Chapter V. Chapter VI provides a summary of the existing parking conditions in the study area. 3 FTACHIMENT NO: II. PARKING INVENTORY An inventory of all the. available parking for public use was •conducted:for,the:.entire:downtown -study, area., tThe inventory.-included:tspaces Jn: all publicly=owned Jacilities-:including:-on=street spaces and the city-owned off-street parking facilities,- and•.the major•privately-owned off-street parking facilities that are available .for use by the -general:-public within Areas 1 and 2. The inventory.included the on-street'.spaces in the periphery area.- -The inventory-did not include a small supply of parking spaces owned by individual property owners-that,reserved these spaces for the specific use by,some of their customers and employees. The,inventory -identified the location, type and number of spaces in each of the:off-street facilities that were inventoried, and the location and applicable restriction for-each of the on-streett parking-spaces located in the study area. The results of this effort, which are summarized in Table 1, indicate that there are a total of 2,189 spaces located within the study area. Of total, 679 are on-street spaces and the remaining 1,510 spaces,are.located in.off-street.facilities..Details of these spaces,are described in-the paragraphs below. ON-STREET PARKING SPACES The, inventory of the�,-available .on-street parking ;spaces:-included the,,identification of any restrictions, such as metered parking-spaces;and-•time restricted spaces, as well as the-number of spaces by location. The results of this effort,.which.are summarized'in Table.2 for each block, indicate that of the total 679 on-street spaces located in the study area, 204 spaces are located in Area 1, 156 in Area 2, and 319 in the periphery. Of the total on-street spaces, 278 are un- metered and are available to potential users without any restrictions. Of the remaining 401 spaces, 345 are metered spaces, 54 are un-metered but with a 24-minute limit, and 2 are on- street spaces which are reserved for the handicapped. Of the metered spaces, 270 spaces are available at a rate of$1.50 per hour from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. with a 2-hour limit. Of the remaining 75 spaces, 11 are available at a rate of$1.00 per hour from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. with a 2 hour limit and 64 are available at a rate of $1.00 per hour from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. with a 1 hour limit. As indicated in Figure 2, the restrictions on the use of these on-street spaces in the study area varies from block to block, side to side and area to area. OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES The inventory for off-street parking facilities was designed to identify parking supply available for public use as well as by employees in the study area. Off-Street parking spaces owned by and reserved for use by employees of private businesses that are unavailable to the general public, residential parking facilities and other secured parking facilities are not included in this inventory 4 ATTACJHIMIENT NO. . TABLE 1 PARKING SPACE INVENTORY BLOCK(PAZ) !FON-STREET--FOFF-STREET TOTAL A 60 176 236 B 32 285 317 C 34 20 54 D 36 826 .862 E n/a n/a n/a F 42 60 102 AREA 1 TOTAL 204 1,367 1,571 G 59 44 103 H 75 78 153 1 22 21 43 AREA 2T077TA7L 156 143 299 AREA 1 &2 suBTOTALF 360 1,510 1,870 131 20 0 20 C1 43 0 43 D1 39 0 39 D2 40 0 40 E1 46 0 46 F1 42 0 42 F2 18 0 18 G1' 71 0 71 PERIPHERY TOTAL 319 0 319 TOTAL ;;7[- 679T- 1,510 2,189 ' G1 includes the following street segments(see Figure 1): 6th Street between Orange Avenue and Main Street-west side Main Street between 6th Street and Acacia Avenue-west side Acacia Avenue between Main Streeet and Lake Street-north side Lake Street between Acacia Avenue and Orange Avenue-east side Orange Avenue between 3rd Street and 1st Street-north side 5 ATTACHMENT NO. TABLE 2 INVENTORY OF ON-STREET PARKING SPACES Meter Spaces 6am-12am 2 Hour 1 1 Hour No Total BLOCK(PAZ) $1.50/Hour $1.00/Hour I $1.00/Hour Total 24 minute Restriction .Handicap Spaces A 28 7 12 47 4 9 0 60 B 16 0 10 ­26 6 0 0 32 C 16 0 '13 29 5 0 0 34 D 11 0 17 28 8 0 0 36 E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a F 13 4 1 12 1 29 9 1 4 10 42 AREA ITOTAL 84 11 64 159 32 13 0 204 G 0 0 0 0 17 40 2 59 H 0 0 0 0 2 73 0 75 1 0 0 0 0 2 20 0 22 r—AREA 2 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 21 133 2 156 AREA 1 &2 SUBTOTAL 84 11 64 159 53 146 2 360 131 20 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 C1 17 0 0 17 0 26 0 43 D1 38 0 0 38 1 0 0 39 D2 40 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 E1 18 0 0 18 0 28 0 46 F1 35 0 0 35 0 7 0 42 F2 18 0 '0- 18 0 0 0 18 G1' 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 71 PERIPHERY TOTAL 186 0 0 186 1 132 0 319 TOTAL AREA 270 11 64 345 54 278 2 679 G1 includes the following street segments(see Figure 1): 6th Street between Orange Avenue and Main Street-west side Main Street between 6th Street and Acacia Avenue-west side Acacia Avenue between Main Streeet and Lake Street-north side Lake Street between Acacia Avenue and Orange Avenue-east side Orange Avenue between 3rd Street and 1st Street-north side 6 ATTAChivii1-1T NO. ♦ % ♦ 1 ♦ GPI .. a � 'mac 's♦ � N' C ' 4 �}, V4 a _ VttMCit1YA 1G 7 3 El I k I Fl F ra � ' OLIVE AV ac s 1 D2 toCN N i s 2 WALN UT A s iE M: i 7 p LEGEND: Downtown Parking Master Plan Boundary #H -Handicap ® Meter Space:2hr,$1—%W #Y -Yellow Loading Zane ® •Meter Space:2hr,$1.00Rr #W -White Passenger Zone ® -Meter Space:lhr,$1.00ltu #P -Reserved Police #G -24 Minutes # -No Restriction Nor TO SCAU KA«U ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 INVENTORY OF ON-STREET PARKING SPACES 7 ATTACH MINT NO, nor are they addressed in this study. Although these spaces are available to and used by employees, this exclusion only affects a small number of spaces and does not have an impact on the conclusions. As illustrated in Figure 3, two of the facilities in Area 1 are city-owned facilities. The remainder is privately-owned. -Three of the facilities-charge a rate for the use of-their spaces;.the others.do not. The�.inventory of off-street spaces in the°Periphery area was.not-includedrin the inventory. A detailed inventory of the off-street spaces is available and included.in.the.appendix. Table A in the-appendix summarizes the results of the off-street parking facility inventory for each block within.the study ,area. The data describes .each specific parking-facility in the study area and includes its general locations (i.e., in Area 1 or Area 2), its specific location (e.g.,,address), the block in which it is located, the user type (i:e., employee,:customer, .tenant,,-.etc.), any.restrictions on its use, the rates charged, and the number of spaces. 8 ATTACHIIEE T NO. O 1 1 r V 1 _ r s 1 r�VY �� =mac� �'� �"r 1 1 1 F'2 1 OLIVE_ AV 1 1 Q � s 1 z D2 ¢a a a M N M1 WALNUT AV LEGEND: -Downtown Parking Master Plan Boundary ® -MShet Pafty Lot-Privately Owned ® •Off-Street Parking Lot-Cly Owned NOT To w tJ «AKU ASSQQlATES FIGURE 3 INVENTORY OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES 9 ATTACHt j:F; T NO.", R III. PARKING UTILIZATION In order to analyze the characteristics of the pattern of usage of-existing,parking spaceswithin the study area, it was necessary to:conduct-a:detailed parking utilization survey. . This.survey-was :conducted by determining the occupancy of each space.within,the study-area.on an hourly basis. This data was collected on- a typical weekday, Friday September 24, 1999 and on a Saturday during the summer months on September 11, 1999. The data collected from-these surveys were used to determine the peak parking demand for each facility, each parking-analysis-block and for the entire study area for both weekdays and Saturdays during the summer months. It is recognized.that both. survey .dates occurred-after.the Labor:Day weekend and do not, therefore, represent peak summertime conditions in the downtown Huntington Beach area. In order to ensure that peak parking demand estimates are used to conduct the analysis, historical data describing the seasonal variation in the level of activity in the downtown area was used to make the necessary adjustments. The methodology used to develop the adjustment factor, which is described in Chapter VI,.Analysis .of Parking. Demand, is an acceptable technique used to illustrate and verify the impact of seasonal variation in parking demand. FRIDAY PARKING UTILIZATION .The parking utilization survey_conducted as part,of-this study'.consisted•of an hour by hour count of the number of.occupied parking -spaces in each off-street.facility.and,each on-street space within the study area. The weekday-survey was-conducted between 9 a.m. and 1 a.m., a 16 hour period that addresses the morning peak period, the midday, the evening peak period, and the nighttime period on Friday September 24, 1999. Total Parking Utilization The results of the weekday parking utilization surveys, which are summarized in Table 3, indicate that the peak parking demand for the entire study area occurs between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays when a total of 1,273 spaces were occupied, which represents 58% utilization of the surveyed parking spaces. The peak utilization for each block indicates that several of the blocks have levels of usage that are much higher than the 58% for the study area during this peak. . period. The results indicate that highest concentration of parking demand occurred in the following Parking Analysis Zones (PAZ) during the peak period: • PAZ 1 77% occupancy 0 PAZ C 1 91% • PAZ E1 87% 10 ATTACHMENT NO. TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION BASE CONDITIONS - FRIDAY,.SEPTEMBER 24, 1999 PEAK UTILIZATION PARKING # Occup. AREA SUPPLY Spaces I % Occup. PEAK PERIOD ALL SPACES Area 1 1,571 936 60% 9 - 10 P.M. Area 2 299 177 59% 3 - 4 p.m. Periphery 319 212 66% 10 - 11 P.M. TOTAL 2,189 1,273 58% 9 - 10 P.M. ON-STREET Area 1 204 151 74% 10 - 11 P.M. Area 2 156 104 67% 3 - 4 p.m. Periphery 319 212 66% 10 - 11 P.M. TOTAL 679 441 65% 10 - 11 P.M. OFF-STREET Area 1 1.,367 790 58% 9 - 10 p.m. Area 2 143 76 53% 4 - 5 p.m. Periphery na na na na TOTAL 1,510 845 56% 8 - 9 p.m. , , ATTACHMENT NO, The following issues were noted from the results of the weekday parking utilization survey: • Although the utilization of PAZ Cis only 56% between 9 and 10 p.m., the data indicates that its utilization was over 70% between 12 noon and 2 p.m. and between 4 and 8 p.m. :Although,the,,utilization of PAZ.G is only.30%-between.9 and.10 p.m.,'the -data,indicates-that its-,utilization was over 70%.between 12:noon-and 6 p.m. • The utilization of PAZ I was over 70% from 6 to 10.p.m. • The utilization of,PAZ C1 .was over 70% from 10.a.m...to 12-p.m..with utilization figures of 100% from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. • The utilization of PAZ E1 was over 70% from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.,with utilization of 98% from 5 to 6 p.m. The results of the surveys also indicate that: • 936 of the.1;571 .spaces;,.60%,.in Area 1.are occupied between 9 and 10 p.m. • 129 of the 299 spaces, 43%, in Area 2 are occupied.between 9 and 10 p.m. • -The.peak.utilization.in Area 2.occurs at 3 p.m. when 177 oUthe'299 spaces, 59%, are occupied • The peak utilization in the Periphery occurs at 10 p.m. when 212 of the 319 spaces, 66%, are occupied The results of the utilization survey are also illustrated in graphic format in Figure 4. The bar graph illustrates the hourly parking demand by type of space (i.e., on-street versus off-street) by time of day for the entire study area. It can be seen that on weekdays, the parking demand is relatively low in the morning (600 occupied parking spaces at 9 a.m.), increases until 3:00 p.m. when the midday peak parking demand occurs (1,141 occupied spaces), decreases slightly until the evening when the demand increases to the nighttime and daily peak at 9:00 p.m. with 1,273 occupied spaces, and then decreases for the remainder of the survey period. The detailed summary of the results of the weekday utilization surveys is provided in the appendix in Table B. The table presents the actual number of occupied spaces and corresponding percent utilization for each type of parking space (i.e., on-street, public off-street, or private off-street) by time of day for,the entire study area. 12 ATTACHMENT NO. FIGURE 4 RESULTS OF UTILIZATION SURVEY-ALL SPACES FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1999 2,400 2,200 Total supply=2,189 spaces ................................ ....................................................................... ......................................... 2,000 1,800 N 1,600 w J - 1,400 w 1,273 u- 1,200 w m 1,000 845 z 800 -- P - 1, 600 441 � 400 200 - 0 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00, 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM C� TIME OF DAY M ON-STREET M OFF-STREET ■TOTAL On-Street Parking Utilization The parking utilization survey results for on-street spaces were analyzed separately to provide a more detailed assessment of their current use and the potential availability of unused on-street parking spaces. Table 4 has been prepared to summarize the results of the utilization survey of on-street parking spaces during-the 16 hour..-period of the.survey from.9..a.m. to .1:a.m. As indicated-in the,table,1he-period-of-peak,occupancy of:on=street°:parking,.spaces,occurs�between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. when 441�.parking-.spaces, 65%, are occupied. The:results:indicate.that the occupancy .of the blocks.varies*,.from .a low of 33% occupancy:.in:Block F2 to a,:high.of:96% in Block E1. .Both blocks.are-,located in the periphery. . In Area-1,�-the .utilization:during. the,peak period varies1rom 50% in Block-Fto 88% in Block A. In Area 2,;,the�variation is.42% in Block.G to 64% in Block I. The following.issues were-noted.-from the.results of the,,Friday•_parking:.,.utilization survey of on- street spaces: • Although the utilization of Parking Analysis Zone (PAZ) C is only 74% between 10.and-11.p.m.,�the,data indicates-th at..its;utilization.was over.90% between 1 and 2 p.m. and between 4 and 7 p.m. • Although.the utilization of PAZ G is only 42% between 10.and 11 p.m.,.the data indicates that-its,-,utilization was over 90% between,2-and 4:p.m. and.between 5 and 6 p.m. • The utilization of PAZ-Cl-was over 100% from.1 to.7 p.m. The utilization of PAZ E1 was over 80% from 2 to 11 p.m. Table C in the Appendix provides a detailed summary of the utilization of on-street spaces on a block by block basis for each hour of the survey. Off-Street Parking Utilization Table 5 provides a summary assessment of the utilization of the off-street parking spaces between 9 a.m. and 1 a.m. within the downtown study area. The results indicate that 843 of the 1,510 off-street parking spaces, or 56%, are occupied during the weekday peak. This level of usage occurs in these off-street spaces from 8 p.m. until 11 p.m. on a weekday. With a few exceptions, the utilization of off-street parking is relatively low, i.e., at or below 70%, in each of the Parking Analysis Zones during the entire period of the surveys. The exceptions are: 14 ATTACHNIS'T NO., TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION -ON-STREET SPACES FRIDAY,SEPTEMBER 24, 1999 AREA 1 AREA 2 PERIPHERY TOTAL Available Available Available Available % Occ. Supply iec Su I Occupied % Occ. Su I Occupied % Occ.Time of Da 9:00 AM 204 79 39% 156 45 29% 319 104 33%1 679 228 34% 10:00 AM 204 107 52% 156 64 41% 319 139 44% 679 310 46% 11:00 AM 204 129 63% 156 74 47% 319 137 43% 679 310 46% 12:00 PM 204 139 68% 156 77 49% 319 155 49% 679 371 55% 1:00 PM 173 120 69% 156 88 56% 319 172 54% 648 380 59% 2:00 PM 173 119 69% 156 103 66% 319 176 55% 64 8ij 398 61% 3:00 PM 173 126 73% 156 103 66% 319 182 57% 648 398 61% 4:00 PM 173 128 74% 156 95 61% 319 190 60% 648 413 64% 5:00 PM 173 120 69% 156 98 63% 319 192 60% 648 410 63% 6:00 PM 173 112 65% 156 90 58% 319 193 61% 648 395 61% 7:00 PM 184 135 73% 156 74 47% 319 184 58% 659 393 60% cn 8:00 PM 204 130 64% 156 79 51% 319 201 63% 679 410 60% : 9:00 PM 204 146 72% 156 79 51% 319 208 65% 679 430 63% 10:00 PM 204 151 74% 156 79 51% 319 212 66% 679 441 65% 11:00 PM 204 128 63% 156 78 50% 319 1901 601yo 679 379 56% 59% 679 378 56% 12:00 AM 204 120 59% 156 61 39% 319, 189 f`a_1 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION-OFF-STREET SPACES FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1999 AREA 1 AREA 2 TOTAL Available I Available Available Time of Day u I Occupied % Occ. Su I OccupiedF.I. Occ. "Su I Occupied . %.Occ. 9:00 AM 1,367 341 25% 143 36 25% 1,5101 377 25% 10:00 AM 1,367 382 28% 143 46 32% 1,510 428 28% 11:00 AM 1,367 443 32% 143 49 34% 1,510 492 33% 12:00 PM 1,367 553 40% 143 49 34% 1,510 602 40% 1:00 PM 1,367 613 45% 143 58 41%1 1,510 671 44% 2:00 PM 1,367 642 47% 143 66 46% 1,510 708 47% 3:00 PM 1,367 656 48% 143 73 51% 1,510 729 48% 4:00 PM 1,367 606 44% 143 76 53% 1,510 .682 45% 5:00 PM 1,367 609 45% 143 70 49% 1,510 679 45% 6:00 PM 1,367 653 48% 143 69 48% 1,510 722 48% 7:00 PM 1,367 690 50% 143 58 41% 1,510 748 50% 8:00 PM 1,367 781 57% 143 64 45% 1,510 845 56% 9:00 PM 1,367 790 58% 143 53 37% 1,510 843 56% 10:00 PM 1,367 765 56% '143 45 31% 1,510 810 54% 11 11:00 PM 1,367 560 41% .143 29 200/. 1,510 .589 39% 12:00 AM 1,3671 410 30% 143 29 ' 20% 15101 439 29% 16 ATTACMIIEN T NJ.,_ • The utilization of Parking Analysis Zone (PAZ) A is 73% between 2 and 3 p.m. • The utilization of PAZ I is over 70% from 7 to 11 p.m. with a high of 100% between 9 and 10 p.m. .A detailed summary of the utilization.of the public,off-street spaces.can be found in Table.D of the appendix. This table illustrates the parking utilization for each facility:in,each,block.for-each hour of the survey. SATURDAY PARKING UTILIZATION The Saturday survey was conducted between 9 a.m. and 11,.p.m.,, a 14.,,hour,period that addresses the midday, the evening,'and the nighttime periods. Total Parking Utilization The -summary of the results of.:the Saturday utilization surveys,. .which were .conducted on September 11, 1999, are presented in Table 6.. The results,indicate. that :the -peak parking demand for the entire study,area occurs between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. on.Saturdays.when.a.total of 1,265 spaces were occupied, which represents 58% utilization of the,surveyed parking spaces. The peak utilization.for.each block,.indicates that several of the.blocks have.utilizations which are much higher-than the.58%.for:the.study area with some over.85%. The results in Table 6 also indicate-the following: • 902 of the 1,571 spaces in Area 1, or 57%, are occupied between 9 and 10 p.M. • 188 of the 299 spaces in Area 2, or 63%, are occupied between 3 and 4 p.m. • The peak occurs at 2 p.m. in the periphery area when 232 of the 319 spaces, or 73%, are occupied. The results of the utilization survey are also illustrated in graphic format in Figure 5. The bar graph illustrates the hourly parking demand by type of space (i.e., on-street versus off-street) by time of day for the entire study area. It can be seen that on Saturdays, the parking demand is relatively low in the morning (less than 700 occupied parking spaces at 9 a.m.), increases until 3:00 p.m. when the peak parking demand occurs (1,265 occupied spaces), decreases slightly until the evening when the demand increases to the nighttime peak at 9:00 p.m. with 1,223 occupied spaces, or 55%. The results indicate that there a significant number of unoccupied spaces providing a large surplus of parking supply. 17 ATTt ,� q{$r� ` . LYNE-I ` i 1�� TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION BASE CONDITIONS - SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1999 PEAK UTILIZATION PARKING # Occup. AREA SUPPLY Spa I % Occup. PEAK'PERIOD ALL SPACES Area 1 1,571 902 57% 9 - 10 P.M. Area 2 299 188 63% 3 - 4 p.m. Periphery 319 232 73% 2 - 3 p.m. TOTAL 2,189 1,265 58% 3 - 4 p.m.- ON-STREET Area 1 204 173 85% 4 - 5 p.m. Area 2 156 109 '70% 3 - 4 p.m. Periphery 319 232 73% 2 -3 p.m. TOTAL 679 508 75% 3 -4 p.m. OFF-STREET Area 1 1,367 -791 58% 10 - 11 P.M. Area 2 143 79 55% -.5 - 6 p.m. Periphery na na na na TOTAL 1,510 798 53% 10 - 11 P.M. 18 ATTACH oAIENT NO.. FIGURE 5 RESULTS OF UTILIZATION SURVEY-ALL SPACES SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1999 2,400 2,200 ........Total supply=2,189 spaces ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,000 1,800 1,600 N W . J , v 1,400 - .F 1,265 w 1,223 > u- 1,200 m 1,000 z 798 800 508 ' 508 400 0 200 Ell, 0 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM z TIME OF DAY C) ■ON-STREET ®OFF-STREET �*T07TAL Table E in the appendix provides a.detailed summary of the utilization of all spaces on Saturday. On-Street Parking Utilization The.parking utilization survey;results.,for on-street spaces .were,-analyzed.,separately,-to provide a more,rdetailed:r.assessment ot.their_�current,,use: and.the;=.potentials,.availability_;of:,un used„on=street -parking.spaces. fable T.has-,.been-,.prepared:.to.:summarize,,the-:number of.LL.occupied�spaces and the percent occupancy.of each,Vock during both the 14 hour.'period'of..the.utilization.survey, i.e., between 9�p.m...and 11 p.m.;,and for the peak period of occupancy. for�on=street.,spaces as a specific type of space. The results.indicate the following: • 508 parking.spaces, 75%;are occupied between.3 and 4 p.m. • The occupancy for the entire study area varies from a low of 48% occupancy in Block D2 to 102% in Block C1 during the 3 to 4 p.m. peak period. Both blocks are located in the periphery. • In Area 1..theoccupancy varies from 69% in Block F to 88% in Blocks A and C. • In Area 2, the variation is 67% in Block H to 77% in Block I. Table F.in the Appendix,provides a detailed.block,by,block analysis5,of;on-street.spaces for.each hour of the survey. Off-Street Parking Utilization Table 8 provides a summary assessment of the utilization of the off-street parking spaces between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. within the downtown study area. The results indicate the following: • 757 of the 1,510 off-street parking spaces, or 50%, are occupied during the Saturday peak between 3 and 4 p.m. • The peak demand for off-street spaces actually occurs between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. when 798 spaces, or 53%, are occupied. A detailed summary of the utilization of the public off-street spaces can be found in Table G of the appendix, which illustrates the parking utilization for each facility in each block for each hour of the survey. 20 RTTALWAENT NU:- TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION -ON-STREET SPACES SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1999 AREA 1 AREA 2 PERIPHERY TOTAL Available Available Available Available Time of Da Su I Occupied % Occ. Supply Occupied % Occ. SUPDI Occupied % Occ. Supply Occupied % Occ. 9:00 AM 204 88 43% 156 59 38% 319 170 53% 679 317 47% 10:00 AM 204 122 60% 156 76 49% 319 182 57% 679 380 56% 11:00 AM 204 161 79% 156 95 61% 319 209 66% 679 465 68% 12:00 PM 204 168 82% 156 97 62% 319 221 69% 679 486 72% 1:00 PM 204 168 82% 156 100 64% 319 223 70% 679 491 72% 2:00 PM 204 168 82% 156 101 65% 319 232 73% 6791 501 74% 3:00 PM 204 168 82% 156 109 70% 319 231 72% 679 508 75% 4:00 PM 204 173 85% 156 107 69% 319 228 71% 679 508 75% 5:00 PM 204 165 81% 156 99 63% 319 209 66% 679 473 70% 6:00 PM 204 144 71% 156 80 51% 319 189 59% 679 413 61% 7:00 PM 204 138 68% 156 82 53% 319 201 63% 679 421 62% ., 8:00 PM 204 150 74% 156 80 51% 319 207 65% 679 437 64% 9:00 PM 204 152 75% 156 71 46% 319 215 67% 679 438 65% 10:00 PM 204 120 59% 156 79 51% 319 207 65% 679 406 60% C) f-fl TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION -OFF-STREET SPACES SATURDAY,SEPTEMBER 11, 1999 AREA 1 AREA 2 TOTAL Available IAvailable Available Time of Day Supply Occupied %Occ. I Su I Occupied %Occ. Supply Occupied %Occ. 9:00AM 1,367 333 24% 143 31 '22% 1,510 364 24% 10:00 AM 1,367 388 28% 143 46 32% 1,510 434 29% 11:00 AM 1,367 504 37% 143 45 31% 1,510 549 36% 12:00 PM 1,367 571 42% 143 55 38% 1,510 626 41% 1:00 PM 1,367 617 45% 143 67 47% 1,510 684 45% 2:00 PM 1,3671 654 48% 143 68 48%1 1,510 722 48% 3:00 PM 1,367 678 '50% 143 79 55%1 1,510 757 50% 4:00 PM 1,367 665 49% 143 76 53% 1,510 741 49% 5:00 PM 1,367 613 45% 143 79 55% 1,510 692 46% 6:00 PM 1,367 653 48% 143 75 52% 1,510 728 48% 7:00 PM 1,367 638 47% 143 61 43% 1,510 699 46% 8:00 PM 1,367 694 51% 143 50 35% 1,510 744 49% 9:00 PM 1,367 750 55% 143 35 24% 1,510 785 52% 10:00 PM 1,367 761 56% 143 37 26% 1,510 798 53% IV. PARKING USER SURVEY As part-of the effort to-better understand the:parking.characteristics,and needs of the users of the downtown area parking-supply; a�survey�was:conducted.among'these.users.-.ResuIts of.the-user survey are important elements .of the, process used *to . identify:needs, .develop alternative strategies, and--to evaluate the feasibility of proposed improvements to.the parking system. USER SURVEY The parking user survey was,-conducted in;Downtown Huntington.Beach,on,September 11 and September 24, 1999. A random sample of employees, business patrons, visitors, tourists, shoppers, beach goers and other individuals were surveyed to obtain information on their behavior and attitudes. The user surveys were conducted in selected areas of the downtown area which are illustrated in Figure 6. These locations included on-street spaces on Main Street throughout the study area; on Walnut Avenue, Olive Avenue. and.Orange..Avenue.between 3rd Street and 5th Street; on 3rd Street and 5th Street north of PCH;,portions of Lake Street and 6th Street north of Orange Avenue; and in the City.Structure:in.Block.D,- and the,parking lots in Blocks A and B. Survey Methodology The-survey was conducted-by having surveyors place-questionnaires on the:windshields of each parked vehicle in each of the facilities identified above. The surveyors circulated throughout each parking facility every two hours from 9 a.m. until 12 a.m. on the Friday and between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. on Saturday. The survey questionnaire was addressed with.postage allowing respondents to mail the questionnaire back. It was determined that a more efficient method could be used at the city's parking structure on Walnut Avenue in Block D. At this facility, the surveyors stood at the entrance and handed survey questionnaires to the driver of all .vehicles that entered the parking structure during the.survey. The users would still be able to mail the questionnaires back to Kaku Associates by merely placing it in a mail box. Survey Questionnaire The questionnaire, a sample of which is illustrated in Figure A in the appendix, was designed to provide an indication of the relationship between the users of the parking spaces and the land uses that exist in the downtown area. Questions used to assess these relationships were directed at the following issues: 23 PGPG\r O� P P� Em 1 F1 F2 V) U) 1 � 1z D2 � r7 N PACIFIC COAST HWY LEGEND: -Downtown Parking Master Plan Boundary -Location of User Survey N.1 TO SCAU KAKU AS SOCI / TES FIGURE 6 LOCATION OF USER SURVEY SS TAc �FT 24 AT • Trip origin • Trip frequency • Trip purpose • Walking distance to destination • Auto occupancy • Whether parking was validated.or not • Willingness to pay for parking Survey Results The returned_questionnaires were analyzed separately for Friday,and,Saturdays. A total-of 7,790 survey questionnaire forms were.distributed on.the-two.days:of,the survey..'Of:these,.397 were returned from the weekday survey and 414 from the Saturday survey for a .total of 811 questionnaires, about a 10% return. A 10% response rate is.normal for surveys of this type and serves to provide a useful and valid sample size from which appropriate decisions can be made. USER SURVEY RESULTS -FRIDAY The following summarizes the results of the weekday users survey. Trip Origin. The results indicate that.the trip origin for a large majority of the.respondents, 84% on weekdays, was their home. The next highest category was work at 11%.indicating that no more 5% come Jrorn other destinations. Hotels represented.the-.origin for only, 1% of the respondents. Trip Frequency. 65% of the respondents come to the study area at least once per week with 20% coming every day. The users that come every day and those that come 3 to 4 times per week are likely to be employees and represent over half of the respondents. Trip Purpose. The most common.purposes for parking in one of the study area facilities are to patronize the Farmer's Market, other shopping, dining, or the beach pier. Users were asked to mark all purposes that apply so most had multiple responses. While recognizing that respondents had multiple responses, it is noted that 16% shopped in the area, 47% dined, and 17% visited the Huntington Beach Pier. The next highest trip purposes were movie/entertainment, visiting a business in the area, and employment in the area. Walking Distance. The respondents walked an average of about 1.4 blocks from the location the vehicle was parked to the primary destination for the trip. Auto Occupancy. The average auto occupancy of the respondents was 1.8 persons per vehicle, a relatively high average. 25 Parking Rate. The respondents were also asked how much they would be willing to pay to park in the area. Of those who responded, 42% indicated that they felt there should be no charge for parking, 25% were willing to pay $0.50 per hour, and 30%would pay $1.00 per hour. Table 9 provides a summary-of the results.of the.user survey for Friday. USER SURVEY RESULTS -SATURDAY The results of the.Saturdayuser survey are summarized below. Trip Origin. The results indicate that a.high percentage, 93%, responded that their trip origin was home. The second highest origin for trips to the study area was work at 2%. -This indicates that less than 5% came from other destinations. Hotels represented the origin for only 1% of the respondents. Trip Frequency. A relatively high percentage of the Saturday respondents, 67%, come to the study area at least once per week with 19%.coming every day. Trip Purpose. The three most common purposes for parking in,one--of.the study area facilities are to shop, dine, or come to a movie/entertainment. Users were asked to mark all purposes that apply so most had multiple responses. Recognizing that most respondents had multiple purposes, 18%.shopped in the area, 58% dined, and 19%.came for a movie. ,Other purposes with . ,high percentages of responses were beach, Huntington Beach Pier, and visiting a.business. Auto Occupancy. The average auto occupancy of the Saturday respondent was 2.1 persons per vehicle, a relatively high average. Walking Distance. The respondents had to walk an average distance of 1.6 blocks from the location they parked their vehicle to their destination. Parking Rate. The respondents were also asked how much they would be willing to pay to park in the area. Of those who responded, 38% indicated that they felt there should be no charge for parking, 23% were willing to pay $0.50 per hour, and 33% would pay $1.00 per hour. These are very similar to the weekday response. Table 10 summarizes Saturday survey results of the user surrey. . COMPARISON OF FRIDAY AND SATURDAY RESULTS The survey results from the two days have many similarities and some differences. Results from both days indicate that the origin for a large majority of the users was their home and about 40% visit downtown at least 3 or 4 days per week. Less than 10% of the users were employees in the 26 TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF USER SURVEY FRIDAY,SEPTEMBER 24,1999 I. From where did you begin your.trip to this area today?-(2 No Response) 1 333 84% Home 40 1% Hotel 2 43 11% Work 5 11 . .3%'Other.(Describe). 3�3 1% School 4. How often do you come to this area?.(3 No.Response) 1 100 25% 1-2 days per week 4 31 8% 1-3 times per month 2 78 20% 3-4 days per week 5 102 26% less than once a month 3 78 20% 5 or more days per week 6 F--61 1% first time visitor 5. What was the primary purpose of your trip today? (mark all that.apply)(2,No:Response) 1 83 21% Farmer's Market 7 31 8% Live in downtown area 2 65 16% Shopping 8F 551 13% Employed in downtown area 3 187 47% Eating/Drinking 9 F 16 - 4%•Visiting area:resident 4 48 12% Movie/Entertainment 1.0 78 '.20%,-Visiting area business 5® 11% Beach 11 11 3% Other(Describe) 6 66 17% Huntington Beach Pier 158 multi-purpose trips out of 397 respones 6. How many blocks did you have to walk from your parking space to your primary destination?(6 No Response)Average: 1.4 Blocks 7. How many persons(including yourself)were in this vehicle when it was parked at this location?(8 No Response)Average: 1.8 persons 8. Was your parking validated today?(9 No Response) 1 141 36% Yes 2 F2471 64% No 9.-How much are you willing to pay per hour to park in the downtown area? 1 F1631 42% Nothing 4 12 3% $1.00 to$2.00 per hour 2 F961 25% less than$0.50 per hour 5F0 0% $2.00 to$3.00 per hour 3 117 30% $0.50 to$1.00 per hour 6�1 0% over$3.00 per hour 27 ATTACHMENT N0. TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF USER SURVEY SATURDAY,SEPTEMBER 11, 1999 3. From where did you begin your trip to this area today?. (2 No Response) 1 382 93% Home 4© 1% Hotel 2F 10 2% Work 5 12 3% Other,(Describe) 3F___2� 0% School 4. How often do you come to this area? (3 No Response) 1 102 .25% 1-2 days per week 4 46 11% 1-3 times per month 2 F 94 23% 3-4 days per week 5 78 19% less than once a month 3 80 19% 5 or more days per week 6 11 3% first time visitor 5. What was the primary purpose of your trip today? (mark all that apply) (2 No Response) 1�0 0% Farmer's Market 7 30 7% Live in downtown area 2 73 18% Shopping 8 29 . 7% Employed in downtown area 3 238 58% Eating/Drinking 9F 22 5% Visiting area resident 4 77 19% Movie/Entertainment 10 77 19% Visiting area business 5 F771 19% Beach 11® 1% Other(Describe) 6F 981 24% Huntington Beach Pier 197 multi-purpose trips out of 411 responses 6. How many blocks did you have to walk from your parking space to your primary destination? (13 No Response)Average: 1.6 Blocks 7. How many persons(including yourself)were in this vehicle when it was parked at this location? (8 No Response)Average: 2.1 persons 8. Was your parking validated today? (10 No Response) 1 164 41% Yes 2 240 59% No 9. How much.are you willing to pay per hour to park.in the downtown area? (10 No Response) 1 154 38% Nothing 4 18 4% $1.00 to$2.00 per hour 2 94 23% less than $0.50 per hour 5F72 0% $2.00 to$3.00 per hour 3 135 33% $0.50 to$1.00 per hour 6F___Ij 0% over$3.00 per hour , 28 ATTAC RINI,ENT NO. area on both days. While the single most common purpose to come downtown on both days was to visit an eating/drinking establishment, the percentage was much higher on Saturday. The percentage that came to the area to go to the beach or to the pier was also higher on Saturday. The primary difference between the two days was the lack of any visitors of the Farmer's Market on Saturday which only occurs on Friday. 29 ATTACHMENT NO. . 1 V. PARKING DURATION A parking duration analysis was-conducted for each of the types.of parking.facilities in .the area, i:e., for,on-street and off-street,-Jor.both-Friday.and+Saturday::-.The.surveyswere,:conducted..over,a 12-hour period from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m..in.each.parking area on both days. Parking duration data 'is particularly useful.in,assessing-the types,of•users that park,in the.,various types of parking spaces in the area. The parking duration survey for-on-street,spaces was conducted on the four blocks of Main Street between Pacific Coast Highway and .Frankfort Avenue. .These .segments of Main Street are illustrated.with shading-in Figure 7.- The survey was also conducted in.the_parking.facility in Block A as illustrated in the figure. This specific facility was selected because it served as a good example of a facility that attracted a wide range of customers and employees. Table 11 summarizes the results of the duration survey conducted on these 4 blocks of Main Street and the one parking,lot. :The.results.indicate that the average length of stay for users of the on-street parking-spaces varies from 56 minutes in Area 1 to 1 hour 17 .minutes in.Area 2 on Friday, and 56 minutes in Area 1 and 1-hour.10.minutes in.Area:2.on Saturday. These.results are contrasted with the average length of stay in the off-street parking lot for the two days of 2 hours 9 minutes for Friday and 1 hour 35 minutes on Saturday. The differences, which are more significant.on Friday,:is-:expected.since,.many of the users are likely:to-be, :employees who have a much longer length of:stay. It also.vindicates,the city's objective-of achieving a higher turnover for the on-street spaces. This same situation can be seen with 60% of users of on-street spaces in Area 1 and 64% in Area 2 staying less than 1 hour on Friday. This compares with only 33% of those users in Lot A on 5th Street on Friday. On Saturday, the 57% of the users of on-street spaces in Area 1 and 60% of the users in Area 2 stay less than one hour. This compares with 35% in the off-street parking lot on Saturday. A closer inspection of the duration survey results from Friday indicates that 10% of the users of on-street spaces on Main Street between Orange Avenue and PCH and 18% of the users of spaces on Main Street between Orange Avenue and Frankfurt Avenue stay over 2 hours. Although these percentages are relatively low, it is an indication that 10 to 18% of the users are illegally parked in the on-street spaces. The survey results from Saturday are similar with 9% between Orange and PCH and 18% between Orange and Frankfurt. This rate of illegal parking among the users of the various on-street spaces is relatively low. Therefore, no apparent parking enforcement problem exists in the Downtown Huntington Beach study area. 30 ATTACHRMENT NO. �-- PGPG\r A, ♦ ♦ P�P ♦ ♦ Q�G ♦ 1 z Fl F2 f 0 ', AV ' . c cn c1 D0-1 1cS D2 � H to n N cn T AV B PACIFIC COAST HWY LEGEND: -Downtown Packing Master Plan Boundary -Location of Duration Surrey NOT M SCALE KAKU ASSOCIATES FIGURE 7 LOCATION OF DURATION SURVEY 31 ATTACHMIENT NO,, ... TABLE 11 RESULTS OF PARKING DURATION SURVEY FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1999 Area 1 -Off-Street (-- Area 1 -On-Street Area 2 -On-Street Time Lot Al 78 spaces) -5th St Main St-Orange and PCH Main St-Frankfort and Oran e < 1 Hour 101 33% 354 60% 200 64% 1-2 Hours 91 29% 175 30% 55 18% 2-3 Hours 45 15% 42 7% 28 9% 3-4 Hours 18 6% 17 3% 14 4% 4-5 Hours 12 4% 2 0% 4 1% 5-6 Hours 12 4% 1 0% 1 0% 6+ Hours 30 10% 1 0%:4- 12 4% Total 00 309 1 % 592 100% 314 100% Avera a hr:min 2:09 0:56 1:17 w SATURDAY,SEPTEMBER 11, 1999 Area 1 -Off-Street Area 1 -On-Street Area 2 -On-Street Time Lot A1(78 spaces)-5th St Main St-Oran a and PCH Main St-Frankfort and Oran d < 1 Hour 130 35% 350 57% 156 60% 1-2 Hours 140 37% 210 34% 61 23% 2-3 Hours 56 15% 42 7% 26 10% 3-4 Hours 28 7% 11 2% 8 3% 4-5 Hours 5 100 3 0% 3 1% 5-6 Hours 6 2% 2 0% 5 2% 6+ Hours 10 3% 1 0% 1 0% Total 375 100% 619 100% 260 100% Avera a hr:min 1:35 0:56 1:10 m VI. ANALYSIS OF PARKING DEMAND The previous chapters presented,an overview of the current conditions.of,the.operation of.the existing shared parking system in'.Downtown Huntington Beach during a summer Friday and Saturday. The overview includes a,.detailed description of the parking.supply, a summary of the utilization of these .spaces, an analysis of the users of the system 'based:on :a'survey; and the results of a parking.space duration survey. The-.data was used in conjunction with additional historical data associated with the shared parking system to develop: an lunderstanding of the parking demand and its relationship to the existing land uses in the study area. PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS Although every attempt was made to conduct the.various parking surveys during the peak season of activity in Downtown Huntington Beach, it was determined that because of weather conditions and normal peaking.characteristics in:the area, the Saturday surveys.in,mid-September and the Friday surveys in September were.conducted .during a period.when: the..level::of.activity had already receded. Therefore, it-is likely that some of.the.results-of.the .survey.,do.not.represent peak conditions in the study area. In an effort to assess the degree to,which the,survey results may need to be adjusted, it was determined that a review of the data summarizing the usage pattems of the .city's parking-structure (Main Street Promenade).located.,at:200 Main Street be used to develop a:,historical :perspective,of,,the:seasonal variation. in.the.activity.levels in the downtown study area. Figure 8 illustrates the monthly usage of the city structure for 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The graphs indicate that the parking demand in the downtown area of Huntington Beach reaches its peak during the period from early June until the first of September. During this 13 week period, the level of activity in Downtown Huntington Beach, and therefore the parking demand, is significantly higher than the remainder of the year. As illustrated in Figure 8, although the historical data indicates that the parking demand in mid- to late-September is relatively high, the results do not reflect peak conditions in Downtown Huntington Beach. Although the data from Figure 8 indicates that the parking utilization data collected for this study does not represent the peak parking conditions that can be generated in the study area, a further review of the September 1999 utilization survey results ensures that other characteristics and factors derived from this data appear to be accurate and usable in this analysis. Data from the survey can be appropriately used to determine the hourly variation in the parking utilization, the time of day when parking demand peaks, and the relative relationship between parking demand and land use type by time of day. It was determined, however, that it would be necessary to develop an adjustment factor for the parking utilization data is to be used to estimate peak parking demand. The value of the peak parking demand generated by users of the Downtown Huntington 33 ATTACI INTENT O.;_ _ FIGURE 8 MONTHLY VARIATION IN USAGE OF CITY STRUCTURE 1997/1998 -1998/1999 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 4v j A 40,000 V44, 20,000 C� 0 O < ccDi Q N 'v . CD °o m CD 2 n — '< CD cC v C CD MONTH Ill 1997/1998 ■1998/1999 Beach parking system is used to develop parking demand ratios that quantify the relationship between peak parking demand and land use. Adjustment Factor The parking demand within .the, city structure was:analyzed-..:to°,determine_ the.,,appropriate relationship between the demand.measured-during the utilization surveys..in September 1999 described above and the actual,summertime peak that can normally be.expected between June and August. Parking demand in-the City structure during June,..July and August 1998 and June, July and August 1999 was compared to the parking demand-in the'-structure during September 1999 to estimate this relationship. Several factors were developed that quantified the relationship between the peak parking demand from:the September,1999 data and peak parking demand for other time periods. These other time periods included the average of:.the six months between June 1998 through August 1998 and June 1999 and August 1999, the average of June 1998 through August 1998 only, the average of June 1999 through August 1999 only, the absolute peak demand during these six month period just described, the average of July 1998 and July 1999, the average of June 1998 and June 1999, and the average of August 1998 and August 1999. Based on,a review:of,.these.various°factors,.it.was.determined that-amadjustment factor based on-the ratio between the.average,parking demand during,the,period-.13 peak.weekends in 1998 and the same 13 weekends-in-.1999:and the:peak parking;demand from September 1999 provided the most realistic-and relevant.relationship between.the-.collected data and data which represented peak summer conditions in Downtown Huntington Beach. Using this data, the parking.utilization-figures'from September 1999.should�be adjusted.by a-factor of .1.32 for Friday and 1.24 for Saturday. Peak Summertime Parking Demand The adjustment factors discussed above, i.e., 1.32 for Friday and 1.24 for Saturday, were used to prepare Figure 9, the Base Parking Utilization Under Summer Conditions on Fridays on an hourly basis for the study area. The figure illustrates the hourly parking demand for Area 1 and Area 2 for a typical Friday that has been adjusted.to reflect conditions during the peak summer months. The figure indicates that the peak parking demand on a Friday during the summer is estimated to be 1,406 spaces which represents 75% of the total available supply of 1,870 spaces. This is based on a peak usage of 1,236 occupied spaces out of an available supply of 1,571 spaces in Area 1 and 170 occupied spaces out of an available supply of 299 spaces in Area 2. It should be noted that the data in Figure 9 does not include the parking demand or supply in the periphery area, i.e., in Blocks B1 to G1. Figure 10, which illustrates similar information for a Saturday during the summer months, indicates that the peak parking demand is estimated to be 1,282 spaces, which represents 69% of the total supply within the study area. This is based on a peak usage of 1,049 occupied spaces out of an available supply of 1,571 spaces in Area 1 and 233 occupied spaces out of an available supply of 299 spaces in Area 2. 35 ATTACHMENT NO. FIGURE 9 BASE PARKING.UTILIZATION UNDER PEAK SUMMER CONDITIONS FRIDAY 2,400 2,200 Area 1 &2 Supply= 1,870 spaces 2,000 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,800 N 1,600 � 1,406 1,400 ui �. u- 1,200 : i. �.. O W � k. w m 1,000 rn Z 800 - 600 s 400 200 -- 0 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 rn AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM TIME OF DAY 0 ■AREA 1 ®AREA 2 FIGURE 10 BASE PARKING UTILIZATION UNDER PEAK SUMMER CONDITIONS SATURDAY 2,400 2,200 2,000 Area 1 &2 Supply= 1,870 spaces .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,800 1,600 N - W J v 1,400 : w T;282 p �I W b ? co 1,000 - Z 800 600 -- 400 — 200 m e� 0 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM . 9:00 PM 10:00 PM Q: TIME OF DAY ■AREA 1 MAREA 2 DEVELOPMENT OF METHODOLOGY A key element of the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Study is the development of parking generation rates as exhibited-.by the existing land uses in .the,study area. To conduct this analysis, it was necessary to implement a process that includes the following steps: • Step 1 --Analyze Results of User Survey - Each of the users,of parking-spaces in the downtown area.was placed into one of several land use categories. These categories were based on the primary purpose of the.trip,that generated the need to park the vehicle as indicated by the user. The inter-relationship between the various land uses was determined for multipurpose trips and used.to estimate the adjustment made in calculating the parking demand for each land use type. • Step 2 - Determine Peak Parking Demand by Land Use Category - The parking demand by each land use category was estimated for each hour of the day. The data was used to determine the total parking demand that was generated for the study by time of day. • Step 3 - Estimate Parking Demand Rates -The inventory.of square footages for each of the existing land uses was obtained from the city staff and used in conjunction with the parking demands for each land use group to estimate the parking demand-rates for each land.use category by time of day. This calculation of parking demand by land use divided by-total square footage for each land use type resulted in an empirically developed parking demand rate forthe DPMP area. • Step 4 - Determine Peak Parking Generation Rates -The hourly parking demand rates developed using Step 3 were analyzed to identify the peak parking generation rates for each land use category. • Step 5 - Compare to Typical Standards -The rates developed from the survey data were compared to the existing City Code Requirements. Appropriate adjustments were made prior to the development of a recommended set of rates for the Downtown Huntington Beach Shared Parking System. PARKING GENERATION RATES The following summarizes the results of the use of this process to develop parking generation rates for the various land uses in Downtown Huntington Beach. 38 ATTACHMENT NO. . Hourly Parking Demand by User Group/Land Use Category Steps 1 and 2 described above were used to develop an estimate of the hourly parking demand by land use.type based on.the.user categories identified.in the survey. The user.group/land use categories used in this study were those identified imthe usersurvey:and Jnclude.the-following: • Retail • Restaurant • Office • Miscellaneous (includes cinema, art center, etc.) The results of the user surveys were used.in conjunction with:the-.hou rly.parking.utilization during summer months for Areas 1 and 2 to prepare Figure 11. Figure 1.1-illustrates the parking demand generated by retail uses, restaurant, office, cinema on Fridays during the summer months. It can be seen from these figures that not only does the magnitude of the parking demand vary by time of day for each land use type, but the pattern of parking demand varies differently for each land use. The ,peak parking demand and the time of day when this .peak-demand occurs is summarized below: PEAK PARKING DEMAND FOR EACH LAND USE - FRIDAYS • Retail 331 spaces 3.p.m. • Restaurant 696 spaces 8 p.m. • Office 162 spaces .9.a.m. • Miscellaneous 459 spaces 10 P.M. Total 1,648 spaces The parking demand for office use peaks at 10 a.m. on Fridays while retail uses peak at 3 p.m. and restaurants peak at 8 p.m. Combining the parking demand profiles for each of the land uses results in an hourly pattern of parking demand for the entire downtown which does not match any of the individual uses but does indicate a profile which provides an example of the shared use concept which is in effect in Downtown Huntington Beach. The total parking demand for the downtown area, which is illustrated in Figure 12, is a combination of each of the four specific land uses and several miscellaneous uses. It can be seen that during the period of peak parking demand within Areas 1 and 2 of the study area, a total parking demand of 1,406 spaces is generated at 9 to 10 p.m. The parking demand generated by each of the primary land use types identified above which occurs at 9 p.m. is as follows: 39 ATTACH ME NT NO ,._ _ FIGURE 11 HOURLY VARIATION OF PARKING DEMAND BY LAND USE FRIDAY 80O 700 600 uJ 50 � . • \ \ t . % < w . 2« > ƒ . u- 40 \ a Lu o m 2 . G % 30 20 177 10 - R \ \ ` \ ty \ 2\ m O 900 100 11:0 130 1:0 30 300 4:00 e00 EO 70 EO +00 1200 11:0 1200 �3 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM TIME OF DAY 0 0 RETAIL 0 OFFICE 0 RESTAURANT 2 CINEMA . . FIGURE 12 SUMMARY OF UTILIZATION SURVEY FRIDAY 2,400 ■MISC 2,200 EI RESTAURANT Area 1 &2 Supply= 1,870 spaces ❑CINEMA 2,000 OFFICE ...................................................................................................................................................................... ® ... 1,800 ®RETAIL y 1,600 1,406 1,400 W yy�F Ou. 1,200 vo m 1,000 ,a kx['A' pep"t � •+ �„'.44 5 ��.' ��'>�( ,Zti'!a �, �^,V:f ;'.Y 800 600 Z �,;,°"• _ if.r"":.S '`�xi?s`': ,'�."^� az'9 :_ f�'=� ;ice°� &";.. .` �i7 '>"n':.n :.r.<a r_'-,- '»,s`: $ '�Y �i"s�y � 4^'`'�� w�•"�� �°c""i ;�:^" �`:?£�ti a:� 'i�+ ��F;.Y "J`,� x i L.:4.!xS %";�i ':,�p:: 5i, a✓�;�: ,°.o.., 1�. }} 400 n 200 — — rn 0 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM TIME OF DAY PEAK PARKING DEMAND FOR FRIDAY BY LAND USE (9 p.m.) • Retail 193 spaces • Restaurant 675 spaces Office 3 spaces • Miscellaneous .535 spaces Total 1,406 spaces Figure 12 indicates that a parking-demand of 136.spaces is,generated by miscellaneous uses other than cinema during the peak period of 9 to 10 p.m. As indicated, the conditions illustrated in Figure 12, are an. example--of-the-.concept of shared parking in operation. This concept allows various land uses to share in a common supply of parking by taking advantage of the variation in the hourly demand for parking so that a smaller supply of parking can accommodate the needs of the entire area than if the parking for each use was provided separately. The data above indicates that the actual peak parking demand currently generated.by the four specific.land uses in Downtown Huntington.Beach is 1;406 spaces but the sum of the.peak parking demands for each of the individual uses is'1,648 spaces. Figure 13 provides the hourly variation for each land use for Saturdays. The data in Figure 13 indicates that.the parking demand by primary land use during the peak period.for,each individual land use is: 'PEAK PARKING DEMAND'FOR EACH LAND USE -SATURDAYS • Retail 367 spaces 3 p.m. • Restaurant 615 spaces 8 p.m. • Office 30 spaces 10 a.m. • Miscellaneous 575 spaces 10 P.M. Total 1,587 spaces Figure 14 illustrates the parking demand for the entire study area with the four uses combined for a Saturday. The peak parking demand for the combination of the four land uses and some miscellaneous uses occurs at 3 p.m. and has a demand of 1,282 spaces. The parking demand generated by each of the four individual land uses is as follows: 42 ATTACHNIIEE T NO0 FIGURE 13 HOURLY VARIATION OF PARKING DEMAND BY LAND USE SATURDAY 800 700 600 IN w 500 uj 0 400 k ], (A) cLu 300 r i 200 100 k, ITl 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM TIME OF DAY 0 RETAIL ®OFFICE 0 RESTAURANT 0 CINEMA I FIGURE 14 SUMMARY OF UTILIZATION SURVEY SATURDAY 2,400 ■MISC 2,200 — EI RESTAURANT 2,000 Area 1 &2 Supply= 1,870 spaces 13CINEMA .......................................................................................................................................................................... ®OFFICE .... 1,800 M RETAIL 1,600 N W J 1,400 1,282 > 0 1,200 �;. w gym: A fit Z '.£%: 800 600 400 � .�. Ali _ 200 C-) 0 --i --� 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM f rl TIME OF DAY --i PEAK PARKING DEMAND FOR SATURDAYS BY LAND USE (3 p.m.) • Retail 367 spaces • Restaurant 491 spaces • Office 23 spaces • Miscellaneous 40.1 spaces Total 1,282 spaces Figure 14 also illustrates the effects of shared parking in Downtown Huntington,Beach on Saturdays indicating the advantages of common parking supply for°mixed Iand.uses. The peak parking demand is 1,282 spaces while the sum of the peak individual,parking Aemands is 1,587 spaces. Parking Demand and Parking Generation Rates The inventory of the land uses under base conditions within the study area obtained from the City : .staff is summarized in.Table_12,and.was used to.implement Steps 3 and 4. The.table provides a summary of the land•use by the category for,the Areas 1 .and.2,, Parking�Analysis Zones (PAZ) A to I. It indicates that there is a total of. 352,675 square feet.,:of,.occupied.,.non-residential development in the study area.' Of this total, 273,500 s.f. is located in Area 1 and 79,175 s.f. in Area 2. It should be noted that a large commercial development (Plaza Almeria) was recently completed in Block E but was.not .completed at the time of.the parking ,surveys. .Because the parking.generation characteristics exhibited by users':during the :survey were ,not affected or influenced by the activities of this commercial.project, the parking ratios 1.should be,developed without consideration of the project. The parking ratios, which reflect, base. conditions in Huntington Beach, are still valid for use in developing data which reflects existing conditions, i.e:, conditions which include the project, and can also be used to project future conditions. Therefore, the land use inventory does not include this project and the development of the parking ratios is completed without this data. The land use data from Table 12 was used in conjunction with the parking demand data illustrated in Figure 11 and Figure 13 to develop parking demand rates for each of the land uses for Fridays and Saturdays, respectively. The following are issues which should be noted when reviewing the methodology used to develop the parking demand ratios for each of the land uses: • . Separate parking demand rates were developed for Friday and Saturday to ensure that all potential alternatives and conditions are addressed in this analysis. Although the parking demands generated by the study area appear to be higher on Fridays than on Saturdays, it is possible that some anomalies could exist, especially as they relate to specific land use categories. 45 ATTACH MLEI IT NO. - TABLE 12 LAND USE INVENTORY IN DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN AREA BASE CONDITIONS Block Restaurant Retail . Office 'Misc. Occupied Vacant Area 1 A 6,700 34,300 28,600 0 . 69,600 2,000 B 24,800 .23,200 16,000 30,000 [a] 94,000 .10,000 C 26,800 14,400 11,800 2,400 [b] 55,400 5,100 D 9,900 13,800 3,000 0 26,700 5,400 E UNDER CONSTRUCTION 0 41,000 F 1,200 7,200 19,400 0 27,800 0 rea 1 Total 1 69,400 92,9001 788001 32,400 1273,500 63,500 Area 2 G 0 17,500 7,200 0 24,700 2,000 H 0 15,400 5,800 10,000 [c] 31,200 0 1 7,000 5,700 0 10,575 [d] '23,275 0 kr-ei72 Total 1 7,000 38,6001 13,0001 20,575 -79,175 2,000 Total of Area 1 & 2 76,400 131,500 91,800 52,975 352,675 65,500 Notes: [a] 1,750 seat cinema [b] Surf Museum [c] Auto Body Shop [d] Arts Center Source: City of Huntington Beach, September 1999. 46 ATTAC H M-ENT NO. . • The peak parking demands for the various land use categories do not all occur at the same time of the day. This difference is noted to ensure that the needs of each land use are addressed individually as well as within the context of the entire downtown area. • In order to develop a.set of parking generation.rates.which can.be used to project-future,parking1equirements, it.was determined:that:an adjustment factor of 1-.10:would be.applied-,to.the actual-parking.demand which provides a 10%-contingency,factor,in the identification of.potential solutions for the area. This-10%>contingency.is a standard adjustment used.in-the planning of parking systems. • The parking demand ratios that are developed in-this-.analysis reflect the effects of.shared parking in the.area because of the:interrelationship of the land uses. The surrey results verify that most patrons�make multiple purpose trips when visiting Downtown Huntington Beach. The parking demand ratios for each of the land use categories are summarized in Table 13. It can be.seen that the.table provides the existing land use density in-each land use category (i.e., base conditions at the time of.the parking surveys), the number. of-parking.spaces.generated during the.peak period by users of.each category, the unadjusted-parking demand ratio,�and the adjusted parking demand ratio using the 1.10 factor to provide the 10% contingency. This contingency is a nationally accepted standard used in conducting parking planning studies and is, therefore, an appropriate adjustment when developing parking rates for code .requirements. Parking ratios are provided for both Fridays'and Saturdays. It.can be seen that the�comparison,of parking:demand ratio fore Fridays and Saturdays.,indicate that there is no pattern between days for higher rates. The ratios for retail and cinema are higher on Saturday while the ratios for office and restaurants are higher on Friday. The higher of the two ratios was used to develop the projections of future parking demand and for the purposes of developing a revised set of parking standards for Downtown Huntington Beach. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PARKING DEMAND The analysis of the parking demand conditions currently found in Downtown Huntington Beach must assess the level of activity in the study area as a whole and in each individual PAZ to ensure at both the global and local issues are fully analyzed and ultimately addressed. To conduct an analysis of existing conditions that is both accurate and relevant, it is necessary to adjust the "base conditions", i.e., parking conditions as observed from data obtained in the surveys, to reflect actual existing conditions at the time of the analysis. The Plaza Almeria project, which was under construction at the time the parking utilization surveys were conducted, is now completed and should be assumed to a part of the Existing Conditions. This project is located in Block E and provides a total of 41,000 square feet of commercial development. 47 ATTACHUENT . TABLE 13 PARKING DEMAND RATIOS BY LAND USE TYPE DERIVED FROM SURVEYS FRIDAY SATURDAY .Number of ,Implied Number of Implied Occupied Peak Parking Occupied Peak Parking Land Use Size Spaces Time Ratio a . Spaces Time Ratio a Retail 131,500 sf 331 3:00 PM `2.80 .367 3:00 PM 3.10 Office 91,800 sf 162 . 9:00 AM 1.97 30 10:00 AM 0.37 Cinema 1,750 seats 459 10:00 PM 0.29 575 10:00 PM 0.37 Restaurant 76,400 sf 696 8:00 PM 10.13 615 8:00 PM 8.95 [a] Includes 10%contingency; per 1,000 s.f. 48 ATTACI-R NT NO. Adjustments to Reflect Existing Conditions The land use inventory of base conditions in the downtown area in September 1999 summarized in Table 12, which is referred to as Base Land Use Conditions, indicates that there was a total of 352,675 square:feet..of occupied..commercial.development at.that.time. .Of this .total,,273,500 square feet was.located in Area 1 'and 79,175•square feet in Area 2. .The'table..also provides a block by block breakdown of the inventory by land use type. The current land use inventory, including the addition of the project, which-is summarized in Table 14 and is referred to as Existing Land Use Conditions, has a total of 393,675 square feet of commercial development. The land use description for the Plaza Almeria project, which accounts for the 41,000 square foot difference between base and existing conditions, .includes the following program: • Restaurant 15,000 square feet • Retail 15,000 • Office 11,000 • Parking 204 spaces (includes 36 on-street spaces) The project also.includes 42 residential units and 97 parking spaces that are dedicated to the residential units. The dwelling units and the associated parking are:not.included in the inventory or the analysis. As indicated in Table 14, the Existing Land Use Conditions for .the.study ;area have 314,500- square feet of commercial development in Area 1 and 79,175 square feet in Area 2. Analysis of Adjusted Data Parking demand for the Downtown Huntington Beach study area for Existing Parking Utilization under Summer Conditions on a.Friday is illustrated in Figure 15. The hourly profile of parking demand in the study area includes two adjustments over data observed in the utilization surveys. The first adjustment reflects the summertime peak conditions versus the September data that was collected, i.e., the use of an adjustment factor of 1.32. The second adjustment reflects the addition of parking demand generated by the new 41,000 sq. ft. mixed-use commercial project in Block E to reflect existing conditions rather than the base conditions measured during the surveys. Figure 16 illustrates the Existing Parking Utilization under Summer Conditions on a Saturday. The data in Figures 15 and 16 indicate that the peak parking demand by land use type under existing conditions is as follows: 49 ATTACHMENT NO. TABLE 14 LAND USE INVENTORY IN DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN AREA EXISTING CONDITIONS Block I Restaurant Retail Office Misc. Occupied] Vacant Area 1 A 6,700 34,300 28,600 0 69,600 2,000 B 24,800 23,200 16,000 30,000 [a] 94,000 10,000 C 26,800 14,400 11,800 2,400 [b] 55,400 5,100 D 9,900 13,800 3,000 0 26,700 5,400 E 15,000 15,000 11,000 0 41,000 0 F 1,200 7,200 19,400 0 27,800 0 [Area 1 Total 1 84,4001 107,9001 89,8001 32,400 1 314,500 22,500 Area 2 G 0 17,500 7,200 0 24,700 2,000 H 0 15,400 5,800 10,000 [c] 31,200 0 I 7,000 5,700 0 10,575 [d] 23,275 0 [Area 2 Total 7,000 38,600 13,000 20,575 1 79,175 2,000 Total of Area 1 & 2 91,400 146,500 102,800 52,975 393,675 . 24,500 Notes: [a] 1,750 seat cinema [b] Surf Museum [c] Auto Body Shop [d] Arts Center Source: City of Huntington Beach 50 ATTACHN1E iNIT IN"0.- FIGURE 15 EXISTING PARKING DEMAND UNDER PEAK SUMMER CONDITIONS FRIDAY 2,400 ■MISC 2,200 — �RESTAURANT Area 1 &2 Supply= 2,074 spaces ........................................................................................................... ❑CINEMA 2,000 ®OFFICE 1,800 M RETAIL N 1,600 1,561 W 1400 > 1 1200 LU , �,✓x g}r. :0..,:: 4 i�qP ,�,^r'i M`L S,:, -,:,t� -�.r"i, �o-f� .,;';�• �szz,=," yam, Z800 .z,.; n 't• ;:5-=' :`;(i is ry,.y '3rd? % . N;^% ,Y,' ,•,� �„>.; ......., is ,f... ,:�.,: ?.:<;:` �>; r�� `a-„>' '<_;r4: a:,r`�� dtr'. ,°� a:w;i�s, •��e`-?;' a>y:,?'i� °i�'3'; F';t'.w �.°'.v<e ,ta»?� �''^��`` �i�:.','� T`.�v;: •i� �.'�,.8 sri�'rK '�' 42`;i:§ �'"�.' �,pi '�'�?' .;"xti' �P�;,?� ��:`g ';=�'`: r•.g',c `r:�:t, .,��r �,� .,.:«,: L:�:' liat5;g 400 7-1 200 0 Y� i°T1 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM Z TIME OF DAY c FIGURE 16 EXISTING PARKING DEMAND UNDER PEAK SUMMER CONDITIONS SATURDAY 2400 ■MISC 2200 Area 1 &2 Supply=2,074 spaces -� O RESTAURANT ............................................................................................................ OCINEMA 2000 ®OFFICE M RETAIL 1800 1600 J 1,423 v 1400 j u- 1200 . . U1 W 1000 3t_T 800 .0"1+.' {, .:k;s:�e •x; .a rc,N:`+x�,jp Sa.>ij �'T' iYyyr^= Asa✓ t}x:;»x!" 400 C7 200 m 0 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM TOO PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM TIME OF DAY Friday (9 p.m.) Saturday (3 p.m.) Retail 215 409 Restaurant 807 587 Office 4 26 Miscellaneous 535 401 Total 1,561 1,423 The analysis of the existing 'parking conditions was conducted,- by—assessing parking demand/supply relationships for each block as well as Area 1, Area 2 and the study area as a whole. Table 15 summarizes the.peak parking demand by Parking Analysis Zone (PAZ), the available parking supply, and the percent utilization of this supply during .peak conditions for Fridays and Saturdays. It can be seen from Table 15 that the overall peak parking demand of 1,561 spaces on Friday and 1,423 spaces on Saturday represents 75% and 69% of the total supply of parking available. This indicates that a relatively large surplus, 513 spaces on Friday and 651 spaces on Saturday, is still available even on summer days with the addition of the new project in Block E and taking into.consideration the adjustment factor for peak conditions during the summer. The data indicates, however, that a few of the individual PAZ's are currently experiencing a high rate of parking utilization during the summertime peak. PAZ D and PAZ I.have utilization rates of over 75% on Friday or Saturday, or both_days under existing:.conditions. ..Although a.utilization rate of 75% is not critical; it`is.elevated to.a-degree that:should,:be-monitored-.as Aevelopment in the downtown continues. ISSUES The data discussed above was used to develop an understanding of the existing parking demand and its relationship to the supply. The analysis indicates that existing parking demands are currently satisfied by the available supply. The current demand is 78% of the available supply in Area 1 and 57% of the supply in Area 2 for an overall average of 75%. A more detailed assessment of the parking utilization data indicates that PAZ D and I are the only zones with a usage that is over 90% on Fridays and PAZ C on Saturdays. Table 16 summarizes proposed parking requirement ratios for the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan area.based on this analysis. The table compares the possible rates to those that currently exist in the study area for Areas 1 and 2. It can be seen that the possible rates are similar to those that currently exist but include potential changes that would affect the on-site parking requirements for future development projects. 53 ATTACHIME 4. . v . TABLE 15 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS-PEAK PARKING DEMAND PLANNING EXISTING FRIDAYS SATURDAYS ANALYSIS PARKING NUMBER OF NUMBER OF ZONE SUPPLY OCCUPIED % ..00CUPIED % SPACES "OCCUPIED' 'SPACES .`.'OCCUPIED A 236 176 75% 161 68% B 317 190 60% 104 33% C 54 40 74% 51 94% D 862 785 91% 647 75% E 204 155 76% 141 69% F 102 45 44% 86 84% AREA 1 TOTAL 1,775 1,391 78% 1,190 67% G 103 41 40% 82 80% H 153 86 56% 113 74% 1 43 43 100% 38 88% AREA 2 TOTAL 299 170 57% 233 78% STUDY AREA 2,074 1,561 75% 1,423 69% TOTAL TABLE 16 PROPOSED PARKING RATIO FOR DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH Current City Parking Downtown Proposed Shared Rate[a] Land Use Parking Ratio[a] Area 1 Area 2 Retail 3.00 4.00 2.50 Office 2.00 1.00 2.00 Cinema 0.30 0.20 n/a Restaurant 10.00 6.67 10.00 [a] Per 1.000 s.f.of floor area. 54 ATTACHMENT NO. VI1. FUTURE PARKING DEMAND In order to develop a recommended parking management plan:for.Downtown that will serve the needs of the city for the next.ten':years-and beyond, it is necessary to:esti mate,the-futu rel.parking demand for the study area based on future land use development projections.' This analysis will provide a realistic assessment .of'future conditions in the study .area based on parking.demand characteristics exhibited-by.users-of the existing system. TheJollowing chapter:,describes the methodology used to,develop,:these future parking demand•forecasts;:discusses,4he,projected parking supply/demand relationship for the study area, and identifies parking issues which.-must be addressed, and locates the potential problem areas. FORECASTING METHODOLOGY Land use forecasts for the Downtown Huntington Beach study area were obtained from the city and used to project future. parking :demand expected to be: generated -by -the changes in commercial activity in the study area. The land use forecasts represent the city's projected expectation for the buildout of the study area. The future parking demand by land use for Areas 1 and 2 was estimated by using the parking demand rates developed.for;Downtown-Huntington.Beach,.as described-above, along with the City's land,use forecasts. The hourly.;variation.in, parking:demand,for.each :land use:was:also estimated to.ensure that &,realistic projection,of parking dem and.foreach.land;use,was.developed in order to identify.the'most critical period of the day under these.futu re,conditions. 'These parking demand estimates resulted in forecasts of future conditions for Fridays and Saturdays under buildout conditions in the downtown study area. FUTURE LAND USE FORECASTS The City Department of Planning has developed a land use scenario for the study area that estimates future buildout of Downtown Huntington Beach. The forecasts which describe this scenario, the proposed Master Plan Land Use Buildout, were developed within the context of two issues which affect the ultimate plan: • In the approval of the Downtown Parking Master Plan, the.California Coastal Commission has imposed a requirement on the City of Huntington Beach that limits the density of commercial development in the Downtown Master Plan area to 500,000 square feet. This limit is based on conditions that assume that the existing parking system has a supply of 1,984 parking spaces. 55 ATTACMAE" l NO - • The City is currently analyzing future development throughout the study area. The proposed future development is expected to add over 315,000 square feet of commercial development in Blocks A to I in Areas 1 and 2. As indicated, the City has forecasted future land use conditions in the study area that reflect buildout of. the Downtown Master. Plan--area. .Table 17.:summarizes°thes.density oUdevelopment projected under these future conditions including development under Existing:Conditions as well as the incremental increase projected for each block by land,use type. Future growth is expected to include the following approximate levels of additional development: • Retail 149,000 square feet • Restaurant 52,000 • Office 23,000 • Hotel 139 rooms (103,110 square feet) • Parking 403 spaces Table 17, which summarizes the .Downtown Master Plan Buildout, indicates that the.buildout of the study area would result in 709,806 square feet of total commercial development, 626,085 square feet in Area 1 and 83,721 square feet in Area 2. The.buildout scenario for. Downtown Huntington Beach includes a total of 143,747 square feet of restaurant use, 295,320 square feet of retail, 125,454 square feet of office, 30,000 square feet of cinema, and a 139-room hotel. A remaining 12,175 square feet of development would be for miscellaneous uses. PEAK PARKING DEMAND From the analysis discussed in Chapter VI, the parking demand characteristics exhibited by the various land use types in the study area under base conditions were used to estimate future parking demand under Master Plan Buildout conditions. The results of the analysis of existing parking conditions indicated that the parking demand for each land use type varied by time of day and by day of week. These variations, which allow the City of Huntington Beach to take advantage of the shared parking concept, were also included in the preparation of the parking demand projections for the study area under buildout conditions. Figure 17 illustrates the hourly variation of the parking demand for each land use type as a percentage of the peak parking demand on a Friday. The figure.illustrates the percentage of the peak parking demand that is generated during each hour of the day by each land use type. The peak parking demand rates, which were developed under base conditions, and the hourly variation graphs illustrated in Figure 17 were used with the land use projections to develop a parking demand.profile for-the study area under Downtown Master Plan Buildout conditions. Figure 18 illustrates the parking demand profile for the study area for a Friday under these future buildout conditions. The figure indicates that the peak daily parking demand for the study would 56 ATTACHM!ENT NO. TABLE17 LAND USE FORECASTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN AREA BUILDOUT CONDITIONS Block Restaurant Retail Office Misc. Total Area 1 A 51,693 118,338 40,779 103,110 [a] 313,920 B 31,773 27,834 16,000 30,000 [b] 105,607 C 28,335 37,815 23,975 1,600 [c] . 91,725 D 5,000 24,073 3,000 32,073 E 15,000 15,000 11,000 41,000 F 4,000 24,760 13,000 41,760 Subtotal 135,801 247,820 107,754 134,710 626,085 Area 2 G 0 25,000 4,700 29,700 H 0 20,000 13,000 33,000 I 7,946 2,500 0 10,575 [d] 21,021 Subtotal 7,946 47,500 17,700 10,575 83,721 Total of Area 1.& 2 143,747 ' 295,320 125;454 145,285 709806 Notes: [a] 139 room hotel [b] 1,750 seat Cinema [c] Police substation [d] Art Center Source: City of Huntington Beach 57 ATTACH ,T O. FIGURE 17 HOURLY VARIATION OF PARKING DEMAND AS PERCENTAGE OF PEAK DEMAND FRI DAY 100% --- - ----•-_--- 100% 90% — - --- 90% p 80% --- 80% Y 70% --- Y 70% 60% — 60% LL 50% - LL 50% 0 40% 0 40% i w 30% w 30% 20% 20% a 10% a 10% . 0% 0% ' 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 6:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY ®RETAIL �CINEMA 100% 100% 90% — --- 90% ------ ---- ---- —- 0 80% -- 80% Y70% - — § i�tit Y 70% -- --- _- -_ U1 w 60% - — - — 60%co ------ -- — LL 50% — — — a —LL 50% 40% - — — — — -- 40% U30% - v 30% w 20% '— — w 20% 0. 10% a 10% 0% 91 0% 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 6:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 6:00 0:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 AM AM AM PM PM I'M PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY ®OFFICE ®RESTAURANT 100% 90% n 80% - = 70% Rq �.y Y 60% l LL 50% �E z 40% —7 w 30% U w 20% 10% 0% 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 6:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12.00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM. AM TIME OF DAY m HOTEL Hotel hourly variation is from"Shared Parking",Urban Land Institute,1987. -11 11 R Projected Parking Supply 2,271 spaces 40 f k�l ¢oaf'= 1T0 'Sy i R1 e ' xM F � 4$: . - a+ ', r> ■s � k t ,a■ is z .+, • w 3, yk` S z All UW. z };. g Fix. �'ppp ?: 5 My"; � •I 1 s M' ^a �11ss ks55" 26 ,> T• .a i r }. IN is / • 11 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 � 11 11 . 11 // : 11 11 1 II 11 11 0 1 - occur at night on Fridays at 9 p.m. with a peak demand of 2,401 spaces. The daytime peak, which occurs at 12 p.m., is 1,915 spaces. Figures 19 and 20 illustrate the parking demand variations for each land use type and the projected parking demand under buildout, respectively, for Saturdays in the Downtown study area. The peak parking conditions on Saturday is expected to occur at 3 p.m. with a peak demand of 2,247 spaces. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE PARKING DEMAND The future parking demand projected for the study area was-analyzed,to;assess the ability of the proposed parking system to.accommodate the peak summertime demands .expected to be generated by the buildout of the commercial development. Future Parking Supply The supply of parking in the study area under buildout conditions is based on forecasts of changes that are expected based on information provided by the City staff. Increases and losses in parking supply are expected to occur.as a result of the following: • A net increase of.204 spaces from the completion of the Plaza Almeria project. • A net increase of 189 spaces from the potential development of Block A with a loss of 214 spaces and.an increase of 403 spaces. These figure are for the commercial uses on the site only. • A net increase of 30 spaces on 5t' Street based on 90-degree layout. Figure 21 illustrates a summarized version of the projected parking supply under these future buildout conditions in the study area on a block-by-block basis. Results of Demand/Supply Analysis Table 18 summarizes the results of this analysis indicating the future parking supply, the peak parking demand and the projected surplus or deficit. The table provides an assessment of future parking conditions for both Area 1 and Area 2 as well for the entire Downtown Parking Master Plan area. The table projects the future parking demand/supply relationship for peak conditions during the day and at night under summer conditions. It can be seen that a surplus is expected during the daytime peak but a shortage of 130 spaces overall is projected at night. This shortage occurs because of the 245-space shortage in Area 1 which is partially compensated by a surplus of 115 spaces in Area 2. 60 ATTACHMENT NO. - . TABLE 18 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF FUTURE PARKING DEMAND Day Night Future Future Surplus/ Future Future Surplus/ Block Supply Demand [a . Deficit Supply ..Demand a Deficit Areal. 1,972 1,697 275 1,972 2,217 (245) Area 2 299 218 81 299 184 115 Total of Areal & 2 2,271 1,915 356 21271 2,401 (130) Note: [a] Includes some pier/beach and resident users. 61 ATTACHIMB-41T NO. FIGURE 19 HOURLY VARIATION OF PARKING DEMAND AS PERCENTAGE OF PEAK DEMAND SATURDAY 100% 100% % 90% = 80% 0 80% 70% = 70% w 60% 60% U. 50% 0 U. 50% 40% O 40% w 30% w 30%w 20% 20% rl 10% Jim Lu 10% 0% 0% 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY mRETA1L ®CINEMA 100% 100% 90 � 90% 80% - BO% = 70% 0 70°h a 60% Q. 60% NO U. 50% a U. 50% O 0 z 40% F 40% u 30% w 30% K U a 20% a 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00. 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM TIME OF DAY TIME OF DAY FM-0—FF-1-C-E1 119RESTAURANT1 100% 90% 4 d„ O 80% y 70% r7 60% ao 50% F 40% �y w 30% oc 20% w a 10% 0% 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM TIME OF DAY ®HOTEL Hotel hourly variation is from"Shared Parking",Urban Land Institute,1987. Pro'ected Parkipq§ppp!y.= .................................... ................. ..................................... Zgi G"':`ti��■r,4�■7+�':f�: A��i+. a.�ri� Y`f� t�C�3; '' d� ,�" t ?s'!f�» , .if, ^t:�;■ rr�^`■ -'•'sn ` a�"�F yf!� N ,wk��, "� K +w E r r r �'g ■ :p ��'}�q ■a ■ ta g, 0 qf rft"N SRI t * Y� hL} t ' 0 11�r -; ■ „fit»;■t�f'�r jv �pg %g W` 14MP, -RIM OWN MID ■ .m r 'm u All 1 ✓.'l :�:■pt :fi■S s� `��.<:■ ��■��-..■.,'avt �s"�,■����""�■ 70+ ,ztv �, �t r. liv, 1 i'.. 'V:� .i�■,own M DMP Buildout Conditions w A , i,,( I Y 0 T M ICHAEL C. ADAMS , �d T I CO3N 8 EAcH, CA ASSOCIATES 2000 NOV _ A ,,,: 4� } October 31, 2000 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Downtown Parking Master Plan Update Dear Mayor David Garofalo and members of the City Council: The Downtown Parking Master Plan is based on a shared parking concept, which attempts to balance interrelated land use activities with a limited supply of available parking. This delicate balance of parking supply and demand is monitored through the annual review process. A timely annual review, and/or periodic update, prior to future entitlement decisions on any major downtown development projects, is critical. The annual review needs to look at the change in ratio of uses as well as the change in parking supply. Simply reviewing the total envelope of commercial uses and the total supply of parking as recommended by the Coastal Commission is insufficient for determining the performance of the Parking Master Plan. The existing and anticipated variety of land use activities in the downtown area presents a unique blend of demands. For example: - Short-term parking adjacent to convenience commercial - Adjacent valet parking for restaurants - Drop off and pick up areas for retail activities - Convenient and sheltered parking for office uses - On site parking for hotel and residential uses Different uses have different parking demands. Demands not simply dictated by the amount of square footage, of a particular use, but by patron expectations. Common sense needs to prevail over simply counting available parking spaces. P. 0. Box 382, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648.0382 (714)376-3060 e-mail AdamsAssocnwebtv.net J The proposed changes in the downtown parking regulations will allow future large developments to ignore 50% of their other wise potential parking needs. While this may indeed seem beneficial to future developers it is very short sighted in light of the overall Downtown Master Plan. New developments may propose parking demands beyond those anticipated in the Parking Master Plan. Each project needs to not only identify their anticipated parking supply, but should also address 100% of their regulated parking requirement. Depending on the proposed project activities existing off-site parking may be sufficient to address any on-site shortfall; however, the projects real parking demand needs to be addressed and not circumvented. Suggestions: 1. Parking Management Plans Require that projects over 10,000 square feet provide a Parking Management Plan and program to meet all required parking consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The Parking Management Plan may include alternatives to on-site parking such as, but not limited to the following: Valet services Employee shuttle services Exclusive remote parking facilities In-lieu fee payments 2. Parking Management Program Any proposed project, which will require the removal of existing public and/or private parking facilities, shall be required to implement a parking replacement program. The program should identify all existing on-site and adjacent off-site parking and require 100%replacement of any lost spaces, consistent with Downtown Master Plan. These parking spaces should not be subject to any reduction factors and must be accounted for on a one to one basis. P. 0. Box 382, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648-0382 (714)376-3060 e-mail AdamsAssoca,webtv.net 3, Maintain the current narking requirement ratio The proposed adjustment of the parking requirement ratios implies that the future parking supply will not be sufficient, contrary to the observations reported in the Plan update. If the Plan is currently working why is there any need to change the parking requirement ratios? Any change to the parking requirements will only place an additional parking burden on smaller in-fill and change of use projects. Large projects will be able to request that half of their parking requirement be forgiven. The only change warranted to the parking requirements, based on a review of the collected data, in the Parking Plan Update would be to make Area 2 consistent with Area 1, and not increase the parking requirements in Area 1. The shared parking concept of the Huntington Beach Downtown Parking Master Plan seems to be working and adequately meeting the communities' needs. To amend the Parking Master Plan, as recommended, simply to accommodate the anticipated needs of a yet to be reviewed and approved project is premature and may greatly jeopardize the effectiveness of the Master Plan. However, an amendment placing additional flexibility, within the regulations, will not only allow projects to move forward, but will maintain the integrity of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. All major development projects within the Downtown should submit for consideration, not only a request for parking reduction, but also a parking proposal, which addresses the projects true parking demands and a program to implement the projects real parking needs. Attached for your review is a legislative draft of the above stated suggestions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mike Adams President c.c. Howard Zelefsky Scott Hess Herb Fauland Wayne Carvalho P. 0. Box 382, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648.0382 (714) 376-3060 e-mail AdamsAssocn.Nvebtv.net ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 4.2 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 4.2.14 of the Huntington Beach.Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: �- 4.2.14 The Downtown Parking Master Plan The Downtown Parking Master Plan is based on a shared parking concept. Shared parking in effect allows one(1)parking space to serve two (2)or more individual land uses without conflict. Shared parking relies on the variations in the peak parking demand for different uses. In other words,parking demands will fluctuate in relationship to the mix of uses by hour, day of week, and season. The proper mix will create an interrelationship among different uses and activities which results in a reduction of the demand for parking. The Downtown core area is centered along the Main Street commercial corridor. This commercial corridor divides into two(2) distinct areas,north and south of Orange. The area which encompasses the Downtown Parking Master Plan is identified on the area map (Figure 4.1). Area 1 -The area south of Orange Avenue along Main Street provides the greatest amount of public parking opportunities both off-street and on-street. Area 1 has the greatest number of visitor-serving and seasonal commercial uses including year round entertainment. This area also has the greatest concentration of expanded commercial, restaurant and office uses, and therefore,the majority of the public parking spaces are provided in this area. Expanding commercial activity in this area remains the focus of the Downtown Master Plan, however, no additional parking for new or expanded commercial,restaurant and office uses should be required provided the total square footage and mix of uses do not exceed the Master,Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to purchase property for a public parking facility. Area 2 -The area north of Orange Avenue along Main Street provides limited amounts of public parking opportunities. This area is still part of the Downtown core. However, the commercial uses in Area 2 cater more to year-round residents, therefore, additional on-street short-term parking is provided. The existing Downtown public parking facilities are not conveniently located for use in this area,thus, a combination of expanded on-street and on-site parking may be necessary for new or expanded commercial uses. The commercial activity remains primarily service-related commercial; the existing supply of on-street and on-site parking should be sufficient for anticipated uses. The mix of commercial and residential activities can justify a parking reduction and additional parking may not be necessary if development does jmp/planning/4-2 or&10/12/00 1 A T TACH ( not exceed the Master Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to purchase property for a public parking facility. City-owned and controlled public parking in the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) area shall be consistent with the City's certified land use plan. The DPMP is structured to protect beach user parking by providing adequate public parking within the Downtown area. The DPW encourages the use of the City-owned and controlled parking sites within the DPMP area. To encourage the use of the City-owned public parking facilities,'parking controls such as time limits,and parking rates may be adjusted to maintain the desired use of these spaces by patrons and employees of the downtown area. A validation program for the City-owned public parking structure has been established as an incentive for the use of the structure by the patrons and, employees of the downtown area. Any changes to the program shall be submitted to the Executive Director to determine if an amendment to the Specific Plan is necessary. The Downtown Parking Master Plan anticipates a total development scenario of approximately 730,000 square feet of commercial activity. The DPMP has development thresholds of 144,000 square feet for restaurant, 315,000 square feet for retail, 126,000 square feet for office and 145,000 square feet for miscellaneous development. Area 1 will contain approximately 626,000 square fee of commercial development,with the remaining 104,000 square fee in Area 2. The Planning Department shall be responsible for monitoring the development square footage per land use and the number of parking spaces within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area. An annual review and monitoring report of the Downtown Parking Master Plan shall be prepared by the Planning Department and presented for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Following the review by the City Council, the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission for review. The Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall include, at a minimum: 1) amount and type of development square footage approved during the annual review period; 2) total amount of square footage in the Downtown Parking Master Plan area; 3) an inventory of existing parking spaces; 4) a parking utilization study; 5) an assessment of parking demand compared with parking supply, 6) a determinatign of whether adequate parking remains to serve development allowed up to the total development cap. If the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report indicates that the parking supply is inadequate to serve the approved level of development or if the development square footage exceeds the amount described above(up to 730,000 square feet total), all development within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area shall provide parking consistent with Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, unless and until new parking to meet the identified demand is approved and constructed. Changes between one or more of the individual use categories may be allowed as long as the total square footage does not exceed 626,000 square feet in Area One and jmp(planning/4-2 ord/10/12J00 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 104,00 square feet in Area Two provided there are corresponding changes in the other use categories to assure adequate parking remains. Although the Downtown Parking Master Plan distinguishes between the location and type of parking resources available in Area 1 and Area 2,the adjusted parking requirement for both Area 1 and Area 2 is the same(Figure 4.2). The common parking requirement is based on the shared parking concept for the entire master plan area. Existing and ppopor,@&building square footage and uses are parked within the public parking supply within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. In the event a property owner demolishes his/her existing building,and rebuilds a new building of equal square footage and use,no additional parking shall be required. All required parking shall be calculated based on the reduced requirements of the Downtown Parking Master.Plan. ooV &Ursi All projects over 99�9�sq. ft. --- - -�,-.1 block in size shall be required to Jr ^-^.n.ie sCmom 'D'- of the cod -required parkingowbNe which is identified in Figure 4.2. A /_ M � w►G►4 �r1r11�� �jt. (� �/� �ct2rs� - -10 �A►4 Ib�1�. or•��1Y 1Op ZtS e1,01 w c'r j if?AA4;e Will 1Cv 6t r9 %Oke'44 'tit OVSe 4L4 �Qsg o>tr 4144V a( INM - tILI 14 er 'tit Ta'e Ito �� �c�r oK d oK •fvr • or►t -61 P r , a A A o �e -S 1 cot 4*4p e In addition, the Planning Commission or City Council may impose one (1), all,'or a combination of the following requirements to ensure that adequate parking is provided for each development: 1. Require that any parking in-lieu fees be full cost recovery based on the parking requirement for specific uses. However, allow that these fees be paid over an amortization period,with appropriate security provided by the applicant to guarantee payment. 2. Require valet parking once the maximum build out of restaurant activity has been obtained. Au A 3 Require valet and/or remote parkin fr Require the�applicant to provide additional on-site and/or off-site parking for any development. Develop parking options which may generate additional parking for any development. Develop a sign program to direct motorists toparking facilities wee' SECTION 2. Figure 4.2 of the Huntington Beach Specific Plan is hereby amended as follows: r DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN = CODIFIED PARKING REQUIREMENTS Land Use Huntington Beach Code New Parking Standard Retail 1:200 Restaurant 1:100l90� Office 1:250 `r Note: At any time it deems necessary, the Planning Commission may require additional on-site parking to meet the parking demands generated by a use or development. SECTION 3. The Map of the Parking Master Plan is hereby amended as shown on Attachment A hereto. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of .2000. P�'\c �✓ P 00 Al P� l � 1 14 a 4 3 8 1r7RMGt1YAV 4 1G 7 I. 1 ®� ~tR 1 F2 £ :rt O ...................... LIVE AV 3 4G ' '� ���.. _ < --_ z D 2 CIA s 2GWALN UT �A s +, 3 +?.;uS.ram LEGEND: -Downtown Parking Master Plan Boundary { -Handicap® -Meter space:2hr,$1-9 tt #Y -relow LW&W zone ® 'Off-Street ° ^9 Lot ® •Meter Spam:2tu$1.Whr AV -Whb Passenger Zone Q -mew Spam:ltv,$1.0my #P -Reserved Poke #G -24 Wmutes # -No Restriction Nvr TO SCALE l<A«U ASSOCIATES FIGURE 21 FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY 64 ATTACO- -Wire-��T ISO. Vill. STRATEGIES FOR DOWNTOWN The previous chapters of this report have described existing conditions, projected future conditions based on land use forecasts consistent with the Buildout of the Downtown Master Plan area, and have identified potential areas that may need to be addressed as part of the update for the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan. The analysis of existing parking conditions in the Downtown study area indicates that the current supply of parking is adequate to accommodate current demand. The analysis indicates that overall the study area has sufficient excess capacity to accommodate increases in parking demand up to 513 spaces under summer conditions. The analysis of future conditions indicates that a shortage of 130 spaces overall is projected at night. This shortage occurs because of the 245-space shortage in Area 1 that is partially compensated by a surplus of 115 spaces in Area 2. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL PARKING NEEDS The analysis of future parking demand in the downtown area has indicated that a potential deficiency would exist in the study area with buildout of the master land use plan. At closer inspection, the results indicate that the deficiency in Area 1 could be as high as 130 spaces with a surplus of 115 spaces in Area 2. A review of these future conditions reveals the following: • Although it appears that the localized deficiency in Area 1 may be as high as 130 spaces, the size of the downtown area is such that most of the parking supply located in Area 2 can conveniently serve the needs of Area 1. Therefore, the local needs are not as relevant as the overall study area needs in the identification of the future requirements for downtown. • The analysis of future parking conditions assumes that other than the potential development on Block A, no additional parking supply would be provided by any of the new projects in the area. Although the specific nature of these projects is not known at this time, the total future density of development projected for the area in the buildout scenario over and above that projected for Block A is about 73,000 square feet of commercial development. • A review of the projected development of Block A indicates that a possible parking supply of 403 spaces is anticipated as part of the development of this site. The development of the site would result in the loss of 214 existing spaces resulting in a net increase of 189 spaces. The peak parking demand 65 ATTACM" ? N �4�' generated by the potential development of this site is estimated to be 690 spaces. Based on this assessment, the current development program expected for Block A would result in a net deficiency of 501 spaces. • The analysis of future parking conditions is based on peak summertime conditions in Downtown Huntington Beach. These peak conditions only occur during the 13 weeks between the beginning of June through the end the August. The absolute peak parking demand is only generated on Fridays and Saturdays and primarily at night. Parking Demand for Development of Block A The City expects that the potential development of Block A would include 243,610 square feet of commercial development. This is based on the following potential development program assumed for the site: • Restaurant 44,210 square feet • Retail 89,860 • Office 6,430 • Hotel 139 rooms (103,110 square feet) If the existing city parking code requirements were strictly applied to each of the land use densities described above, the parking requirement for this project would be 834 spaces. If the parking rates for commercial properties developed from survey data as summarized in Table 16 are strictly applied, the required parking would be 899 spaces. However, a more realistic assessment of the potential parking demand generated by a project with a land use mix and densities as described above would be to take advantage of the hourly variation in the parking demand profile of each land use. The shared parking applications for the possible development project on Block A can be viewed as small version of the shared parking system that exists in Downtown Huntington Beach today and is expected to continue as additional development occurs. Assuming that each land use type in the possible development on Block A would have a parking demand profile similar to that exhibited by existing land uses in the Downtown study area, a parking demand profile for the project was developed. This profile, which is illustrated in Figure 22, identifies the parking demand by time of day for each of the potential land uses in this projected mixed-use project. Each use has its own unique parking demand profile both in terms of the peak demand and the hourly variation of the demand. The peak parking demand for this project as described above is 690 spaces. Although the peak demand projected for the Block A development is less than the parking requirement based on city code, it is more than the projected supply of 403 spaces anticipated for this site. It is also anticipated that the implementation of the development project on Block A 66 ATFIACHi V4 C!4 - I=j0. FIGURE 22 PROJECTED PARKING DEMAND FOR POTENTIAL BLOCK A DEVELOPMENT 800 690 700 - 600 528 J 500 - U 2 w rn 0 400 - -. w z 300 200 100 - - 0 ` 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM TIME OF DAY ■RETAIL ®OFFICE ORESTAURANT ®HOTEL would result in the loss of 150 spaces of existing parking supply and the elimination of existing uses that generate a parking demand of 64 spaces. Therefore, the incremental increase in the supply of parking provided by the potential development of Block A, which is 253 spaces, is 437 spaces less than the incremental increase in parking demand expected to be generated by its implementation. A net deficiency of 437 spaces would result if the project is developed as currently anticipated. SeasonalMeekly/Daily Variation of Parking Demand As previously discussed, the level of activity in Downtown Huntington Beach and the associated parking demand, is directly related to the season of the year. The peak period of activity occurs during the 13-week period between June and August. Table 19, which was prepared from data obtained from the City staff, indicates the magnitude of the parking demand in Downtown Huntington Beach for each month of the year as a percentage of the parking demand during the peak month. The data indicates that parking demand for each of the months other than June, July and August is less than 77 percent of the parking demand during the peak month. If these percentages are applied to the results of the analysis of future parking conditions summarized in Table 18, the results can be used to assess the future parking conditions during all periods of the year other than the peak months between June and August. Table 20 summarizes the results of this analysis indicating that the parking demand during the other months of the year can be accommodated by the parking supply projected for the study area even under future buildout conditions in Downtown. Further investigation of parking demand data on a week-to-week and even day-to-day basis during the 13 weeks of the summer, the peak period, was conducted. The results of this analysis indicate that there is also a significant variation in the parking demand on a day-today basis. The two peak days are Friday and Saturday. The parking demand remains relatively high on Sundays but is significantly lower than the peak on Monday through Thursday. Table 21 was prepared to illustrate the magnitude of the parking demand for each day of the week as a percentage of the parking demand on Friday and Saturday. The data in this table also indicates that the parking demand on Monday through Thursday is 70 percent of the peak parking demand on Friday. If these percentages are also used to adjust the data in Table 19, the results indicate that the parking demand on Monday through Thursday can be accommodated by the projected supply in Downtown even during the peak summer peak months of June, July and August under buildout conditions. This analysis indicates that the peak parking demands projected for the study area generally occur only 3 days per week for 13 weeks, for a total of 39 days per year. The deficiencies that were identified only occur for 11% of the year. During the remaining 326 days of the year, the projected parking demands can be accommodated by the projected parking supply. 68 TABLE 19 PARKING DEMAND BY MONTH AS PERCENTAGE OF PEAK DEMAND %of Peak Month Month a January 65% February 61% March 70% April 71% May 77% June 84% July 100% August 83% September 64% October 62% November 59% December 55% Note: [a]Based on Main Promenade parking structure data provided by the City of Huntington Beach. TABLE 20 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF MONTHLY PARKING DEMAND Projected Parking Supply= 2,271 spaces Peak Parking Surplus/ Month Demand Deficit January 1,563 708 February 1,466 805 March 1,686 585 April 1,705 566 May 1,839 432 June 2,019 252 July 2,401 (130) August 1,998 273 September 1,544 727 October 1,484 787 November 1,410 861 December 1,329 942 TABLE 21 PARKING DEMAND BY DAY OF WEEK AS PERCENTAGE OF FRIDAY %of Peak Day of the Week Da a Sunday 86% Monday 67% Tuesday 68% Wednesday 70% Thursday 70% Friday 1000/0 -Saturday 97% Note: [a]Based on Main Promenade parking structure data provided by the City of Huntington Beach. 69 ATTA C HN44E a _0. EVALUATION OF GENERAL STRATEGIES The potential parking strategies that were considered for the study can generally be categorized into three areas: • Those that relate to the policies regarding provision for providing on-site parking supply when prospective new development projects require entitlement to implement the proposal. • Those that would actually increase the supply of parking within the study area by constructing additional facilities or expanding existing facilities. • Those that would use parking supply in facilities outside the study area using shuttle buses and other related means to transport patrons to and from the study area. • Operational measures at existing facilities using attendants and/or valet service to parking vehicles in aisles and in tandem. • Use of the in-lieu parking fee fund to pay for the operational measures such as attendant parking and shuttle bus service. Provisions to Provide On-Site Parking in New Developments Although it is allowable for development projects in the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan area to pay an in-lieu fee to the City rather than provide the code-required parking supply in an on-site facility, effort should be made to encourage all larger developments to provide this on-site parking. It would be difficult for projects that are on a parcel of land that covers less that 1/2 block to provide on-site parking for their projects. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect all potential new development projects to comply with this requirement. However, for those projects that have sufficient property, it may be more advantageous to the City to have projects provide at least some of the required parking on-site rather than to receive the in-lieu payment. Capital Improvements Although the construction of additional capital intensive parking facilities is not the preferred strategy for the City of Huntington Beach, it is a solution that directly addresses the existing and future parking needs during both weekdays and on Saturday. This strategy is capable of adding parking supply to the area that can be dedicated to the growth and development planned and expected in the area. It would require that the city identify and acquire property, preferably property that is vacant or under-utilized, and construct a facility to address the potential deficiencies that are projected to occur at buildout. 70 ATTACK';LL141 f'e 7 Because the potential deficiencies in parking supply expected under buildout conditions would only occur on 11% of the days of each year, use of this option does not appear to be a cost- effective means of addressing the parking problems identified above. Use of Off-Site Facilities Use of off-site parking is a concept that can be considered for use with employees but is not feasible for visitors. This concept has had some success with employees, especially in areas with heavy congestion and high parking rates. Use of off-site city-owned facilities is a concept that appears to be a compromise between the two discussed above. Use of off-site facilities provides additional parking supply to the study area without construction of new structures and makes use of facilities that do not have overlapping peak demands for parking. The most logical location for this off-site parking would be the beach parking facilities located on the south side of PCH along the beach areas. These facilities have little usage during the non-summer months and at night during the summer months. During the summer months, their peak usage is on weekend days and are under-utilized at night when the peaks occur in the Downtown area. However, they do have significant usage during the day on weekdays during summer months limiting their availability for any significant weekday deficiencies. Because this measure is not capital intensive and can be construed as more of an operational measure that would be implemented for limited periods of time, it may be a cost-effective measure to address these issues. However, the user survey indicates that only 13% of the Friday users of the parking system and 7% of the Saturday users are employees. Since the employees are the logical market source for this measure, its ability to be an effective means of addressing the issues is limited. Attendants and Valets The effective parking supply in a facility can be increased 20 to 30% if vehicles are parked in the aisles and in tandem using attendants and/or valets to continually maneuver these vehicles so users can have access without significant inconvenience. This measure can be a useful technique for parking shortages that occur occasionally and for a short period of time. It should not be viewed as a solution for a recurring problem that occurs on a regular basis during long periods of the day. Use of In-Lieu Fees for Operational Improvements One strategy that has been under consideration is the use of the funds collected as part of the in- lieu fee program for Downtown Huntington Beach to implement some of the operational improvements suggested for the study area. These include the operation of the valet parking program and the potential shuttle bus system that would provide access to off-site parking facilities. A review of this concept indicates that these funds should be kept in reserve to finance 71 any future capital improvement project that may be needed. The funds, which were collected to allow the city to replace the on-site parking supply that was not provided by existing development projects in the area, should not be used for operational activities since they do not have a mechanism replace these funds. Operational measures are ongoing activities that should not be financed by a source that has a finite amount of funding. A separate source which has the ability to be replenished, even the general fund, should be used to implement operational improvements such shuttle bus service or attendant parking. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL FUTURE PARKING SCENARIOS An analysis was conducted to assess several future parking management scenarios for Downtown including one in which no changes are made, one which assumes that up to 50% of the potential new developments would provide on-site parking supply that satisfies the code requirements, and one which assumes only new projects over 30,000 square feet in density would be required to satisfy code requirements for on-site parking supply. The following conclusions, which were derived from summaries in Table 22, include the following: • The total peak parking demand on weekdays is projected to be 2,401 spaces at night. Based on the total future supply of 2,271 spaces, the future deficiency is projected to be 130 spaces. • If new developments in the study area provide at least 50% of its code required parking on-site, the potential parking deficiency in Area 1 is projected to be 121 spaces at buildout. This deficiency is compensated by a surplus of 133 spaces in Area 2. • If all new developments over 30,000 square feet in density in the study area provide its code required parking on-site, the potential parking deficiency in Area 1 is projected to be 135 spaces at buildout. The majority of the deficiency is compensated by a surplus of 130 spaces in Area 2. 72 ATT'�C� r-z r f M-1101. 1 �1:� �jN� TABLE 22 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS PARKING SCENARIOS Results of Analysis of Future Parking Demand Day Night Future Future Surplus/ Future Future Surplus/ Block Su I Demand a Deficit Su I Demand a Deficit Area 1 1,972 1,697 275 1,972 2,217 (245) Area 2 299 218 81 299 184 115 Total of Area 1 & 2 2,271 1,915 356 2,271 2,401 (130) 60% of Future Developments to Provide Parking Day Night Future Future Surplus/ Future Future Surplus/ Block Supply Demand a Deficit Supply Demand a Deficit Area 1 2,096 1,697 399 2,096 2,217 (121) Area 2 317 218 99 317 184 133 Total of Area 1 & 2 2,413 1,915 498 2,413 2,401 12 Future Developments 30,000+ sf to Provide Parking Day Night Future Future Surplus/ Future Future Surplus/ Block Supply Demand Fal (Deficit) Supply Demand a Deficit Area'1 2,082 1,697 385 2,082 2,217 (135) Area 2 314 218 96 314 184 130 Total of Area 1 & 2 2,397 1,915 482 2,396 2,401 (5) Note: [a] Includes some pier/beach and resident users. 73 -(A IX. RECOMMENDED PARKING MASTER PLAN The recommended parking improvement program for the Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan includes the following four strategies: STRATEGY 1: MODIFIED PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS It is recommended that the City Parking Code Requirements for the Downtown Parking Master Plan be modified from the current requirements to the proposed rates. As indicated in Table 23, it is recommended that the same rate be used for both Areas 1 and 2. The table indicates the current rates that include separate rates for the two areas under existing conditions. It is also recommended that the provision that allows applicants to pay an in-lieu fee be maintained. This allows the City to maintain its flexibility in addressing each individual applicant's requests. STRATEGY 2: ON-SITE PARKING It is recommended that the city encourage all future projects proposing a density of development for a commercial project that is over 30,000 square feet to provide and satisfy at least 50% of its city code-required parking requirement. It is estimated that requiring these projects to develop 50% of the spaces would add a total of 100 to 150 spaces to the study area's inventory. If this policy were successfully implemented throughout the study area, the majority of the implied parking deficiency under buildout conditions could be addressed with existing and future supply. STRATEGY 3: PARKING MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES It recommended that the City require larger projects in the area, such as the potential development on Block A, to utilize on-site attendants during the peak season. The use of these attendants would allow the parking managers to provide valet service to patrons and other users of the system and allow for the use of tandem parking in the facilities. By parking vehicles in tandem and using the aisles, the effective capacity of the parking supply of these larger facilities can be increased. This measure is only required during the peak summer months, i.e., June through August, and would help address the implied parking deficiency that is projected in the study area at buildout. 74 ATTACHJ11rE T NO. TABLE 23 PROPOSED PARKING RATIO FOR DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH Current City Parking Downtown Proposed Shared Rate [a] Land Use Parking Ratio[a] Area 1 Area 2 Retail 3.00 4.00 2.50 Office 2.00 1.00 2.00 Cinema 0.30 0.20 n/a Restaurant I IL.00___j 6.67 10.00 [a] Per 1,000 s.f.of floor area. STRATEGY 4: USE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLY OF PARKING It is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach not engage in a capital improvement program to construct additional parking facilities to add to the supply of parking. A review of the current parking inventory in the periphery area of downtown, Blocks B1 to F2, and the beach parking south of Pacific Coast Highway indicates that there are hundreds of existing parking spaces in the area that are unoccupied during the peak nighttime periods. The results of the utilization surveys and observations made during these surveys indicates that there over 300 unoccupied parking spaces within a 2 to 3 block radius of the downtown area. Although these spaces cannot be include in the official inventory of parking for the Downtown Parking Master Plan Area, they can be viewed as supplemental spaces that are available for use during key critical periods. During the nighttime peak, even in the summer months, many of these spaces are available and can accommodate the excess demand that is projected to occur at buildout. The fact that these projected deficiencies only occur for about 35 days of the year is not adequate justification to engage in a building program to add new parking facilities to the parking supply. 75 ATTACH, A EN T E:1 Appendix ATTAVH; 7j� y . :i , FIGURE A SAMPLE USER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOB PARKING SURVEY Serial# This survey is being conducted for the City of Huntington Beach and will be used to help improve the public parking facilities in the downtown area.This survey is anonymous,is not related to parking enforcement,and parking violations will not be reported.Please take a minute to answer the following questions and mail this post-paid card by SEPT, 1999. Thank you for your participation. 1. Approximately what time did you arrive in the downtown area today? 2.Approximately what time did you leave the downtown area today? 3. From where did you begin your trip to this area today? 1❑ Home 4❑ Hotel 2❑ Work 5❑ Other(Describe) 3[] School What is the zip code of your beginning location? (Note:if zip code unknown,give city or region) 4. How often do you come to this area? 1❑ 1-2 days per week 4❑ 1-3 times per month 2❑ 3-4 days per week 5❑ less than once a month 3❑ 5 or more days per week 6❑ first time visitor 5. What was the primary purpose of your trip today?(mark all that apply) 1❑ Farmer's Market 7❑ Live in downtown area 2❑ Shopping 80 Employed in downtown area 3❑ Eating/Drinking 9❑ visiting area resident 4❑ Movie/Entertainment 10❑ visiting area business 5❑ Beach 11❑ (Describe) 6❑ Huntington Beach Pier 6. How many blocks did you have to walk from your parking space to your primary destination? 7. How many persons(including yourself)were in this vehicle when it was parked at this location? 8. Was your parking validated today? 1❑ Yes 2❑ No 9. How much are you willing to pay per hour to park in the downtown area? 1❑ Nothing 4❑ $1.00 to$2.00 per hour 2❑ less than$0.50 per hour 5❑ $2.00 to$3.00 per hour 3M $0.50 to$1.00 per hour 6❑ over$3.00 per hour 10. Do you have any comments or suggestions regarding the parking facilities in the downtown area? AT li i�%j - t`3'u 1 Iry . TABLE A INVENTORY OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES Comment Blocr ID,r DesaipUon Address Name of Company OpereUn the Lot Hourly Skeet Clsan,Valet Monde-Saturda < < ; p AREA 1 Al Parking Lot Sth St Su Pu I I I I 8a-12Mid $1.00 per hr 78 2 A A2 Parking Lot 5th St Su Pam" , 8 A A3 Parking Lot Center Of Block Tenant Only I Pr C I E T I I NP-Tenant/Customer Only 8 A4 Parking Lot Center Of Block Tenant Only/Main St Street Usage Pr C I E T I NP-Tenant/Customer Only 14 A AS Parking Lot Center Of Block Tenant Only EL Don Uquor Su Pr C E T 15 min NP•Tenant/Customer Only 5 A A8 Parking Lot Walnut Av f City Owned Su T 55 2 Permit Required Sth St A7 Parking Lot PCH on Su Pr T NP•Tenant/Customer Only 8 B 83 Parking Lot Walnut Av Ace Parking Inc./Piereide Parking St Pu I C V E T Sunrise to 3a $2.00 per hr-S8.00 Bat X 279 B 11 Ta dom Spaces C Cl Surf Museum Comer of OUve Su C E 7 NP-Tenant/Customs Only 5 Parking Av ti 5th St C C2 Private Lot Center Of Block Tenant Su Pr I T NP•Tenant Only 11 C C3 Parking Lot Center Of Block NaNBeauty Place Su Pr C I E T NP-Tenant/Customer Only 4 D D2 Public Lot Walnut Av City Owned St Pu C V E T 15 min Free,$1.00 per X 818 10 4 Spaces unavailable 12 hr,$7.00 Flat F F1 Parking Lot Orange Av Patient Parking 305 Orange Av Su Pr C E T NP-Tenant/Customer Only 8 F F2 Parking Lot Orange Av Tenant Su Pr C E T NP-Tenant/Customer Only 4 F F3 Parking Lot Orange Av HB reality Su Pr E T NP-Tenant/Customer Only 4 7 spaces,3 spaces unavailable F F4 Parking Lot Orange Av Making Waves Su I Pr C I E T NP•Tenant/CustomerOnly 7 F FS Parking Lot Orange Av Restaurant Su Pr C E T NP•Tenant/Customer Only /1 F FS Private Lot 3rd Lawyers,Men SRNs,Hayes&Ass.,Others Su Pr C E T NP-Tenant/Customer Only 1 28 AREA 2 G Gt Private Lot Center of Block Mixed Rota on Main St Skeet St Pr C E T NP•Tenanl/Customer Only 15 Under,Mixed-Use Development G G2 Private Lot Main St Auto Guy,Real Estate,Barber,Others Su C E T NP•Tenant/Customer Only 19 1 717. G G3 Private Lot Main St MLT Logistics Su Pr E T NP-Tenant/Customer Only 8 1 Sectioned off by ropes H1 H7 Private Lot Pam Av Laundry Place Su Pr C E T NP-Tenant Only 7 (M H1 H2 Private Lot Main St Dirt Unused Parking Lot Su T NP-Tenant/Customer Only 14 —-� Ht H3 Private Lot Main St& Sunni Electric Chair on Su C E T I NP-Tenant/Customer Only 28 2 Orange Av H2 H4 Private Lot 8th St 3 Main Food Stuff Su I I C E T NP-Tenant/Customer Only 12 2 i Y St �1 LH5 Private Lot Mein Sl 8 ReW m I Location Su C E T NP•Tonant/Custoer OnlyPecan Av It PuW Lot Main St Art Center Parking Su Pu C V E T NP-Tenant Msltor Only 20 1 1 Area 110 10 1347 0 qI rea2 A 0 0 138 0 Tota10 0 1483 0 Grand Total 1510 TABLE B RESULTS OF PARKING UTILIZATION SURVEY-ALL SPACES FRIDAY,SEPTEMBER 24,1999 Invento TIME OF DAY 9am 1 pm 9:00 AM I 10:00 AM I 11:00 AM 1 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 1 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 1 4:00 PM PAZ 18prr,12am 1 pm-7pm 1 7pm-8pm Occ. %Occ.I Occ. I%Occ.I Occ. I%Occ.I Occ. I%Occ. Occ. I%Occ.I Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. A 236 231 236 60 25% 74 31% 110 47% 127 54% 147 62%1 163 69% 156 66% 135 57 B 317 317 317 58 18% 72 23% 87 27% 107 34% 112 35% 111 35% 120 38% 104 33% C 54 44 50 23 43% 28 52% 37 69% 38 70% 32 73% 30 68% 26 599A 331 75% D 862 846 846 240 28% 261 300/9 287 33% 366 42% 387 46% 402 48% 424 50% 398 47% F 102 102 102 39 38% 54 53% 51 50% 54 53% 55 54% 55 54% 56 55% 64 63% AREA 1 TOTAL 1,5711 1,6401 1,5511 420 27%1 489 31%1 572 36•ti 692 44X 733 48%1 761 49%1 782 51%1 734 48X G 1031 1031 1031 411 40%1 471 46%1 531 51% 54 52°A6 72 70% 78 76% 79 77% 78 76% H 153 153 153 32 21% 46 30% 53 35% 54 35% 58 38% 75 49% 73 48% 71 46% 1 43 43 43 8 19°6 17 40% 17 40% 18 42% 16 37%1 161 37°6 25 58°6 22 51% AREA 2 TOTAL 1 2991 2991 2991 811 27%1 110 37%1 123 41% 126 42%1 146 49%1 169 57%1 177 59% 171 57% AREA 1 s 2 SUBTOTAL 1 1,870 1,839 1,850 501 27X 599 32% 695 37X 818 "% 879 48X 930 51X 959 52X 905 49% Bl 20 20 20 5 25% 7 35% 7 35% 4 20% 61 30% 5 2s% 6 30% 5 25 C1 43 43 43 17 40% 33 77% 33 77% 38 88% 42 98% 44 102% 44 102% 46 107% D7 39 39 39 5 13% 10 26% 12 31% 18 46% 21 54°A6 22 56% 22 56% 19 49% D2 40 40 40 13 33% 13 33% 12 30% 13 33% 14 35% 13 33% 16 40% 15 38% E7 46 46 46 24 52% 30 65% 35 76% 35 76% 36 78% 40 87% 42 91% 40 87% Ft 42 42 42 11 26% 18 43% 14 33% 15 36% 18 43% 17 40% 17 40% 23 55% F2 18 18 18 3 17°A6 4 22% 5 28% 5 28% 6 33°6 3 17% 3 17% 4 22% G7 71 71 71 26 37% 24 34% 19 27% 27 38°A6 29 41% 32 45% 32 45% 38 64% PERIPHERY TOTAL 319 319 319 104 33% 139 44X 137 43% 155 49% 172 54% 176 56% 182 57% 190 60X TOTAL AREA 2,188 2,158 2,169 605 28X 738 34X 832 38X 973 44% 1,051 49X 1,106 51% 1,141 53% 1,095 51% Invento TIME OF DAY 9am-1 pm 5:00 PM 1 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 1 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 1 11:00 PM 1 12:00 AM PAZ Spm-1 1 pm•7pm I 7pm•8pm Occ. I%Occ.I Occ. I%Occ. Occ. I%Oco. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ_ Occ. %Occ.I Occ. %Occ cc O %Occ. A 236 231 236 132 56% 106 45% 117 50°i6 114 48% 133 56% 141 60% 110 47% 104 44% B 317 317 317 86 27% 93 29% 123 39% 180 57% 1" 45% 128 40% 96 30% 73 23% C 54 44 50 34 77% 33 75% 36 72% 34 63% 30 58% 36 67% 26 48% 22 41 D 862 846 846 419 50% 495 69% 507 60% 555 64% 595 69% 574 67% 406 47% 294 34°A6 F 102 102 102 58 57% 38 37% 42 41% 28 27% 34 33% 37 36% 50 49% 37 36% AREA 1 TOTAL 1,5711 1,5401 1,5511 729 47%1 7651 SOX1 $251 53% 911 58X $36 60%1 916 58%1 688 "% $30 34X G 103 1031 1�2353% 62% 47 46% 43 42% 31 30% 30 29% 18 17% 21 20% H 153 153 1 41% 55 36% 69 45% 65 42% 64 42% 48 31% 53 35 I 43 43 74% 30 70°6 31 72% 33 77%am 87% 24 56% 24 56 AREA 2 TOTAL 299 299 299 168 56X 159 53X 132 44X 143 48X 129 43% 123 41X 90 30X 98 33 AREA 1 3 2 SUBTOTAL 1,870 1,839 1,850 897 49% 924 50X 957 52% 1,054 56% 1,065 57% 1,039 56% 778 42X 628 34 Bt 20 20 20 7 35% 5 25°6 7 35°6 5 25% 10 50°6 12 60% 9 45% 9 45% Ci 43 43 43 45 105% 42 98% 40 93% 44 102% 39 91% 37 86% 31 72% 26 60° D1 39 39 39 17 44% 23 59% 22 56°A6 26 67% 26 67% 27 69% 27 69% 27 69% D2 40 40 40 16 40% 15 38% 16 40% 18 45% 21 53% 21 53% 15 38% 21 53% Et 46 46 46 45 98% 40 87% 38 83% 39 85% 40 87% 44 96% 35 764 32 7 F7 42 42 42 18 43% 21 50% 16 38% 21 50°A6 21 50% 25 60°A6 28 67% 29 69% F2 18 18 18 7 39% 7 39% 7 39% 8 44% 11 61% 6 33% 6 33% 5 28% G1 71 71 71 37 52°i6 40 56% 38 54% 40 56% 40 56% 40 56% 39 55% 401 56% PERIPHERY TOTAL 319 3191 3191 192 60%1 193 61%1 184 58%1 201 63%1 208 66%1 212 66%1 190 60% 189 59% FToT:AREA 2,189 2,158 2,169 1,089 60% 1,117 52'/. 1,141 53X 1,255 67X 1,273 58X 1,251 57X 968 "% 817 37X rD- m Gf N m S O 9 m P N _ x L) T v C) m D r m 4) N :2 m s C ��:.�,ggg V XOyyOppYpp1JppNOXX0I(yN0Op01� NOiFXppr1NXp#D1��W10t00pp���1I yOXU�WX((GXVOXyy,,1..D111 W(WXSXmXVV8 N+I ((��0X!XxW(OXi(yyOaappt (�WXOOX0N6 �1l11 NNNNNXXppp1XXW% HXOXX(AAaaAW X�QQQQQ2xVXN8 �pp•XNp1h(Oxpyppp0�', VV�ppppQiXyXO0q�0 q�XNXAtNNN8X1 NY�((XONtN(�XJ31 ((((((gXX4qXNLN NXXWW�X1 (�XY�t iYXs Q�OXXO D:Xpo1 3XXyNXt XppVXLX8 ,Xppp1 8 XX((0XH �pNXtVXaa^.i NN �ua�O�NyaY+ da FN Xx 8vXX$ yp1pVNKsWV�1O,011 XlNWXpi�1� W;X�Wtp1 ledmXKO 113 8 CD O O m N O6 WNN NN gq NN N o N N NN A N N + m N y O � a 8 p N N S, W N O mN yy lofts NN N v s N 8 H is O 3; is N I fo A N 18 1NO CA V 10 V WA1�bT0 O X : la-9, {3X P CZONN N cn O m ((g N m OlWN N O (�s + F. N O NOW W 1 O fcaDC XX X X X K X m-1 A N H tN N NIB; N N A 8 A N1 1 N N Z i mM X XX IV N NA N 41 18 N f W + (3 V N m 8 Z t. mOaXX X ca 8 + H H O O N VV a N ( - NN N N1 OI D WN p p O tN A O W g OO [NNa tiV , N9 ;g A % U VNNW O - OW A N W Oeo a O x N 55 X 13 N N N III a ANV N OWO 9 N N rWW N 01 NyO q p N OU N W� V V N YH0 nW{ 19 9 ffi $ N 'a' isUtiN � $' rn It! ?'IF8 8 fb' A 'taai11oaN Bit w !1!21 mQ' £i Es /g.}� V W�1 t q X111; V. A u X TABLE D RESULTS OF PARKING UTILIZATION SURVEY-OFF-STREET SPACES FRIDAY,SEPTEMBER 24,1999 TIME OF DAY 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM PAZ Inventory Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. A 176 30 17% 41 23% 74 42% 85 48% 111 63% 129 73% 122 69% 102 58% B 285 51 18% 63 22% 73 26% 91 32% 94 33% 89 31% 95 33% 81 28% C 20 5 25% 5 25% 9 45% 10 50% 10 50% 10 50% 9 45% 11 55% D 826 229 28% 242 29% 258 31% 340 41% 371 45% 384 46% 407 49% 382 46% F 60 26 43% 31 52% 29 48% 27 45% 27 45% 30 50% 23 38% 30 50% hr A 1 TOTAL 1 1,36571 341 25%1 382 28%1 443 32%1 553 40%1 613 45%1 642 47%1 656 48°/. 606 44• G 44 14 32% 17 39% 16 36% 21 48% 23 52% 24 55% 26 59% 27 61% H 78 18 23% 19 24% 27 35% 23 29%1 29 37% 36 46% 37 47% 40 51% 1 21 4 19% 10 48% 6 29% 5 24% 6 29% 6 29% 10 48% 9 430/6 AREA 2 TOTAL 1431 361 25%1 461 32%1 491 34%1 491 34%1 581 41%1 661 46%1 731 511%1 761 53° TOTAL AREA 1,510 377 25% 428 28% 492 33% 602 40% 671 44% 708 47X 729 48% 682 45• 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 1 11:00 PM 1 12:00 AM PAZ Inventory I Occ. I%Occ. Occ. 1%Occ.I Occ. %Occ.I Occ. %Occ.I Occ. %Occ.I Occ. I%Occ.I Occ. I%Occ.IOcc. %Occ. A 176 97 55% 71 40% 73 41%J14 40% 84 48% 88 50% 72 41% 66 38 B 285 66 23% 73 26% 100 35% 55% 121 42% 103 36% 76 27% 52 18% C 20 11 55% 10 50% 11 55% 40% 5 25% 11 55% 8 40% 6 30% D 826 402 49% 479 58% 489 59% 64% 561 68% 547 66% 376 46% 264 32% F 60 33 55% 20 33% 17 28% 23% 19 32% 16 27% 28 47% 22 37% AREA 1 TOTAL 1 1,3671 609 45%1 653 48%1 690 50%1 781 57%1 790 58%1 765 56%1 560 41%1 410 30 G 44 29 66% 22 50% 18 41% 13 30% 4 9% 5 11% 1 2% 1 2% H 78 33 42%1 331 42%1 251 32% 351 45%1 28 36% 251 32%1 20 26%1 20 26% I 1 211 81 38%1 141 67%1 151 71%1 161 76%1 211 100%1 151 71%1 81 38% 8 38016 AREA 2 TOTAL 1 11431 701 49%1 691 48%1 581 41%1 64 45%1 531 37%1 451 31%1 291 20%1 29 20 TOTAL AREA 1,510 679 45% 722 48% 748 50% 845 56X 843 56X 810 54X 589 39% 439 29 ATT�° 1 t:NT 0. TABLE E RESULTS OF PARKING UTILIZATION SURVEY-ALL SPACES SATURDAY,SEPTEMBER 11,1999 TIME OF DAY 9:00 AM 10:00 AMat AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM PAZ Inventory Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. %Occ. Oco I %Occ. Oco I %Occ. Occ. I %Occ. Occ. %Occ. A 236 56 24%1 781 33% 94 40%1 123 52% 134 67% 152 64%1 130 55% B 317 38 12% 47 15% 58 18% 73 23% 77 24% 75 24% 84 26% c 54 28 52% 37 69% 44 81% 41 76% 41 76% 40 74% 41 76% D 862 270 31% 304 35% 417 48% 452 52% 478 55%1 492 57% 522 610 F 102 291 28% 44 43% 52 51% 50 49% 55 54%1 63 62% 69 68% AREA 1 TOTAL 1,571 421 27% 510 32% 665 42% 739 47% 785 50% 822 MA. $a 54% G 103 36 35% 47 46% 60 58% 71 69% 71 69% 69 67% 66 64% H 153 41 27% 51 33% 61 40% 62 41% 76 50% 82 54% 91 59°/ 1 43 13 30% 24 56% 19 44% 19 44% 20 47% 18 42% 31 72% AREA 2 TOTAL 299 90 30% 122 41% 140 47% 152 51% 167 66% 169 57% 188 63% AREA 1 3 2 SUBTOTAL 1,870 511 27% 632 34•h 805 43% 891 4 % 952 51% 991 53% 1034 55•% Bl 20 2 10% 3 15% 16 80% 10 50% 11 55% 15 75% 16 80% C1 43 36 84% 40 93% 39 91% 41 95% 46 107% 44 102% 44 102% D1 39 14 36% 17 44% 24 62% 26 67% 24 62% 24 62% 25 64% D2 40 14 35% 14 35% 21 53% 22 55% 21 53% 18 45% 19 48°h E1 46 36 78% 40 87% 40 87% 43 93% 42 91% 46 100% 40 87% Fi 42 27 64% 26 62% 241 57% 27 64% 24 57% 25 60% 25 60% F2 18 61 33% 5 28% 31 17% 5 28% 9 50% 10 56% 10 56% G1 71 351 49% 37 52% 421 59% 47 66% 46 65% 50 70% 52 73% PERIPHERY TOTAL 3191 170 53'/e 182 67%1 2091 661%/. 221 69% 223 70%1 232 73% 231 72• TOTAL AREA 2,189 681 31% 814 37% 1,014 46% 1,112 51% 1,175 54•h 1,223 56% 1,265 58° TIME OF DAY 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM PAZ Inventory Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ Oct %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ A 236 125 53% 125 53% 118 49% 110 47% 124 53% 129 55% 130 55% B 317 821 26% 97 31% 981 31% 129 41% 128 40% 152 48% 150 47% C 54 40 74% 39 72% 311 57% 331 61% 30 56% 34 63% 26 48° D 862 519 60% 465 54% 505 69% 472 55% 529 61% 552 64% 533 62° F 102 72 71% 52 51% 47 46% 32 31% 33 32% 35 34% 42 41% AREA 1 TOTAL 1,571 838 53% 778 50% 797 51% 776 44 54%49% 8 902 57% 8811 56% G 103 69 67% 65 63% 51 50% 43 42% 39 38% 32 31% 35 34% H 153 79 52% 74 48% 69 45% 64 42°h 9%59 3 56 37% 62 410 1 43 35 81% 39 91% 35 81% 36 84% 32 74% 18 42% 19 44% AREA 2 TOTAL 299 183 61%1 178 60% 155 S2% 143 48% 130 43%1 106 350/. 116 390 AREA 1&2 SUBTOTAL 1,870 1,021 55% 956 51% 952 51% 919 49% 974 52% 1,008 54% 997 63% 81 20 13 65% 10 50% 11 55% 10 50% 15 75% 191 95%1 20 100° Cl 43 43 1000/9 441 1020/6 36 64% 34 794/6 40 93% 43 1W1.1 35 61% D1 39 24 62% 271 69% 23 59% 24 62% 25 64% 26 67%1 26 67% D2 40 23 58% 19 48% 19 48% 19 48% 17 43% 19 48% 17 43% E1 46 38 83% 35 76% 31 67% 34 74% 42 91% 40 87% 41 89% F1 42 211 50% 19 45% 191 45% 26 62%1 24 57%1 24 57% 23 55% F2 18 91 50% 6 33% 6 33% 6 33%1 5 28% 5 28% 8 44% Gt 71 571 80% 49 69% 44 62% 48 68% 39 55% 39 55% 37 52° PERIPHERY TOTAL 319 228 71% 209 66% 189 59% 201 63% 207 65% 215 67% 207 6511 TOTAL AREA 2,189 1,249 57% 1,165 53% 1,141 52% 1,120 51% 1,181 54% 1,223 66% 1,204 55% TABLE F RESULTS OF PARKING UTILIZATION SURVEY-ON-STREET SPACES SATURDAY,SEPTEMBER 11,1999 TIME OF DAY 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12.00 PM PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM PAZ InventoryOcc. %Occ. Dec. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Dec. %Dec.EM%Occ. Occ. %Occ. Dec. %Occ. A 60 32 53% 43 72% 47 78% 53 88% 56 93% 59 98% 531 88% B 32 10 31% 15 47% 25 78% 26 81% 21 66% 21 66% 25 78% C 34 20 59% 26 76% 30 88% 29 85% 31 91% 28 82% 30 88°,6 D 36 14 39% 19 53% 32 89% 33 92% 31 86% 30 83% 31 86% F 42 12 29% 19 45% 27 64% 27 64% 29 69% 30 71% 29 6 AREA 1 TOTAL 204 88 43Y° 122 60X 161 79X 168 82X 168 82X 168 82X 168 82% G 591 221 37%1 271 46% 42 71% 491 83% 481 81%1 48 81% 42 71% H 751 291 39%1 321 43% 411 55%1 391 52%1 431 57%1 44 59% 50 67% I 221 81 36%1 171 T7% 121 55%1 91 41%1 91 41%1 9 41% 17 77% AREA 2 TOTAL= 1561 591 38% 761 49%1 951 61%1 971 62%1 100 64%1 101 65%1 109 70% AREA 1 3 2 TOTAL 1 3601 147 41%1 198 56%1 256 71%1 265 74%1 268 74%1 269 75%1 277 77% B1 P40 2 10°6 3 15% 16 80°� 10 50°h 11 55°h 15 75°6 16 80% Ct 36 84% 40 93% 39 91°h 41 95°4 46 107°h 44 102°�S, 44 102°h Di 14 36% 17 44% 24 62% 26 67% 24 62% 24 62% 25 64% D2 14 35% 14 35% 21 53% 22 55% 21 53% 18 45% 19 48%El 36 78% 40 87% 40 87% 43 93% 42 91% 46 100% 40 87% Fl 27 64% 26 62% 24 57% 27 64% 24 57% 25 60% 25 60% F2 18 6 33% 5 28% 3 17% 5 28% 9 50% 10 56% 10 56 GI 71 35 49% 37 52% 42 59%1 471 66%1 461 65%1 50 70% 52 73% PERIPHERY TOTAL 1 3191 170 63%1 182 57%1 209 66%1 221 69%1 223 70%1 232 73% 231 72 TOTAL AREA 679 317 47X 380 56X 465 68X 486 72X 491 72% 501 74% 508 75% TIME OF DAY 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM PAZ Inventoryl Dec. I %Occ. Occ. I %Dec. I Occ. I %Occ. Occ. I %Occ. Dec. I %Occ. Occ. I %Occ. Occ. %Occ. A 60 55 92% 57 95% 48 80% 44 73% 53 88% 52 87%1 47 78% B 32 25 78% 26 81% 24 75% 25 78% 26 81% 24 75%1 19 59% C 34 28 82% 30 88% 25 74% 25 74% 22 65% 27 79% 20 59% D 36 30 83% 29 81% 27 75% 27 75% 31 86% 30 83% 17 47% F 42 35 83% 23 55% 20 48% 17 40% 18 43% 19 45% 17 40% AREA 1 TOTAL 1 2041 173 85%1 165 81% 1"1 71%1 138 68%1 150 74% 152 75% 120 58 G 59 471 80% 41 69% 321 54%1 311 53%1 32 54% 271 46% 30 51% H 751 441 59%1 391 52%1 321 43%1 35 47% 32 43% 331 44% 38 51% 1 221 161 73%1 191 86%1 161 73%1 161 73%1 16 73% 111 50% 11 50% AREA2TOTAL 156 107 69% 99 63X 80 51X 82 53% 80 51% 71 46% 79 51 AREA 1 R 2 TOTAL 360 280 78% 264 73X 224 62X 220 61% 230 64% 223 62X 199 55 B7 20 13 65% 10t69% 23 55% 10 50% 15 75% 19 95% 20 100% C7 43 43 100% 44 84% 34 79% 40 93% 43 100% 35 81% Dl 39 24 62% 27 59% 24 62% 25 64% 26 67% 26 67 D2 40 23 58% 19 48% 19 48% 17 43% 19 48% 17 43%Et 46 38 83% 35 67% 34 74% 42 91% 40 87% 41 89%F1 42 21 50% 19 45% 2662% 24 57% 24 57% 23 55%F2 18 9 50% 6 33% 6 33% 5 28% 5 28% 8 44%Gt 71 57 80% 49 62% 481 68%1 39 65% 39 65%1 37 52% PERIPHERY TOTAL 319 228 71%1 209 66%1 189 59% 201 63%1 207 65X 215 67%1 207 65 TOTAL AREA 679 508 75X 473 70X 413 421 62X 61X 437 64X 438 65% 406 60 ATTACH-"9 rsyI` VvU. TABLE G RESULTS OF PARKING UTILIZATION SURVEY-OFF-STREET SPACES SATURDAY,SEPTEMBER 11,1999 TIME OF DAY 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM PAZ Inventory Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Oa. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. A 176 24 14% 35 20% 47 27% 70 40% 78 44% 93 53% 77 44% B 285 28 10% 32 11% 33 12% 47 16% 56 20% 54 19% 59 21% C 20 8 40% 11 55% 14 70% 12 60% 10 50% 12 60% 11 55% D 826 256 31% 285 35% 385 47% 419 51% 447 54% 462 56% 491 59% F 60 17 28% 25 42% 25 42% 23 38% 26 43% 33 55% 40 67% AREA 1 TOTAL 1,367 333 24% 388 28X 504 37X 571 42X 617 45X 654 48% 678 50 G 44 14 32% 20 45% 18 41% 22 50% 23 52% 21 48% 24 55% H 78 12 15% 19 24% 20 26% 23 29% 33 42% 38 49% 41 53% 1 21 51 24% 7 33% 7 33% 101 48%1 11 52% 9 43% 14 67 AREA 2 TOTAL 1 '1431 311 22% 461 32X 461 31% 55 38% 671 47%1 681 48%1 791 55 TOTALAREA 1,510 364 24X 434 29X 549 36% $26 41X 684 45X 722 48X 757 50 TIME OF DAY 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM �%o- 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM PAZ Inventory Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ. Occ. %Occ.F;�� Occ. %Ooc. Occ. %Ooc. Occ. %Oct. A 176 70 40% 681 39% 681 39% 66 38% 71 40% 77 44% 83 47% B 285 57 20% 71 25% 741 26% 104 36% 102 36% 128 45% 131 46% C 20 12 60% 9 45% 6 30% 8 40% 8 40% 7 35% 6 30% D 826 489 59% 436 53% 478 58% 445 54% 498 60% 522 63% 516 62% F 60 37 62% 29 48% 27 45% 151 25% 15 25% 16 27% 25 42% AREA TOTAL 1,367 665 49% 613 45% 653 48%1 638 47X 694 51% 750165% 761 56 G 44 221 50%1 24 55% 19 43% 12 27% 7 16% 5 11% 5 11% EEA 35 45% 35 45% 37 47% 29 37% 27 35% 23 29% 24 31% 21 19 90% 20 95% 19 90% 20 95% 16 76% 7 33% 8 38%143 76 53X 79 55X 7552X 61 43% 50 35X 35 24X 37 26 1,510 741 W7— TOTAL 46X 728 48X 699 46X 744 49X 785 52X 798ATTA 53 ^'" I-j" NO, Existing and Proposed Development BLOCK A PRE-DEVELOPMENT(1982) EXISTING/APPROVED DEVELOPMENT(2000) BUILDOUT(2005) ADDRESS USE SIZE PARKING NAME I USE I SIZE PARKING NAME I RETAIL I RESTAURANT OFFICE OTHER PARKING 101 Main Retail 2,500 0 Oceanview Promenade(Abdelmuti) Oceanview Promenade(Abdelmuti) Residential Retail 13,953 13,953 2,798 30,299 2 (13 DU) Restaurant 2,798 109 Main Retail 2,500 0 Office 30,299 111 Main Retail 2,500 0 2 113 Main Retail 2,500 0 115 Main Retail 2,500 0 Office 2,500 406 PCH Restaurant 2,200 0 410 PCH Retail 4,000 10 117 Main Restaurant 2,500 0 117-123 Main Block 104/105 Office 2,500 Retail 9,525 89,860 44,210 6,430 103,110 403 119 Main Retail 2,500 0 Restaurant 4,685 Hotel 121 Main Retail 2,500 0 Office 4,050 123 Main Retail 1,500 2 416 PCH Retail 3,000 12 416 PCH Retail 3,000 12 Residential Residential (4 du) (4 du) 122 5th Auto Sales 12,000 12 122 5th Auto Sales 12,000 12 1515th Theatre 5,500 50 1515th Theatre 5,500 50 501 Walnut Office 1,500 0 501 Walnut Office 1,500 0 505 Walnut Residential 1,200 0 505 Walnut Residential 1,200 0 (1 du) (1 du) 504 PCH Retail 1,250 0 504 PCH Retail 1,250 0 508 PCH Restaurant 1,250 8 508 PCH Restaurant 1,250 8 Residential 2 Residential 2 (1 du) (1 du) 520 PCH Retail 1,500 16 520 PCH Retail 1,500 16 Residential Residential (1 du) (1 du) 127 Main Retail 3,500 6 127 Main Retail 3,500 6 Lane/Terry 5,000 N/A 513 Walnut Retail 2,500 0 Worthy Project Worthy Project Residential B&B 12 B&B (12 du) (12 du) (12 du) 12 519 Walnut Retail 800 0 128 6th Residential (1 du) TOTAL: 66,700 118�]E TOTAL: 96,010 `I2Eli TOTAL: 108,813 47,008 36,729 103,110 417 DPMP Update-Oct.2000 Existing and Proposed Development BLOCK B PRE-DEVELOPMENT(1982) EXISTING/APPROVED DEVELOPMENT(2000) BUILDOUT(2005) ADDRESS USE SIZE PARKING NAME USE SIZE T PARKING NAME I RETAIL RESTAURANT OFFICE OTHER PARKING 112 Main Retail 2,500 Pierside Pavilion Pierside Pavilion 114 Main Retail 2,500 Retail 14,459 14,459 23,773 16,000 30,000 296 Residential Restaurant 23,773 (4 du) 306 PCH Nite Club 5,500 25 Office 16,000 302 PCH Auto Repair 8,250 Theatre 30,000 115 3rd Auto Repair 4,500 12 (1,750 seats) 301 Walnut Office 2,400 296 311 Walnut Office 2,000 317 Walnut Retail 1,000 Residential (1 du) 102 PCH 85 Pier Colony Pier Colony 112 3rd 24 130 du 130 du 118 3rd Res.(2 du) 120 3rd Res.(1 du) 122 3rd Res.(4 du) 124 3rd Res.(1 du) 217 Walnut Res.(1 du) 215 Walnut Res.(1 du) 213 Walnut Res.(1 du) 127 2nd Res.(1 du) 126 Main Retail/Res. 5,875 Standard Market Standard Market (6du) Retail 5,875 5,875 3,000 Restaurant 3,000 116 Main Retail 2,500 116 Main Retail 2,500 2,500 118 Main Retail 2,500 118 Main Retail 2,500 2,500 120 Main Retail 2,875 120 Main Retail 2,875 2,500 122 Main IRetail 1,250 122 Main Retail 1,250 2,500 124 Main lRetail 2,125 124 Main Retail 2,125 2,500 TOTAL: 45,775 146 TOTAL: 1 104,357 296 TOTAL: 27,834 31,773 16,000 1 30,000 1 296 DPMP Update-Oct.2000 Existing and Proposed Development BLOCK C PRE-DEVELOPMENT(1982) EXISTING/APPROVED DEVELOPMENT(2000) BUILDOUT(2005) ADDRESS USE SIZE PARKING NAME USE SIZE PARKING NAME RETAIL RESTAURANT OFFICE OTHER PARKING 201 Main Restaurant 2,125 201 Main Restaurant 5,000 201 Main 4,500 5000 203 Main Retail 2,875 203 Main Retail 4,500 205 Main Retail 1,650 205 Main Retail 1,650 205 Main 1,650 207 Main Retail 4,900 207 Main Retail 4,900 207 Main 4,900 209 Main Restaurant 2,000 209 Main Restaurant 2,000 209 Main 2,000 211 Main Retail 2,625 211 Main Retail 2,625 211 Main 2,625 675 Office 675 213 Main Retail 540 213 Main Retail 540 213 Main 540 1,585 213 1/2 Main Restaurant 585 213 1/2 Main Restaurant 585 213 1/2 Main Patio 11000 215 Main Restaurant 1,750 215 Main Office 1,800 215 Main 2,500 1,800 Res.(6 du) Restaurant 1,750 Patio 750 217 Main MTG Room 1,000 217 Main Restaurant 1,000 217 Main 2,500 Patio 1,500 221 Main Retail 2,500 6 221 Main Retail 4,250 221 Main 4,250 9,100 4,200 223 Main Retail 1,750 223 Main Restaurant 9,100 223 Main Res.(4 du) Office 4,200 411Olive Retail 2,000 6 411Olive Retail 4,400 6 411Olive 4,400 2,400 Office 2,400 412 Walnut Restaurant 1,800 412 Walnut Restaurant 3,600 412 Walnut 3,600 Office 1,800 202 5th Res.(6 du) 202 5th Office 1,600 202 5th 1,600 1,600 Police 1,600 Police 206 5th Res(1 du) 206 5th 208 5th Restaurant 4,000 2 208 5th Retail 1,000 2 208 5th 1,000 3,500 Res(2 du) Restaurant 3,000 Patio 500 214 5th Auto Repair 5,000 214 5th Retail 5,000 214 5th 5,000 3,000 Office 3,000 218 5th Office 1,000 2 218 5th Retail 2,500 2 218 5th 2,500 2,500 Office 2,500 220 5th Office 1,000 2 220 5th Retail 2,500 2 220 5th 2,500 2,500 Office 2,500 222 5th Retail 3,500 4 222 5th Retail 3,500 4 222 5th 3,500 3,500 Res.(2 du) Office 3,500 TOTAL: 44,400 22 TOTAL: 90,925 16 TOTAL: 37,365 29,785 22,175 1,600 0 DPMP Update-Oct.2000 Existing and Proposed Development BLOCK D PRE-DEVELOPMENT(1982) EXISTING/APPROVED DEVELOPMENT(2000) BUILDOUT(2005) ADDRESS USE SIZE PARKING NAME I USE SIZE PARKING NAME I RETAIL RESTAURANT OFFICE OTHER PARKING 202 Main Retail 5875 Main Promenade Main Promenade 1750 Retail 24,073 24,073 5,000 3,000 815 208 Main Office 5,500 Restaurant 5,000 210 Main Retail 2,750 Office 3,000 212 Main Retail/Res(6 2,750 815 214 Main Retail/Res(6 2,750 218 Main Retail 5,875 220 Main Retail 1,250 10 222 Main Office 1,500 224 Main Retail 2,938 226 Main Retail 2,938 228 Main Retail/Res(6 2,938 6 209 3rd n/a 40 211 3rd Res(6 du) 218 3rd n/a 30 221 3rd Res(1 du) 223 3rd Res(2 du) 225 3rd n/a 24 321 Walnut Office 1,000 TOTAL: 39,814 110 TOTAL: 32,073 815 TOTAL: 24,073 5,000 3,000 815 DPMP Update-Oct.2000 Existing and Proposed Development BLOCK E PRE-DEVELOPMENT(1982) EXISTING/APPROVED DEVELOPMENT(2000) BUILDOUT(2005) ADDRESS USE SIZE PARKING NAME USE SIZE PARKING NAME RETAIL RESTAURANT OFFICE OTHER PARKING 303 Main Retail 500 12 Plaza Almeria Plaza Almeria 305 Main Retail/Res(8 1,750 4 Retail 15,000 15,000 15,000 11,000 Res 42 du 168 307 Main Retail/Res(8 1,750 4 Restaurant 15,000 includes 309 Main Retail 2,938 8 Office 11,000 11 shared 311 Main Retail 1,600 20 Other Res 42 du 325 Main n/a 40 302 5th Retail 5,500 20 Office 5,500 310 5th Retail/Res(2 2,125 314 5th Office 3,500 328 5th Res(1 du) 320 5th n/a 25 TOTAL: 25,163 133 TOTAL: 41,000 0 TOTAL: 15,000 15,000 11,000 168 DPMP Update-Oct.2000 Existing and Proposed Development BLOCK F PRE-DEVELOPMENT(1982) EXISTING/APPROVED DEVELOPMENT(2000) BUILDOUT(2005) ADDRESS USE SIZE PARKING NAME USE SIZE PARKING NAME RETAIL RESTAURANT OFFICE OTHER PARKING 316 Olive Post Office 3,575 316 Olive Post Office 3,575 316 Olive 5,000 3,575 316 Main 316 Main Retail 5,000 316 Main Post Office 318 Main Retail 1,250 6 318 Main Retail 1,250 6 318 Main 6,000 4,000 8,000 320 Main Retail 1,250 6 320 Main Retail 1,250 6 320 Main 322 Main Office 1,000 6 322 Main Office 1,000 6 322 Main 324 Main Office 1,000 2 324 Main Office 1,000 2 324 Main 326 Main Office 2,250 6 326 Main Office 2,250 6 326 Main 328 Main Retail 4,250 328 Main Retail 4,250 328 Main 303 3rd Auto Repair 8,250 303 3rd Health Club 8,250 303 3rd 13,200 315 3rd Office 2,500 25 315 3rd lOffice 1 2,500 25 1315 3rd 2,500 305 Orange Office 2,500 6 1305 Orange lOffice 1 2,500 6 305 Orange 2,500 II TOTAL: 27,825 57 TOTAL: 1 32,825 57 TOTAL: 1 24,200 1 4,000 13,000 3,575 0 DPMP Update-Oct.2000 Existing and Proposed Development BLOCK G PRE-DEVELOPMENT(1982) EXISTING/APPROVED DEVELOPMENT(2000) BUILDOUT(2005) ADDRESS USE SIZE PARKING NAME USE SIZE PARKING NAME RETAIL RESTAURANT OFFICE OTHER PARKING 420 5th Retail 2,500 Town Square Town Square 416 Orange Res(1 du) Retail 10,000 15 10,000 Res 89 du 15 408 5th Res(1 du) Residential 89 du 410 5th Res(1 du) 412 5th Office 1,000 416 5th Res(1 du) 401 Main Retail 7,700 401 Main RetaiF 7,700 401 Main 7,700 405 Main Retail n/a 17 405 Main Retail 4,000 405 Main 4,000 411 Main Retail 3,300 411 Main Retail 3,300 411 Main 3,300 417 Main Office 2,500 417 Main 2,500 417 Main 2,500 419 Main Office 2,200 1419 Main 2,200 419 Main 2,200 TOTAL: 19,200 17 11 T0TAL: 1 1 29,700 15 TOTAL: 1 25,000 4,700 15 DPMP Update-Oct.2000 Existing and Proposed Development BLOCK H PRE-DEVELOPMENT(1982) EXISTING/APPROVED DEVELOPMENT(2000) BUILDOUT(2005) ADDRESS USE SIZE PARKING NAME USE SIZE PARKING NAME I RETAIL RESTAURANT OFFICE OTHER PARKING 410 Main Retail 6,900 24 410 Main Retail 6,900 24 Fourth Block East 424 Main Retail 8,500 424 Main Retail 8,500 20,000 13,000 150 428 Main Retail 5,500 428 Main Retail 5,500 438 Main Retail 2,550 438 Main Retail 2,550 440 Main Retail 2,500 440 Main Retail 2,500 504 Main Retail(4 du) 6,300 504 Main Retail(4 du) 6,300 401 Lake Res(1 du) 401 Lake Res(1 du) 405 Lake Res(1 du) 405 Lake Res(1 du) 407 Lake Res(1 du) 407 Lake Res(1 du) 409 Lake Res(1 du) 409 Lake Res(1 du) 421 Lake Res(3 du) 421 Lake Res(3 du) 427 Lake Res(1 du) 427 Lake Res(1 du) 431 Lake Res(4 du) 431 Lake Res(4 du) 435 Lake Res(4 du) 435 Lake Res(4 du) 437 Lake Res(1 du) 437 Lake Res(1 du) 443 Lake Res(1 du) 443 Lake Res(1 du) 505 Lake Res(1 du) 505 Lake Res(1 du) 201 Pecan Res(1 du) 201 Pecan Res(1 du) 205 Pecan Res(1 du) 205 Pecan Res(1 du) 209 Pecan Res(1 du) 209 Pecan Res(1 du) TOTAL: 1 32,250 1 24 TOTAL: 32,250 24 TOTAL: I 20,000 13,000 150 DPMP Update-Oct.2000 Existing and Proposed Development BLOCK PRE-DEVELOPMENT(1982) EXISTING/APPROVED DEVELOPMENT(2000) BUILDOUT(2005) ADDRESS USE SIZE I PARKING NAME USE SIZE PARKING NAME RETAIL RESTAURANT OFFICE OTHER PARKING 520 Main Restaurant 5,280 520 Main Restaurant 5,280 5,280 522 Main Restaurant 2,666 522 Main Restaurant 2,666 2,666 526 Main Retail 2,500 526 Main Retail 2,500 2,500 Res(3 du) Res(3 du) 538 Main Office 10,575 10 538 Main Office 10,575 10 10,575 21 Art Center TOTAL: 21,021 10 TOTAL: 21,021 10 TOTAL: 1 2,500 1 7,946 1 10,575 21 DPMP Update-Oct.2000 ATTACHMENT 8 Oct-26-00 11 : 11P Gerald & Pat Chapman 714 843-9846 P.02 GERALD L. CHAPMAN 6742 Shire Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714.842.3345 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Gerald Chapman: Chairman,Huntington Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE ON THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN UPDATE DATE: October 27,2000 I was extremely upset yesterday afternoon when I received a call from the Planning Staff informing me that the action taken by the Planning Commission on the Downtown Parking Master Plan Update was to forward the item to the City Council without action. i It is my belief that the Planning Commission did not believe their vote to suspend the Commission's bylaws would have the above result. I believe we thought our action would not cause the item to be continued to the neat Commission meeting and would allow our recommendation to be forwarded to the Council. I respectfUl y request that you poll the Commissioners who voted on the item to see what they believe they voted on I also respectfully request that you allow the Planning Commission to make at least a five minute formal presentation on our recommendations at the November 6, 2000 City Council meeting. The Planning Commission spent many long hours reviewing stafrs position and I feel strongly that the Council and public deserve to hear 1vh;r we took our action, If anyone has any questions regarding this request, please feel free to call n;e Sincerely, Gerald L. Chapman. Chairman,Huntington Beach Planning Commission cc. Ray Silver,City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Gail Hutton, City Attorney Planning Commission members ATTACHMENT 9 °A� me CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ZE3 Planning Commission Communication TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Gerald Chapman, Chairman�4� Tom Livengood, Commission Mein e j) JJ"- " SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION ON THE DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN UPDATE DATE: October 26,2000 1. BLOCK A (Blocks 104, 105) Staff Commission Square Footage 233,000 233,000 Parking On-Site 403 440 Net Increase in Parking over Existing 189 226 The Commission recommendation is based on the consultant's recommendation that a minimum of 50%of parking be provided on-site. The required parking for this project is 883 spaces. The 443 parking spaces that are not parked on-site must be absorbed in shared parking. To protect the property rights of all property owners in the downtown, each project built must minimize impact on shared parking. Allowing projects to not maxkLe on-site parking could use up shared parking, and some owners may not be able to develop their property. H. BLOCK H (Fourth Block East) Staff Commission Square Footage Retail 20,000 39,250 Restaurant 0 0 —Office 13,000 13,000 Total 33,000 52,250 Parking On-Site 150 150 .. w The Commission's recommendation is based on the existing retail, which is 32,250. The Commission would allow an increase in existing retail of 7,000 square feet. The Commission's recommendation requires 50%parking on-site. Stars recommendation exceeds 50%parking on-site. III. If the City Council supports staffs recommendation of 33,000 square feet for Block H, it is recommended that following 1995 Downtown Parking Master Plan(DPMP) requirement be reinstated in the 2000 DPMP: "Any code required parking spaces provided on-site shall be credited for any expansion of square footage or intensification of use". With the reduction in square feet this protection is needed for future development. IV. The Commission recommends projects over 30,000 square feet or%2 block require 50% of parking on-site as recommended by the consultant. The Commission can't support staffs recommendation of"flexibility". Again,the Commission is concerned with protecting all property owners in the area. V. The Commission is recommending credits for parking be broken out by area. If a project is built in Area One, that requires more shared parking than available in Area One, credit from Area Two can't be used. This supports the Commission's recommendation to increase retail square footage in Area Two, Block H. c: Planning Commission Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Scott Hess, Principal Planner Herb Fauland, Senior Planner Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner G:\Robin\Vardoc\00\RL 0040 -2- 10/26/00 ATTACHMENT 10 Oct-03-00 10:16am From-RUTAN 6 TUCKER LLP +7145469035 T-487 P.02/15 F-702 TAN :.,.. ..Oi,, w. +,,(.I. ;. v .wa.T..i..• :.:.��:nwD.. , a tla,w L,-D •Onn I .., rn..1., +.•. �Jn,I.w n io.ao+,�r.KYt+c ro.n. •e WCKERo ;: ,ra tnww�wcl. u:o�::1 . w.rew wt� n_�...fl rn.wt. ,.c.1•nrY —I": .wa . ,wn,,Iw .•,.,,,, 'n,.w,rl,w0atr lwTn,.,.CaY ,•...Ln.,w `• n Ctw.1., •,t wDal rYl.Ylw)lw .I.n,, O»r.ww ..cww.D) M.w . )Ta[a ,..C,;-.. •` awea,n w•aTa. ..nO:,t+inw.`.r a n-.... �s,w•..,�. ..rwwlu n T 7 U R N E Y S n 7 l n w „e��. w .a w=: .•a.w,Y YYwDw> e _ Iw r n PARTNERSnak'u1Cuu0INa:rKUre I%,CIhA[CORPORATIOrri nDc, �,n;u a,a,,, w... ,r,,, ",.,a• ...� +.twa.w, i.Yf .....7•Cn.n D1.ANTON 60u Cv.KO-IOwK1.kNtn FIaHJK ��n,wl.o._... R e�w u.Q.TLI&M .. ,'M.I,a .,w»cwwau a W..aw+naa:.,Tn ,Ow•, . T..f.,Car Cwarn�w[a .n+.•.r[V COSTA MESA,C.wfOaN1.i:e:n-)yyY ,a r.a...oY[...... It. %I Yna).r, D•,.n,C.,Y..w,Y. DIRECT.0 mnit 10 rOSr C+rrlCc su+195C aT,w wu.tutr .,. In4a,.):.n nf_..fa,­..,I<l, COST.w[ES._C.UFOKNI w—n•ISSn `•Ta�D�,e n ..c,. u..: DE ..,u, TEIEPnONE rt l-e.l-atw ..Cslwtrte 714-546.0035 ,.anr,.a... >I..w)ww~ .T.•'Y,rOO. ..n�ejW-�"' IN M mET ADOKM w ww rupn Com �rVRi . Direct Dod.(714)641-3441 E-mml.jodcnnm@rutisn.com October 3,2000 Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3 /Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 (Downtown Parking Master Plan Update) Dear Chairman Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing to you on behalf of the Huntington Beach Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess("CARE")and Abdelmuti Development Company("ADC")in opposition to the proposed Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3/1-ocal Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 (Downtown Parking Master Plan Update) that is scheduled for consideration at your October 10, 2000, meeting. 1 respectfully request that a copy of this letter be entered into the public hearing record. i As of the date that this letter is being written, my clients and I have not been given the opportunity to review the proposed Zoning Text Amendment, the proposed LCP Amendment, the staff report in support of the recommended actions, or any other information or documents other than the September 2000 Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan Update prepared by KAKU Associates. My office was informed that this information will not be made public until October 6th Nevertheless, we were advised that October 3 is the deadline for submitting written input to the Planning Commission in order for our comments to be distributed to you with your Planning Commission agenda packets. Accordingly, the objections and concerns set forth in this letter are preliminary only, and are subject to being supplemented at a later date. Before addressing the merits of my clients' concerns, I would note generally that it is manifestly unfair for the public to be expected and required to submit all of its comments on a proposed action,particularly one of such overwhelming significance to the important Downtown area, when the staff report and the proposed action itself are themselves kept secret until just prior to the public hearing. 1121014120.0001 121191 01,1 0-103100 ;cafe#iNi Oct-03-00 10:1Tam From-RUTAN & TUCKER LLP +7145469035 T-48T P.03/15 F-702 RUTAN &I JCKER) Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 2 At this time, CARE and ADC oppose what we are forced to speculate is the staffs recommended proposal for the following two reasons, which will be more fully addressed hereinbelow: a. The presumed staff recommendation is based upon a seriously outdated, incomplete, and flawed parking study. b. The City is required to prepare a full-blown Environmental Impact Report("FIR")for the proposed action. The staffs apparent position that this project is exempt from compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")is flat wrong. 1. The Downtown Parking Master Plan Update Is Seriously Outdated, Incomplete, And Flawed, And Cannot Possibly Form The Basis Either For A Massive Increase In Commercial Square Footage Or A Reduction In The Street Parking Requirements For New Development. The Downtown Parking Master Plan ("DPMP") Update prepared by KAKU Associates purports to justify a massive increase in the commercial building cap for the Downtown Parking Master Plan area, together with a large reduction in parking requirements for new commercial developments. The existing Downtown development cap (which is incorporated into the City's Downtown Specific Plan and certified LCP) is 500,000 square feet of commercial building area. The DPMP "Update" proposes a massive increase of 46.1% in this building cap to 730,586 square feet. (Id., pp. 56-57.) In addition, notwithstanding that the original Downtown Parking Master Plan approved only 6 years ago already slashed the normal City code parking requirements for Area 1 (the portion of the Downtown Parking Master Plan area on the ocean side of Orange Avenue) by 401/10 and for Area 2 (between Orange Avenue and Acacia) by 33%, the DPMP Update now before you proposes a further dramatic reduction in parking requirements in this heavily beach-impacted area of approximately 33%more. Before the Planning Commission should even consider this sort of drastic departure from normal code requirements, it is incumbent upon the Commission to be certain that the recommendation is based upon up-to-date, complete, accurate, and well-reasoned information. Unfortunately, this simply is not the case. The DPMP "Update" is a disaster. The Commission should reject the DPMP Update in its entirety and terminate these proceedings. Alternatively, the Commission should demand that the DPMP "Update" itself be updated and completely rewritten to correct all of the errors and omissions contained within it before the Commission uses this report as a basis for any recommended land use changes in Downtown Huntington Beach. 1121014530-0001 1211511 01 aIW3,00 ATTACFtcNT N . Oct-03-00 10:1Tam from—RUTAN i TUCKER LLP +7145469035 T-487 P 04/15 F-702 F1JTAN &nJCKER1 .1 V• a i .mo w Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3,2000 Page 3 1.1 The DPMP "Update" 1S Seriously Out-Of-Date. It is ironic that the KAKU Associates report describes itself as an "update." Although the report nominally has a date of September 2000 on it, all of the key information contained in the report is at least a year old. The parking utilization studies upon which the report's recommendations are based were performed in September 1999. (1d., p. 10.) The existing land use inventory similarly is based upon September 1999 data, and does not include data regarding new development projects (such as Plaza Almeria) that have been completed for several months and that were included in the City's own DPMP "Annual Review and Monitoring Report" that this Commission reviewed over three months ago, on June 27, 2000. (Id., p. 46.) As will be shown below, the assumptions (presumably from September 1999) that the DPMP "Update" uses for projected future development (such as the Plaza Almeria project in Block E and the all-important CIM project in Block A) are outdated and in error, significantly overstating the amount of additional parking that will be provided. It is simply inexcusable that a report with such enormous implications for the Downtown businesses, residences, customers, and tourists would be brought to the Commission over a year after the data was collected. As will be shown below, Downtown parking data collected and analyzed in September 1999 is invalid, since it comes during and after a period in which the City's beaches were closed for months and business was depressed. At a minimum, the City needs to update the"Update"before taking any further action. 1.2 The DPMP Update's Analysis Of Peak Summer Parking Demand Is Entirely Unsupportable Because The Parking Surveys Upon Which The Analysis Is Based Were Not Performed In The Summer. Frankly, it is pathetic to read in the DPMP Update that "every attempt was made to conduct the various parking surveys during the peak [Summer] season of activity in Downtown Huntington Beach." Id., at p. 33. The City has been in the process of preparing this Update for at least 15 months, over not one but two summers. How difficult can it be for the City and its consultant to perform a parking study at some point during the 5 or 6 Summer months that have passed since the Update process was initiated? The only two days that actual parking utilization in thr Downtown were surveyed were Saturday, September 11, 1999 (after Labor Day when the kids were back in school and families were settling in for the Fall), and on Friday, September 24, 1999 (almost three weeks after Labor Day). Using this completely invalid starting point for analysis, the DPMP Update then "cooks" the data by some method that is impossible to trace in order to arrive at magical "adjustment factors" (id. at p. 35) (1.32 for Friday and 1.24 for Saturday) to tell us what the �ibo�as3«000� 121191 of,iaoa= ATTjF,C Mti`4 ; f°�v. Oct-03-00 10:17am From-RUTAN & TUCKER LLP +7145469035 T-467 P.05/15 F-702 R)TAN 8� JCKER, Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3,2000 Page 4 parking utilization supposedly would have been on a typical weekday and weekend during the Summer. I have read the confusing narrative 3 times as to how the "adjustment factors" were determined and have concluded that there simply is no way to test the consultants'analysis based upon the information in their report. Does anybody have the foggiest idea whether these adjustment factors have any basis in reality? Even without a full understanding of the consultants' methodology, it is obvious that the analysis is flawed and should be rejected. As everyone well remembers, water pollution resultcd in extensivc months-long beach closures in Huntington Beach during and after the Summer of 1999. For much of the Summer, the beaches were almost deserted. Business was significantly off from the prior year and far below activity levels experienced during this past Summer of 2000. Any study of parking demand in Downtown Huntington Beach that purports to estimate Summer peak parking usage based upon data generated after the end of a Summer as aberrational as 1999 is not worth the paper it is printed on. The absurdity of the surveys is reflected in the fact that the City's consultant concluded based on them(at pp. 11, 18)that the peak period for Summer weekend parking usage in Area 1 (the area closest to the beach)is somewhere between 9-11 p.m. No "adjustment factor" can hide the fact that the consultants completely missed the boat, since by the time they performed their survey (a) beach usage was down because the Summer was over and (b) people tend not to go to the beach when the water is polluted and they can't swim. I wrote to the City's Economic Development Director last August recommending that any parking utilization study in the Downtown be postponed until the Summer of 2000 in light of the then on-going beach closures. (See Exhibit "A" to this letter.) The City ignored the request,with predictable results. Perhaps there would have been some justification for the City's action if there had been an urgent need for the City to take immediate action on the DPMP Update back in September of 1999. It is inexplicable, however, why the City performed highly questionable parking surveys in September 1999 and then waited an entire year --bypassing the next Summer--before unveiling a flawed report in September- October 2000. CARE and ADC respectfully submit that the City put the existing DPMP Update in the "round file," get ready for Summer 2001, and prepare a valid study of actual peak Summer parkins demand in the Downtown at that time. I12101482wxiul 12n9)01'1101031w Oct-03-00 10:1Bam From-RUTAN & TUCKER LLP +7145469035 T-48T P.06/15 F-T02 BOTA1N 8��rEC[� 1 13 T r0.�... ,. - Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3,2000 Page 5 1.3 The DPMP Update Uses Inconsistent And Invalid Data Regarding Both Existing And Projected Future"Available"Parking Supply. The easiest pan of any parking study ought to be counting parking spaces. If the study contains factual errors of this type, it casts doubt on the entire study,particularly the more subjective and analytical aspects. In going through the DPMP Update, this office noted several inconsistencies, errors, and omissions in the description of both available existing and future parking supply. In addition, by ignoring considerations such as permit parking restrictions, high cost parking, inaccessibility of certain parking spaces, and security concerns that act as practical barriers to the public's utilization of parking spaces, the DPMP Update creates a false impression that there is a surplus in the parking supply which does not in reality exist. Consider the following: In several places in the DPMP Update, the report overstates the supply of available parking by counting 319 "peripheral" on-street parking spaces located outside the DPMP area. (See pp. 3, 5, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21.) It is noteworthy that nowhere in the DPMP Update does the study consider the parking demands, existing or future, to these same adjacent "peripheral" areas, not to mention usage by persons who plan to visit the City beach and Municipal Pier. (See, in this regard, the first bullet point in 11.4 below.) The integrity of the DPMP analysis requires a consistent focus on parking supply and demand within a specific defined area. • Since the inventory of parking spaces is based on outdated September 1999 information, presumably the study has failed to take into account the July 5, 2000, City Council action eliminating 58 on-street parking spaces along Pacific Coast Highway. • The DPMP Update assumes that there are 57 "available" parking spaces off 51h Street in Block 105. (Id., p. 9.) The text of the DPMP Update fails to mention, however, that these spaces are enclosed by a chain-link fence and are restricted to permit parking only. (See Table A attached to the DPMP Update.) Thus, as a practical matter, these spaces are not currently available to the general public. This is the reason why this particular parking lot is scarcely used_ If these spaces were deducted from the total number of parking spaces in Block A, the parking utilization rate in Block 11?/U14Y:t�W01 121191 01.10/03/0u Oct-03-00 10:18am From-RUTAN & TUCKER LLP +7145469035 T-487 P.07/15 F-702 1. ,JTAN & .JCKER3 .T n.,. .> .... Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3,2000 Page 6 A would approach 100% during peak periods (even the off-peak "peak" periods surveyed by the City's consultant), which would be consistent with the obvious and visible parking situation to anyone who visits the area. (Contrast the conclusion in the DPMP Update at p. 17 that the peak parking demand in Block A between 2-3 p.m. is only 73%.) • The DPMP Update considers parking as "available" even though there is a charge for over 50% of the parking spaces (the 279 spaces in the privately-owned Pierside Pavilion parking structure and the 816 spaces in the City-owned Main Promenade parking structure) of$2 per hour. (Id., Table A.) The DPMP Update fails to address the fact that 38-42% of the surveyed parking users said they were not willing to pay Any amount of money to park in the Downtown area and approximately 2/3 of the surveyed parking users said they were not willing to pay even 500 per hour. (DPMP Update, pp. 27-28.) Thus, while parking spaces may currently be "available" in the sense that they are empty,they are not available for the majority of people who would otherwise utilize them given price sensitivity. How can parking be considered as available when the cost is so high people can't or won't park there? Using the logic of the DPMP Update, if the City increased the price of parking to $10 per hour and nobody parked Downtown, there would be a vast sea of "available" parking spaces to support additional development. • The DPMP Update also fails to address how security and accessibility concerns with parking structures--particularly with subterranean parking structures such as the existing underutilized structure in Block B and the proposed CIM parking structure in Block A--discourage parking usage. The consultants who prepared the DPIM? Update appear to believe that a parking space is a parking space is a parking space. This is not true. Many people, particularly women, will be afraid to park in one of these underground structures and will either look for more remote above-ground parking or,most likely, simply avoid the Downtown area altogether. Shoppers who want to drop into a store along Main Street in Block A will have difficulty locating the single entrance to the proposed CIM parking structure 2 blocks away off �o1.r_aonol 121191 01•1o101/00 AT TA. EL"i i T N0. Oct-03-00 10:1gam From—RUTAN & TUCKER LLP +7145469035 T-487 P.09/15 F-702 )TAN &M)CKER; Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3,2000 Page 7 of 6th Street. The DPMP Update greatly oversimplifies and distorts the data on parking supply by implicitly suggesting that if there is a vacant parking space somewhere in the DPMP area and a driver looking for a place to park there necessarily will be a successful match. • The DPMP Update asserts(at p. 60) that the CIM project proposed for Block A will provide 403 parking spaces. In fact, the latest information, bascd upon the May 17, 2000, Environmental Assessment No. 99-14 prepared by the City's Planning Department (at p. 2), is that CIM will provide only 346 parking spaces (including 14 tandem spaces), a discrepancy of some 57 parking Spaces. • In one place, the DPMP Update claims that the Plaza Almeria development in Block E (which was completed several months ago, but which the DPMP Update addresses as a future development project) will create a net increase of 204 parking spaces. (Id., at p. 60.) In another place (at p. 64), the DPMP Update appears to claim that the Plaza Almeria project will provide 265 parking spaces. (The consultants apparently made the error of including the designated residential parking spaces in the commercial parking count.) In fact, the City staffs August 21, 2000, report to the City Council regarding the 2000 DPMP Annual Review and Monitoring Report acknowledges (at pp. 8-9) that the Plaza Almeria has resulted in a net increase of only 168 commercial parking spaces. Thus, the DPMP Update appears to overstate the supply of parking spaces attributable to the Plaza Almeria project by up to 97 spaces(265— 168=97). The DPMP Update projects (at p. 60) that 30 additional on-street parking spaces will be provided on Sth Street. What actually happened,however, as was noted in the City's 2000 DPMP Annual Review and Monitoring Report (at pp. 8-9) that the Planning Commission received a few months ago was that these 30 -new" spaces did nothing more than offset the elimination of 4 on-street parking spaces at 221 Main Street and 26 on-street parking spaces along Main Street and Olive Avenue adjacent to Plaza Almeria in Block E. 112n1t•93u�xw� � 121191 ul swu31W AT TAC W i11 Oct-03-00 10:18am From-RUTAN & TUCKER LLP +7145469035 T-467 P.09/15 F-702 BUTAN &TUCKER] -rro...,I. ,. .-- Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3,2000 Page 8 1.4 The DPMP Update Does Not Contain Any Evidentiary Justification For Its Analysis Of Parking Demand Or For Its Recommendation To Further Slash Parking Requirements For New Development. The DPMP Update not only overstates the supply of available parking, it understates and fails to justify the claimed reduction in parking demand. When the City approved the original Downtown Parking Master Plan in 1994, it used a "shared parking" analysis to justify a 40%reduction in code parking requirements in Area 1 and a 33%reduction in code parking requircrrieras in Arca 2. (Sec Exhibit "B" hcrcto, which consists of page 17 of the adopted Downtown Parking Master Plan_) The DPMP Update now claims that the shared use demand analysis based on its September 1999 parking surveys justifies a further drastic reduction in code parking requirements. Although it is nearly impossible to make a comparison between the number of parking spaces required based on the existing DPMP parking standards and the total number of spaces that would be required if the recommendations in the DPMP Update were approved given the scattered way in which the information is set forth and the numerous errors in the data, by my calculation the total number of parking spaces for the 730,586 square feet of commercial uses in the new proposed"buildout"scenario(see Table 17 at p. 57) that would be required under the existing DPMP standards is approximately 2,865 plus 130 additional spaces that must be reserved for overflow parking for Duke's and Chimayo's by the Sea(which are located outside the DPMP area),whereas the actual number of parking spaces that would be provided (both off-street and on-street) if the recommendations in the DPMP Update were approved would be only about 2,000 (give or take). This amounts to a reduction of almost an approximately one-third in the number of parking spaces that would be required to be provided on top of the very large reduction that was already approved in 1994. This recommendation is based upon several faulty premises. Consider the following: • The DPMP Update's recommendation appears to be based on the faulty premise that all of the Downtown parking spaces---both the on-street and off-street spaces — are reserved solely and available for the use of Downtown businesses. This is not the case. Even in the September 1999 surveys that were conducted while the beaches were closed and after the Summer was over, fully 28% of the respondents over a 15-hour period on Friday and 43% of the respondents over a 14-hour period on Saturday stated that the primary purpose of their trip was to visit either the beach or the Huntington Beach Pier. (See DPMP, pp. 23, 27, and 28.) The percentages during the actual hours of peak beach and pier usage doubtlessly would be much higher. In addition, 12% of the respondents stated that their primary usage was related to the fact 1i2lU14hTtY00u1 12119101 a10l01100 ATTACHIMEZENT NO. Oct-03-00 10:19am From-RUTAN Q TUCKER LLP +T145469035 T-487 P.10/15 F-702 .ROTAN BIIJCKEit Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3,2000 Page 9 that they either "live in downtown area" or were "visiting area resident," i.e., indicating a residential usage unrelated to the Downtown businesses. Q., pp. 27-28.) Thus, somewhere between 40-55% of the persons parking Downtown even during off-peak periods do so with a primary purpose unrelated to the Downtown commercial businesses. How can a shared parking analysis for commercial development that ignores this substantial, even majority, usage of parking spaces for other purposes possibly be valid? How can code parking requirements be slashed so dramatically in an area that is so heavily impacted by beach usage'.? • Another flaw in the DPMP Update's shared parking "analysis" is that it appears to ignore the substantial number of business vacancies in the Downtown at the time the September 1999 parking surveys were conducted. As these vacancies are eliminated over time, parking demand will increase. (The original 1994 DPMP did not ignore business vacancies. See, e.g.,p. 16 of the approved DPMP.) The assumed parking demand of currently unoccupied space should have been included in the analysis of the long-term parking demands for the DPMP area. A major fallacy in the DPMP Update is the claim (at pp. 38-44) that the consultants know how many parking spaces in the study area are being utili2ed for each (commercial) land use category on an hour-by-hour basis. It is from this (false) claim that the DPMP Update purports to calculate peak hour usage by land use category, perform its shared use analysis, and justify the overall lowering of parking requirements. There are two elements to this fallacy. First of all, the parking surveys upon which the DPMP Update is based did not even ask the users when they parked their car, when they left, and what was the purpose for their visit. (Id., pp. 23-29.) Without this basic information,it is pure speculation on the pan of the consultants how many parking spaces were occupied by each land use category each hour during the day. Secondly, since the surveys were performed after the Summer was over and during a period of extended beach closures due to water pollution, the surveys are absolutely meaningless in evaluating the impact on an hourly basis of beach parking during a typical Surnmer peak period. There is no way to extrapolate from data developed during 112NN82UW01 12 119 1V r19/03/00 AT ia �-€ -t± ir 1 r to ". Oct-03-00 10:20am From-RUTAN & TUCKER LLP +T145469035 T-487 P.11/15 F-702 .E CJTAN 8,TIJCKER 1 Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3,2000 Page 10 a non-peak time when the beaches are closed how many people will park in the Downtown on a Summer weekend day to visit the beach. • The City's recently approved 2000 DPMP Annual Review and Monitoring Report acknowledged (at p. 9) that Duke's Surf City Restaurant and Chimayo's by the Sea are required to implement a valet parking plan to provide up to 130 additional parking spaces in the Main Promenade parking structure when the on-site valet lot is full. This parking demand does not appear to have been addressed in the DPMP Update. The validity of the "shared parking" concept cannot be questioned. The basic point is that a huge shared parking credit was already provided when the Downtown Parkins Master Plan was originally adopted in 1994 (40% in Area 1 and 33% in Area 2) and the DPMP Update provides no justification for a further dramatic reduction of parking requirements at this time. 1.5 The DPMP Update Does Not Justify the Proposal to Consolidate Areas 1 and 2 for CalcuIatin the Adequacy of Downtown Parking. Retail businesses,including the Downtown merchants,require an adequate supply of convenient and accessible parking. Although the original Downtown Parking Master Plan acknowledged as much (see, e.g., p. 5 of the original DPMP` where the statement is found that "[o]f prime concern [to the effectiveness of a shared parking plan] is the location and availability of parking facilities"), the 1994 approval stretched this concept to the maximum by allowing parking requirements to be met collectively within Areas 1 and 2,respectively. Now, apparently, the City staff is not satisfied. Even with the massive recommended reductions in parking requirements,the City's consultants acknowledge that future development in Area 1 would produce a 395-space parking deficit. (DPMP Update, p. 73.)1 Accordingly, the consultants and your staff propose to "solve" the problem by simply merging Areas 1 and 2 and allowing the "surplus" of parking spaces in Area 2 to make up for the deficit in Area 1. 1 Gtvcn the overstatement of parking supply and the understatement of parking demand, the actual deficit is hundreds of spaces higher. 11bo1482oixui 12 091.01+M0310v ATTACNSA#m4T ���J. Oct-03-00 10:20am From—RUTAN & TUCKER LLP +7145469035 T-487 P.12/15 F-702 BUTAN MCKER3 Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 11 This proposal has no justification whatsoever. The biggest looming parking problem is within Block A,where the proposed C1M project alone would produce a deficiency of several hundred parking spaces. This is already an area, it should be noted, that is most heavily impacted by beach parkins usage during the heavy Summer peaks. It is absurd to think that potential customers, office tenants and invitees, and others are going to park 5-6 blocks away in Area 2 and hike to the businesses in Oceanview Promenade in Block A(ADC's property). The original Downtown Parking Master Plan study noted(at p. 5) that"in order to rcccivc optimum utilization by shoppers, a parking facility should be within 300-500 fcct of the commercial area which it serves." The result of a policy "merging" Areas 1 and 2 would be to destroy the availability of convenient and accessible parking for businesses in Area 1, most particularly for Oceanview Promenade in Block A. The City's Zoning Code would not permit, and the Planning Commission would never allow, a development to satisfy its off-street parking requirements in a remote location several blocks away. CARE and ADC strongly urge the Commission to not throw your planning standards out the window in order to accommodate someone's idea of the benefits of intense urbanization of Downtown Huntington Beach. 2. Approval of the Proposed Zoning Text Amendment and LCP Without Preparation of a Full FIR Would Violate CEQA. The public hearing notice that was sent to my office on this matter sets forth the City staff s position that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and LCP Amendment are exempt from CEQA under a regulation (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15262) that applies to"feasibility and planning studies." This statutory exemption is not available. A Zoning Text Amendment and LCP Amendment are discretionary 'projects" subject to CEQA. The Downtown Parking Master Plan is an integral part of the City's Downtown Specific Plan and the LCP that must be certified by the California Coastal Commission. If your staff does indeed intend to proceed with a Zoning Text Amendment and LCP Amendment, CEQA compliance most definitely is required now. Given the enormous changes that these proposed amendments would authorize in the City's existing land use regulations, a full-blown FIR would have to be prepared. In these circumstances, the legal standard for determining whether an EIR is required is whether it can be fairly argued on the basis of any substantial evidence (regardless of any contrary evidence) that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment_ That standard definitely is met by a proposal to add almost 50%to the Downtown commercial building cap, while at the same time further reducing parking requirements by 112r01WO-uWl .21191.01 v10/03/W ATTACHINE v.IF � ,1. Oct-03-00 10:20am From—RUTAN i TUCKER LLP +7145469035 T-467 P.13/15 F-702 FUTAN &MJCKERD Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3,2000 Page 12 almost one-third and allowing parking requirements to be satisfied anywhere within a six-block area. Hopefully,a full MR would shed light on the issues obscured by the errors and omissions in the DPMP Update. i F F Based upon the foregoing, the Huntington Beach Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess and Abdelmuti Development Company respectfully request that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and LCP Amendment be denied and that the Downtown Parking Master Plan Update be disapproved. Very truly yours, RUTAAI&TUCKER, LLP J*yM. etman JMO:lc Enclosures cc: Mike Abdelmuti Jim Lane 1I2W1482o•um 12119101 A0/03= ATTACH OLNI Piu. Oct-03-00 10:21am from—RUTAN i TUCKER LLP +7145469035 T-487 P.14/15 F-702 w w.rl.+..►Ii.f)Ja ..w..I Iut.t1,Sf.......... �D w A.w..Y.J.I..T... w fGOC[a want•.1..1)..II, RUTAN V.-t wtsc rt...Oal•S Ow•,Y\COIC.O•a rGwI)O. Dt I...alftD cvs%v. •a•.14ra.w w.ws..w•.Craw .rfaf$_...a DtI.. C .cw..to.cHwYT rcw.b T.na.w.. .inns....... IO.r.w.wwC.. a.s.w..D w.w.n. r.w•r O.wo..w w.nwc...foss \..c C.a..Ct. CK-�16\.....It &TTUCK�R IDnw.w ..wT.1• lot'O nn"*.. w.1.90 0.6a.t. DQa c .aoow �w..T),.. .Kw.{.r t...1N .t l..w.w.Cw0.. .allal0 awl- DV.aCaw11 D.a.w.w[raw .fowl.pan •,aa0,.a. A. Ir.O.a.sG iaOCa..GTO. wo.rw r0..t.t I..C.wV+D[a C..Ata.a.... I.ItDOOaa.ww.awCl N' a rr w wla.pl. tc//fh w GO.D.w4 Moo o.IMA, Dwwah a esttir 4.a(aT w.... a.D....,.tu.0.•..a ...1•.w.twin a.1 twa.ow ..wA.D.tn IOKlw O.GfWTn awwDw.•.I,.I.uw n wi•laa aa,ta eww _ ..Mc.—It A T T O R N E Y 5 A T L A W t.w.•.ow.w. c..cc..Jlf vt.,... cayT..o.wwzo...... w.f. ww.o•Ot iDatf rC i/vw Kn t.I.071a ../fr.C/f,.rh Wrfl,l w.fc c T.o... s..,.ca. 1•w-..a,.ca ' c..o.D.cwun -•act v M :A►ARTNERSnIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS D...Dc...09- w...,.wc.0 ...,t.v wc.•.. \a..r r.attu o.cov.11 11 ANTON{OuLE11ARP.F0URTt9NTn FLOOR c•.r.owe..a..uw \Iwt,o....a..0 ..t...v.wO..a.. ..ta..rfos[ tow.,00 tm$. .• ...Cw...D WI,n .wTWa•n.I.w.{Jw I.-1.wtna' .r\w at ww.TID w.IDI C.a.\+.D.n COSTA MESA.CALIFORNIA 92626-1990 w c a..,.• ov...n.w.d yr o...D A AWc t. .•l1w[,w.cT...w.rt. DIRICI ALL MAIL TO POST OGFICf MOa 1lSO 1[nu,-o0t.w..• .Cw.1D c-O.U.W.o .i.TC.C.....oz w. a I.w..D www) - ►■o.uww.. $T.w„o con. tat.Na..sa awl[. s 0w 0..Boon. nOw.\w\M\0)n ctl •"N.T,o. - COSTAMESA.CAUFORNIA 92626-1950 \a"11.w-t. [a-15T.a Th I.,w.Mt,§.* p.ww w..wrow.o TELEF"ONE>1••6,1-sloe FACSIMILEFII-S46-t03S 0.•A...[1.w[c [..na\S.w.—.7,_ .•.nsa, w.o.c— f w..c... Qts.7. .,-o two-.tow o...wwwwtr.ct :M...,\•..Gw.■c INI EANET ADDRESS M t.t1A COI, wr.--w,ar.Cca'.. .taw.,wT.b..Cal D.w.awYt\ 1WwCl.• •_10 August 30, 1999 David C. Biggs Bconomic Development Director Cary of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Downtown Parking Master Plan and CIM Project Dear David: I am writing as a follow-up to the request in my August 10, 1999, letter that the City and Redevelopment Agency move quickly to conduct a parking study in Downtown Huntington Beach before the end of the busy Summer season. As you know, since that letter was written, the sewage spill has resulted in the extended and continuous closure of 41h miles of the City and State beach, including the entire beach adjacent to the Downtown. As a result, beach traffic has dropped off tremendously and the local businesses have been severely impacted. Given these unanticipated events, any parking study performed during Summer 1999 will have no validity in predicting parking demand during a normal Summer season. For this reason, my clients request that the City and Redevelopment Agency plan now to do a complete parking study for the area encompassed by the Downtown Parking Master Plan during the Summer of 2000 and that no action be taken on any development approvals for the CIM project until after the results of that parking study are made available for public review. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 0 J fA M. Oderman JMO:jh cc: Mike Abdelmuti Sidon Bagstad . Gail C. Hutton, Esq., City Attorney Murray O. Kane, Esq., Redevelopment Agency Special Counsel Melanie S. Fallon, Assistant City Administrator 121F019�i3-0Op1F37i90iS. W1!l0199 EXHIBIT A ATiACW41ENT N10. Oct-03-00 10:21am From—RUTAN 6 TUCKER LLP +7145489035 T-487 P.15/15 F-702 As stated before, maximum buildout for the Downtown area will be between 450,000 - 500,000 square feet of commercial activities. Area one will contain approximately 350,000 to 400,000 square feet with the remaining 50,000 to 100,000 square feet of activity occurring in Area 2. The traditional code required parking for this intensity and mix of commercial activities would indicate a need for approximately 2,700 parking spaces in Area 1. This would require 1,000 additional parking spaces over the current and anticipated supply. Although this is a 40% reduction, the mix of activities is ideal for the shared parking approach. A comparable reduction of 33% is also identified for Area 2 (code required parking is approximately 300 spaces with a supply of approximately 200 spaces) . Therefore, the Downtown Parking Master Plan proposes an overall reduction of the code required number of parking spaces based on these assumptions along with a proposed maximum buildout of commercial activities. Parking Master Plan -17- EXHIBIT D (1915D) ATTrAC VfEf'%-"T NO. LEGEND PARKING MASTER PLAN � AREA 1 A. Main Pier Two B. Pierside Pavillon/Pier Colony C. Second Block Rehab. D. H.B. Promenade E. Third Block West F. Post Office Block �♦ � AREA' 2 G. Town Square ` H. Forth Block East ♦ I. Art Center Block sf 1 ,�� yGylti ORANGE . .: ..� 1 O VE AVE. :;z st „ Z <# WALNUT AVE. zzi >f£ ar- '�tk?v..<sc.. �•t;<f.<.s�:•s�£.:"'... •iQ..:�r�:o:1f�:T?.,:ct.s<3:4 ..!!!#�i PVLIFLU CLQAUHW. .... _. .._ ... - r T-1- Btu'kzround The shared parking concept was approved by the City Council in 1995 with the adoption of the comprehensive update to the Downtown Specific Plan known as the"Village Concept." As part of this update,the specific plan included the Downtown Parking Master Plan(DPMP). The DPMP addresses the parking needs for the area bounded by Sixth Street on the west,Acacia on the north, First Street on The east,and Pacific Coast Highway on the south(Attachment No. 2). The master plan is centered along the Main Street commercial corridor and is separated into two districts by Orange Avenue. AT rk na Master Plnn LEGEND I4NG MASTER P A. Mal ler Two B. Piersid Pavi n/Pier Colony C. Second Rehab. D. N.B. Pro ode _ E. Third B k st F. Post ce BI n Square orth Block East Art Center Block _ � d% � Pam. � f ORANO i AVE. f GJO b; W Sri'' Sri I5 OLIVE AVE. f f WALNUT AVE. - --- ----------------- LEGEND PAQFIQS'_OMT WY•... �. .... .� PARKING MASTER PLAN A. Blocks 104/105 B. Pierside Pavilion/Pier Colony C. Second Block Rehab D. Main Street Promenade E. Plaza Almeria i F. Post Office Block G. Town Square H. ;Fourth Block East I. An Center Block 13 T NO. ATTf�CHib EN ��"°� The Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall include, at a minimum. 1) amount and type of development square footage approved during the annual review period; 2)total amount of square footage in the Downtown Parking Master Plan area; 3)an inventory of existing parking spaces; 4) a parking utilization study; S)an assessment of parking demand compared with parking supply; 6) a determination of whether adequate parking remains to serve development allowed up to the total development cap. The Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission for review. If the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report indicates that the parking supply is inadequate to serve the approved level of development or if the development square footage exceeds the amount described above(up to 500,000 square feet total) all development within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area shall provide parking consistent with Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, unless and until new parking to meet the identified demand is approved and constructed. Changes between one or more of the individual use categories may be allowed as long as the total square footage does not exceed 500,000 square feet and there are corresponding changes in the other use categories to assure adequate parking remains. The existing base square footage shall be as described in the document approved by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on My 7, 1993 titled Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan. The location and type of parking resources available in the Downtown area recognizes that two different and distinct implementation approaches are necessary for each of the areas. The adjusted parking requirement was calculated for both Area 1 and Area 2 (Figure 4.2). Existing building square footage and uses are parked within the public parking supply within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. In the event a property owner demolishes his/her existing building, and rebuilds a new building of equal square footage and use, no additional parking shall be required. Amy code required parkingrsnaces provided on- site shall be credited for an expansion of square foots a or intensification of use. All required parking shall be calculated based on the reduced requirements of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Area 1 - In Area 1 the restaurant and retail parking requirement was reduced by thirty- three percent and twenty-five percent respectively. The office requirement by seventy- five percent. In addition, the theater parking requirement was reduced from the existing code requirement of one(1) parking space for every third seat to one (1) parking space for every fifth seat. This reduction is based on surveys conducted by the theater industry. These reductions recognize the time differential and captive market concepts. Expanding commercial activity in this area remains the focus of the Downtown Master Plan, however, no additional parking for new or expanded commercial, restaurant and office uses should be required. The majority of public parking opportunities currently exist in this area and the current parking supply exceeds the parking demand. This parking supply will continue to be adequate provided the total square footage of uses do not exceed the Master Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to purchase property for a public parking facility. a `�J G:DWNTWNSP 13 Downtown Specific Plan Revised 611195 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT An annual review and monitoring report of the Downtown Parking Master Plan shall be prepared by the Planning Department and presented for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Following the review by the City Council,the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission for review. The Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall include,at a minimum: 1) amount and type of development square footage approved during the annual review period; 2) total amount of square footage in the Downtown Parking Master Plan area; 3) an inventory of existing parking spaces; 4) a parking utilization study; S) an assessment of parking demand compared with parking supply; 6) a determination of whether adequate parking remains to serve development allowed up to the total development cap. c If the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report indicates that the parking supply is inadequate to serve the approved level of development or if the development square footage exceeds the amount described above (up to 599,000 710,000 square feet total), all development within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area shall provide parking consistent with Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance,Gede,unless and until new parking to meet the identified demand is approved and constructed. Changes between one or more of the individual use categories may be allowed as long as the total square footage does not exceed 500,090 710,000 square feet,and provided there are corresponding changes in the other use categories to assure adequate parking remains. d a. umem approved by the b The Downtown Master Plan Update conducted in 2000, determined that the location and type of parking resources available in the Downtown area reseg4zes did not necessitate the separation of the two areas within the DPMP. that twe As a result,the adjusted parking requirement for both Area 1 and Area 2 is the same(Figure 4.2). Existing building square footage and uses identified in the technical background report prepared by Kaku Associates (Sept.,2000),entitled"Downtown Parking Master Plan Update,"are parked within the public parking supply within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. In the event a property owner demolishes his/her existing building, and rebuilds a new building of equal square footage and use,no additional parking shall be required. . All required parking shall be calculated based on the reduced requirements of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. 2� ATTACHMENT NO. 3_ � 11. PARKING INVENTORY Ark'Inventory of all the available parking for public use was conducted for the entire downtown study area. The inventory included spaces in all publicly-owned facilities including on-street spaces and the city-owned off-street parking facilities, and the major privately-owned off-street parking facilities that are available for use by the general public within Areas 1 and 2. The inventory included the on-street spaces in the periphery area. The inventory did not include a, small supdy of parking spaces owned by indiv owners that reserved theses aces for the specific use by some of their customers em o ees. The inventory Identified the location, type and number of spaces in each of the off-street fac lities that were inventoried, and the location and applicable restriction for each of the on-street parking spaces located in the study area. The results of this effort, which are summarized in Table 1, indicate that there are a total of 2,189 spaces located within the study area. Of total, 679 are on-street spaces and the remaining 1,510 spaces are located in off-street facilities. Details of these spaces are described in the paragraphs below. yT Strategy 4: Use of Supplemental Supply of Parking �'�4�� ib � It is recommended that the City of Huntington Beach not engage in a capital improvement �- program to construct additional parking facilities to add to the supply of parking. A review of the parking inventory in the periphery area of downtown. Blocks B1 to F2.-and the beach parking south of Pacific Coast Highway indicates that there are hundreds of existing Qarkipgscaces in the area that are unoccupied during the peak nighttime periods. . The results of the utilization surveys and observations made during these surveys indicates that there over 300 unoccupied parking spaces within a 2 to 3 block radius of the . downtown area. Although these spaces cannot be include in the official inventory of .parking for the Downtown Parking Master Plan Area, they can be viewed.as supplemental spaces that are available for use during key critical periods. During the nighttime peak, even in the summer months, many of these spaces are available and can accommodate the excess demand that is projected to occur at buildout. OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES The inventory for off-street parking facilities was designed to identify parking supply available for public use as well as by employees in the study area. Off-Street Barking spaces owned by and reserved for use by employees of private businesses that are unavailable to the general public, residential parking facilities and other secured parking facilities are not included in this inventory v TABLE 1 i PARKING SPACE INVENTORY BLOCK(PAZ) ON-STREET OFF-STREET TOTAL A 63 lie 236 B 32 285 317 C 34 20 54 D 36 826 862 E Na Na Na F 42 60 102 AREA 1 TOTAL 204 1,367 1571 G 59 44 103 H 75 78 153 I 22 21 43 AREA 2 TOTAL 156 143 299 AREA 1 3 2 SUBTOTAL 360 1,510 1,870 131 20 0 20 C1 43 0 43 D1 39 0 39 D2 40 0 40 E1 46 0 46 F1 42 0 42 F2 18 0 18 G1• 71 0 71 PERIPHERY TOTAL 319 0 319 TOTAL AREA 1=679 1,510 2,189 G1 includes the following street segments(see Figure 1): 6th Street between Orange Avenue and Main Street-west side Main Street between 6th Street and Acacia Avenue-west side Acacia Avenue between Main Streeet and Lake Street-north side Lake Street between Acacia Avenue and Orange Avenue-east side Orange Avenue between 3rd Street and 1st Street-north side 5 P� ♦ ` GQ� 00, ♦ q��q 400 � ' 1 TMGrACr '4" }. 1 1 F 2 '• .`�a•f OLIVE AV ' 1 � ;j, 1Z D2 WALNUT AV �. M. ;; LEGEND. ••� um.wm bym Pm"Master Plan Boundary OO •Oes W PwUv tot-PrW*oxn,ea 3 v C 4 Q -Off*W Pxkkq lout OmW $ ; NO TO waF «AKU ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3 INVENTORY OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES r I I . t r t i t P 7 1 I� I . ■ ..._..... _.. .. ��'l..l:11�•w.11:(-,.�ii laav w`--:r::.Gi-.l....ai.f i�.:.. .A..�.r.•.-:.IJI.'s i�:1J-. .. f' TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION BASE CONDITIONS - FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1999 PEAK UTILIZATION PARKING # Occup. AREA SUPPLY Spaces I % Occu . PEAK PERIOD ALL SPACES f rea 1 1,571 936 60% 9 - 10 .m. rea 2 2 177 59% 3 -4 .m. ° - OTAL 2 1 9 1,273 JW 58% 9 - 10 .m. ON-STREET Area 1 204 151 74% 10 - 11P.M. Area 2 156 104 67% 3 -4 .m. Periphery 319 212 66% 10 - 11 .m. TOTAL 679 441 65% 10 - 11 .m. OFF-STREET Area 1 1,367 790 58% 9 - 10 P.M. Area 2 143 76 53% 4 - 5 p.m. Periphery na na na na TOTAL 1,510 845 56% 8 - 9 P.M. r C�A TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION BASE CONDITIONS - SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1999 PEAK UTILIZATION PARKING # Occup. AREA SUPPLY Spaces I % Occup. PEAK PERIOD ALL SPACES Area 1 1,571 902 57% 9 - 10 P.M. Area 2 299 188 63% 3 -4 p.m. Periphery 319 232 73% 2 - 3 p.m. y TOTAL 2,189 1,265 58% 3 -4 p.m. ON-STREET Area 1 204 173 85% 4 - 5 p.m. Area 2 156 109 70% 3 -4 p.m. Periphery 319 232 73% 2 -3 p.m. TOTAL 679 508 sly 75% 3 -4 p.m. OFF-STREET Area 1 1,367 791 58% 10 - 11 P.M. Area 2 143 79 55% 5 - 6 p.m. Periphery na na na na TOTAL 1,510 798 970 53% 10 - 11 P.M. 18 ATTIC 'NT N0. 4-�6 - � `• �fi 4)MA!!'�ti�lF�`V!''HNCtt ti � r ._� q4s r wa 1'V `YOwa;j A*AY AT ; r8 dR, it�1gQ tOWNEn emu- ; r Akl7ll�fl�T ,rpm Io CA I: NOT q s ' HROUG{� !,— STREET `T PRIVATE PROPERTY NO PfCM!"Cl a� II ` 1 ALL OTHERS WILL BE TOWED AT OWNERS-EX"NSE C.vC::Rxa .. w�r•n..aulu LOT IS MONITORED ti f x 4 1 t5 �? � s� * - ._. :E y��zr� tZ1,rE• ,� -'.I'C`yE. � _- :. K r �r i it.�: tlktkBL910(-�G 3 - �LIC-lSiS4-- 4 PUBL/�. tf q sa. . r & PATflrl+.f. , H 9 P� 980 9811 - +•�. f � w MIH PAflKI q t r 1 g tmclo D1LE� rt I 1 L. s . ,�,, : �t ,fir-� n' 7. a• -4�' -\�..?�;•5# S -"'7 WE HAVE SHOWN THAT THE KAKU REPORT IS VERY FLAWED PLAZA ALMERIA & THE NEW ZEIDAN BUILDING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THEIR STUDY LET' S DO A NEW STUDY NEXT SUMMER WHEN IT WILL SHOW A COMPLETE BUSY SUMMER SEASON AND WE CAN MAKE BETTER DECISIONS REGARDING THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH fff J TO f" ,,JJ itjiy-ujl ��I�rl jj�(121jjj-j jfl�lj C_j -r ) J J.� ji�(122-jiii-i J J J 2 JJ� Ji i J J jj�uyi J1_I! �Jjjj�� ljj,�j �y�J I J '• : I, f r I J J r J J J J J��J.JJ �c4 main y:A azmse INS '24 'Hr.. FIN ¢ } was .�f rig 5 + ��• 1 RuwS �5 ��• Jac r �•� - $57 Btu Main Promenade Financial Slats June, July, August, Sept 2000 Mouth, total Cars Total Revenue Per Car Per Day June. 78,413 $71V174 $mq1 July 82,966 $108524 $131 •� Augm 73Y257 $76F558 $105 Sept 58,864 $58,123 $899 :� AVG, 73Y375 $78p595 $118 Parking Space Inventor Area 1 Block OnStreet SI-,f..,eet 7, slal A 54 1-76 2.30 B 32 . 285 311 C 34 20 34 • D 40 815 855 F 42 60 102 Total 202 1F356 , 1vb58 MICHAEL C. ADAMS ASSOCIATES October 24,2000 Huntington Beach Planning Commission / Chairman Gerald Chapman 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Downtown Parking Master Plan Update Dear Commissioners: The following are comments and concerns on the Downtown Parking and Master Plan Update prepared by Kaku Associates dated September 2000. Although I share the expressed concerns about when the study was conducted in relation to the time of year and the then status of downtown development; I feel that these concerns will be alleviated with subsequent annual reviews. Timely annual reviews and periodic updates should be available to the Commission,prior to future entitlement decisions on all major downtown development project. The Downtown Parking Master Plan is based on a balance of interrelated land use activities and a limited supply of available parking. The annual review needs to look at the change in ratios of uses as well as the change in parking supply. I realize that Coastal Commission is primarily concerned with a total envelope of activities and total supply of parking. However, good planning warrants a more thorough analysis and should include a monitoring of the different parking requirements for varied land use activities, for example: - Short-term parking adjacent to convenience commercial - adjacent valet parking for restaurants - drop off and pick up areas for retail activities - convenient and sheltered parking for office uses P. 0. Box 382, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648.0382 (714)376-3060 e-mail AdamsAssov&ivebwnet Concerns: 1 I. The proposed blending of the parking supply in Areas 1 and 2, in order to identify a larger pool of available parking. While walking 1000-1500 feet may work in a typical urban area, will it work in Huntington Beach? The Plan identifies the greatest increase in parking demand in Bock A and the greatest in supply Block H. Will patrons of the first block really park in the 4 h, 5 h or 6 h blocks, particularly hotel and restaurant patrons? Different uses have different parking demands. Demands not simply dictated by the amount of square footage, of a particular use, but by patron expectations. Common sense needs to prevail over simply counting available parking spaces. 2. The proposed adiustment of the parking requirement ratios implies that the future parking supply will not be sufficient, contrary to the observations reported in the Plan update. If the Plan is currently working why is there any need to change the parking requirement ratios? Any change to the parking requirements will only place an additional parking burden on smaller in fill and change of use projects. Large projects will be able to request that half of their parking requirement be forgiven. The only change warranted to the parking requirements, based on a review of the collected data, in the Parking Plan Update would be to make Area 2 consistent with Area 1 and not increase the parking requirements in Area 1. 3. The potential loss of existing public and private parking to future development. There are currently approximately 300 existing parking spaces (176 in Block A), which could potentially be lost when future development occurs. The Downtown Parking Master Plan update needs to address provisions for replacement parking. Suggestions: 1. Total Parking Supplv Combine Areas 1 and 2 in order to obtain total parking supply count providing additional measures are implemented,for example: Maintain the Area 1 parking requirements for the entire downtown Provide additional short term parking in Area 2 Provide designated long term parking for existing and future office uses in Area 2 2. Parking Management Plans Require that projects over 10,000 square feet provide a Parking Management Plan and Program to meet all required parking consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan. With the implementation of such a project oriented parking analysis and program on-site parking requirements may be reduced(up to 50%). The Parking Management Plan may include alternatives to on site parking such as, but not limited to the following: - Valet services - Employee shuttle services - Exclusive remote parking facilities - In-lieu fee payments 3. Parking Replacement Program Any proposed project, which will require the removal of existing public and/or private parking facilities, shall be required to implement a parking replacement program. The program will identify all existing on-site and adjacent off-site parking and require 100% replacement of any lost spaces, consistent with Downtown Parking Master Plan. These parking spaces shall not be subject to any reduction factors and must be accounted for on a one to one basis. The shared parking concept upon which the Huntington Beach Downtown Parking Master Plan .is* based seems to be working and adequately meeting the communities' needs: In order to provide the City with the assurances that it will continue to be successful, careful timely reviews of the Plan must occur on a regular basis and particularly prior to any major project proposal. To amend the Parking Master Plan, as recommended, simply to accommodate the anticipated needs of a yet to-be reviewed and approved project is premature and may greatly jeopardize the integrity of the Master Plan itself However an interim step of placing additional flexibility, as described above, within the Plan will allow projects to move forward. In addition it wii; require that each major development submit for consideration, not only a request for p::rking reduction, but also a parking proposal which addresses the projects true parking demands and a program to implement the projects real parking needs. Thank you for your consideration of comments. Sincerel , Mik A s President P. 0. Box 382, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648.0382 (714)376-3060 e-mail AdamsAssoc(a).webtv.net ATTACHMENT I I City Of Huntington Beach Started One hour val.On May 1st,2000 ® 2 HOUR Employee 1s Misc. TOTAL MONTHLY ® 2 Hour Employee 15 Misc. TOTAL MONTHLY Month Paid Validation Validation Free Pass DP AUTOS REVENUE Month Paid Validation Validation Free Pass DP AUTOS REVENUE October 12,437 31,031 8,510 3,169 2,929 1,400 59,476 $ 28,671.00 October 7,919 33,344 7,536 7,495 1 3,211 910 60,415 $ 29,844.00 November 9,046 28,165 7,674 2,776 2,839 1,057 51,557 $ 24,043.00 November 6,779 32,062 6,516 6,566 2,929 868 55.720 $ 27,147.00 December 9,279 27,613 7,782 3,512 2,829 1,017 52,032 $ 28,435.00 December 5,522 29,431 6,113 7,572 3,323 896 52,857 $ 18,135.00 January 10,510 32,824 7,768 3,107 2,691 1,087 57,987 $ 25,578.00 January 7,276 37,115 6,243 7,684 2,755 1,014 62,087 $ 29,365.00 February 8,424 31,205 7265 3,036 2,360 978 53,268 $ 21,176.00 February 7,026 35,120 5,865 6,298 2,615 704 57,628 $ 27,540.00 March 13,771 34,756 8,254 4,449 2,644 1,067 64,941 $ 32,927.00 March 8,197 37,912 6,243 7,373 3,120 982 63,827 $ 27,126.00 April 18,925 33,719 9,504 4,089 1 2,512 1,353 70.102 $ 43,927.00 April i 9,515 37,262 6,867 7,391 3,295 1 1,304 65,634 1$ 36,687.00 May 18,473 33,545 10,973 3,270 1 3,032 1,614 70,9071$ 65,385.00 May, 14,067 38,583 1 8,451 5,057 3,401 1,358 70,917 $ 50.407.00 June 23,914 34,233 11,681 3,661 3.268 1,656 78,413 $ 83,018400 June 18,403 39,534 9,672 4,929 3,556 1,478 77,572 $ 64,766.00 July 34,333 27,277 9,315 4,759 5,117 2,165 82,966 $121,283.00 July 23,497 38.071 10,818 6,231 3,490 1,670 83,777 $ $6,527.00 August 27,150 27,695 6,307 3,959 6,307 2,073 73.491 1$ 90,476.00 August 20,106 35,468 10,331 4,636 3,638 1,672 75,851 $ 59,569.00 September 0 September 1 13,218 29,047 8,254 3,004 3,228 1,450 58,201 1$ 32,295.00 TOTALS 186,262 342,063 95,033 39,787 36,528 15,467 715,140 TOTALS 141,525 422,949 92,909 74,236 38,561 14,306 764,486 $564,919.00 $499,408.00 2 Year Stat Comparison Paid 2 Hr.Validation Employee 16 Free Pass Misc.DP TOTAL AUTOS MONTHLY REVENUE 1999100 1988199 1999100 1998199 1999100 1998199 1999/00 1998/99 1999100 1998/99 1999100 '1998/99 1999/00 1998/99 1999100 1998199 October Autos 12,437 1 7,919 1 31,031 1 33,344 8,510 1 7,536 3,169 7,495 2,929 3,211 1,400 1 910 59,476 1 60,415 $28,671.00 1$ 29,844.00 %Difference 36.33% -7A5% 11.45% -136.51% 9.63% 1 35.00% -1.58% -4.09% November Autosl 9,046 1 6,779 1 28,165 1 32,062 7,674 1 6,516 2,776 1 6,566 2,839 1 2,929 1.057 1 868 51,557 1 55,720 1$24,043.00 $ 27,147.00 %Difference 25.06% A3.84% 15.09% -136.53% -3.17% 17.88% -8.07% 1 -12.91% December Autos 9,279 5,522 27,613 1 29.431 7,782 1 6,113 3,512 1 7,572 2,829 1 3,323 1,017 1 896 52,032 1 52,857 1$28,435.00 1$ 18,135.00 %Difference 40.49% -6.58% 21.45% -115.60% -17.46% 11.90% -1.59% 1 36.22% January Autosl 10,510 1 7,276 32,824 1 37,115 7,768 6,243 3,107 1 7,684 2,691 1 2,755 1.087 1 1,014 57,987 1 62,087 1$25,578.00 1$ 29,365.00 %Difference 30.77% -13.07% 19.63% -147.31% -2.38% 6.72% -7,07% -14.81% February Autosl 8,424 r 7,026 31,205 1 35,120 7,265 1 5,865 3,036 1 6.298 2,360 1 2,615 1 978 1 704 53,268 1 57,628 1$21,176.001$ 27,540.00 �T %Difference 16.60% -12.55% 19.27% -107.44% -10.81% 28.02% -8.19% 1 -30.05% .s r March Autosl 13,771 1 8.197 34,756 1 37,912 8,254 1 6,243 4,449 1 7,373 2,644 1 3,120 1,067 1 982 64,941 1 63,827 1$32,927.00 $ 27,126.00 Difference 40.48% -9.08% 24,36% -65.72% A8.00% 7.97% 1.72% 1 17.62% April Autosl 18,925 1 9.515 1 33,719 1 37,262 9,504 1 6,867 4,089 1 7.391 2,612 1 3,295 1,353 1 1,304 70,102 1 65,634 1$43,927.00 1$ 36,687.00 %Difference 1 49.72% 1 -10.51% 27.75% -80.75% -31.17% 3.62% 6.37% 1 16.48% --� May Autosl 18,473 1 14,067 1 33,545 1 38,583 10,973 1 8,451 1 3,270 1 5,057 1 3,032 1 3,401 1,614 1 1,358 70,907 1 70,917 1$65,385.00 1$ 50,407.00 %Difference 1 23.85% 1 -15.02% 22.911% 1 -54.65% 1 -12.17% 15.86% -0.01% 1 22.91% June Autos 23,914 1 18,403 1 34.233 1 39,534 1 11,681 1 9,672 1 3.661 1 4.929 1 3,268 1 3,556 1 1,656 1 1,478 1 78,413 1 77,572 1$83,018.001$ 64,766.00 %Difference 23.05% 1 -15.49% 1 17.20% 134.64°h1 -6.81% 1 10.75% 1 1.07% 1 21.99% �- July Autosl 34,333 1 23,497 1 27,277 38,071 1 9,315 1 10,8181 4,759 1 6,231 1 5,117 1 3,490 1 2,165 1 1,670 1 82,966 1 83,777 1 #####NMI$ 86,527.00 %Difference 31.56% -39.57% -16.14% 1 -30.93% 31.80% 1 22.86% -0.98% 28.66% August Autosl 27,150 1 20.106 27,695 1 35.468 6,307 1 10,331 1 3,959 1 4,636 6,307 1 3,636 1 2,073 1 1,672 73,491 1 75,851 $90,476.00 1$ 59,569.00 %Difference 25.94% -28.07% -63.80% 1 -17.10% 42.32% 1 19.34% -3.21% 34.16% September Autosl 0 1 13,218 1 0 29,047 0 8,254 1 0 1 3,004 1 0 1 3,228 1 0 1 1,450 0 1 58,201 $ $ 32,29-0 %Difference i City Of Huntington Beach 'CHANGED FROM 3 HOUR TO 2 HOUR VALIDATION ON MAY 1,ALSO NO MORE 60 MIN.FREE. ® 2 HOUR Employee 15 Misc. TOTAL MONTHLY ® 3 Hour Employee 15160 Misc. TOTAL MONTHLY Month Paid Validation Validation Free Pass DP AUTOS REVENUE Month Paid Validation Validation Free Pass DP AUTOS REVENUE October 33,344 7,536 7,495 3,211 910 52,496 $ 29,844.00 October 8,286 23,953 7,731 11,385 3,633 739 55,727 $ 30,161.DD November 6,779 32,062 6,516 6,566 2,929 868 55,720 $ 27,147.00 November 8,365 25,314 6,623 10,472 3,147 697 54,616 $ 29,943.00 December 5,522 29,431 6,113 7,572 3,323 896 52,857 $ 18,135.00 December 6,964 21,493 6,632 11,979 3,373 683 51,124 $ 22,255.D0 January 7,276 37,115 6,243 7,684 2,755 1,014 62,087 $ 29,365.00 January 8,863 28,462 6,726 12,289 3,053 816 60,209 $ 32, 443.00 February 7,026 35,120 5,865 6,298 2,615 704 57,628 $ 27,540.00 February 7,570 28,345 6,542 11,034 2,774 854 57,119 $ 28,104.00 March 8,197 37,912 6,243 7,373 3,120 982 63,827 $ 27,126.00 March 11,177 32,692 7,260 12,452 3,476 1,065 68,122 $ 39,669.00 April 9,515 37,262 6.867 7,391 3,295 1,3D4 65,634 $ 36.687.00 April 10,828 31,693 7,649 12,806 3,642 1,159 67,777 $ 40,426.00 May 14,067 38,583 8,451 5,057 3,401 1,358 70,917 $ 50,407.00 May 13,215 34,912 8,042 12,069 3,587 1 1,146 72,971 S 46,128.00 June 18,403 39,534 9,672 4,929 3,556 1,478 77,572 $ 64,766.00 June 16,639 38,329 8,D60 12,084 3,696 1,642 80.450 $ 57,080.00 July 23,497 38,071 10,818 6,231 3,490 1,670 83,777 $ 86,527.00 July 18.557 58,154 9,204 13,054 3,683 1,473 104,125 1$ 65,224.D0 August 20,106 35,468 10,331 4,636 3,638 1.672 75,851 $ 59,569.00 August 17,112 39,264 8,149 11,124 3,648 1,335 80,532 1$ 60,356.D0 September 13,218 29,047 8,254 3,004 3,228 1,450 $8,201 $ 32,295.00 September 9,108 32,792 7,734 1 8,733 3,224 1,077 62,668 S 34,511.00 TOTALS1 133,606 1 422,949 1 92,909 1 74,236 1 38,561 14,306 1776,5671 TOTALS 136,684 395,403 1 90,352 139,481 40,836 127686 815,442 $489,408. 1$486,800.00 2 Year Comparison State Paid 3 Hr.Validation Employee 15/60 Free Pass Misc.DP TOTAL AUTOS MONTHLY REVENUE 1998199 1997198 1998199 1997/98 1998199 1997198 1998199 199T/98 1998/99 1997/98 1998199 1997198 1998/99 1997198 1998/99 189T/96 October Autos 0 1 8,286 33,344 23,953 7,536 7,731 7,495 11.385 3,211 3,633 910 739 52,496 55,727 $29,844.00 $ 30,161.00 %Difference 28.16% -2.59% 1 -51.90% -13.14% 18.79% -6.15% -1.06% November Autos 1 6,779 F 8,365 32,062 1 25,314 6,516 1 6,623 6,566 1 10,472 2,929 1 3,147 1 868 1 697 55,720 1 54,618 $27,147.00 1$ 29.943.00 %Difference -23.40% 21.05% -1.64% 1 -59.49% -7.44% 19.70% 1.98% -10.30% December Autos 5,522 1 6,964 29,431 1 21,493 6,113 1 6,632 7,572 1 11,979 3,323 1 3,373 896 1 683 52,857 1 51.124 $18,135.00 1$ 22,255.00 y., %Difference -26.11% 26.97% -8.49% -58.20% -1.50% 23.77% 3.28% -22.72% Y� January Autos 7,276 8,863 37,115 28,462 6,243 6,726 7,684 12,289 2,755 3,053 1,014 816 62,087 60,209 $29,365.00 $ 32,943.00 --; %Difference -21.81% 23.31% -7.74% -59.93% -10.82% 19.53% 3,02% 12.18% February Autos 7,026 7,570 35,120 28,345 5,865 6.542 6,298 11,034 2,615 2,774 704 854 57,628 57,119 $27,540.00 $ 28,104.00- %Difference 7.74°6 19.29% -11.54% -75.20% -6.08% -21.31% 0.88% -2.05% March Autosl 81197 1 11,177 1 37,912 1 32,692 6,243 1 7,260 7,373 1 12,452 3,120 3,476 982 1 1,065 63,827 1 68,122 $27,126.00 1$ 39,669.00 t.. %Difference -36.35% 13.77% -16,29% -68.89% -11,41% -8.45% -6.73% -46.24% It April Autosl 9,515 F 10,828 37,262 1 31,693 6,867 1 7,649 7,391 1 12.806 3,295 1 3.642 1,3D4 1 1,159 1 65,634 1 67,777 $36,687.00 $ 40,426.00 %Difference -13.80% 14.95% -11.39% -73.26% -10.53% 11.12% -3.27% -10.19% .� May Autosl 14,067 1 13.215 38.583 1 34,912 8,451 1 8,042 5,057 1 12,069 3,401 1 3,587 1 1,358 1 1,146 70,917 1 72.971 $50,407.00 1$ 46,128.00 %Difference 6.06% 9.51% 4.84% -138.66% -5.47% 15.61% -2.90% 8.49% June Autosl 18,403 1 16,639 39,534 1 38,329 9,672 1 8,060 4,929 1 12,084 3.556 1 3,696 1,478 1 1,642 77.572 r 80,450 1$64,766.00 1$ 57,080.00 %Difference 9.59% 3.05% 16.67% -145.16% -3.94% -11.10% -3.71% 11.87% July Autosi 23,497 1 18,557 38,071 1 58,154 1 10,818 1 9,204 6,231 1 13,054 3,490 1 3,683 1.670 1 1,473 83,777 1 104,125 $86,527.00 S 65,224,00 %Difference 1 21.02% -52.75% 14.92% -109.50% -5.53% 11.80% 24.29% 24.62% August Autos 20,106 17,112 35,468 1 39,264 10,331 1 8,149 4,636 1 11,124 3,638 1 3,548 1.672 1 1,335 75,851 1 80,532 $59,569.00 1$ 60,356.00 %Difference 14.891/6 -10.70% 21.12% -139.95% 2.47% 20.16% -6.17% -1.32% September Autos 13,218 9,108 29,047 32,792 8,254 7,734 3.004 8,733 3,228 3.224 1,450 1,077 58,201 62.668 $32,295.00 $ 34,511.00 %Difference 31.09% -12.89% 6.30% -190.71% 0.12% 25.72% 7.68% 6.86% RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Downtown Parking Master Plan Update COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: (Below • . For Only) RCA Author: HZ:SH:HF:WC:rl I Nov-24-00 04:11pm From-RUTAN 3 TUCKER LLP, + T-795 P•02/03 F-287 L T_a wIAJ . .... TAN Iw,•,•.�..�1aDw: .. ,...w_ :.,,nL,w....�;J,., rY w�:;M w,L,::�;:•���.r�,�., L n.u,•Llrrunr II, .wd„ww wvf�.w.r i'.�nK,Aw Iwo.n IV.en1/Lw ^e L tl`ew ..KD w t .eV�,p. n nyJln L ICn,L..uLKr ' 8WCKER- r 101nu rn.n.auT.IK .I'v'r w•n•\.n... 'w=.•,wwv Ql f..,•r AX —121 Lunn rnnnm^a.uGw.ar..,,.�... 7,df,.w.a.uKO:n.�,fl:. ..rl »AwJrl .RLL,.nLMle nnwl.r�LLtn w,,.rnwD w DAI•..,w w ww, L.•�.D.F ,I JI w ,.oral•.ewwe.,eaJ rwwwae went lntw L n Tne000wL.wwLLw L,Iw- •tvRWdl.vICV1 Dw..w: K..O�. n/rKar I M,LCnrnL tlrL R1ae,ew 1KI n w,..riK t Rw.u'lw..,.KwP4..wrl 1,1.1 n IRn1•vn )eon r rN1wtLL lennlrew a—61Lw:V„ ,0.....0 CA.—T.t ...wF•..,Cw.L.. ,eFK,w r,wV l,• Ivw cn_cn IVnn• euVtc, • KIC..AKD• . wVCl.w..l y1e.R rwFC•1 II L,KI, '.Iew` wLnVnl KO:aw.wn A T T O k N G Y A T L A W wwL..C•.Lw In4iww„CR,wr r,Irrnu nCuL, wnaa,awwctnwALILK wnLn 1,wwe sn-wo C.Keen "CA K rRlurtR MCnnwu L 140-1 w lLLm•rnwww uLwuA. w JIM,.—M 11 UL., :. ' 1 InJ�wwi)M_rrn.e n- renlLOre rnw.xa lnroeaa welx• wLt.un w.MRewKO_Ir w,yL.., nwRllnLt 't'I° i� ; .j A ilARINER),TIP INCLUDIIvC PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IJ�•�"``nK�su "'Mln ""`own Yn•IYn nLw.nwLK ICr,nw.rww.,Trn.IR llnl:r,.l• C rr WYe uVwer wnnWulal w 1.7K111..uI•.ra IC1..rvA L.—.,.J 1 .,w'Coo ' LIT nNTOIv BOULEVARD.FOURTEENTH FLUOR n wr.nwwY. nle aL :Dwn,LL l,wKw JTra. T.,ry.nffwrlr LI•w• n1Cn4Lna •I CON L4tu alawnL`amnn'IY rwm 1 a K. r.1»,r I d,wldnww4 i 1 40liA MF]n,CALIrORNIn 9'LO2D•19SIS t)rw w w,Tc 11 Iuxr1,La-C...1. 1•sL,rrL,Cw,r,Cntn L•r,.LrL•nau DJKFC I ALL MAIL 10 POST OFFICE BOX 1930 a,Lwr1� euuumn L 1nAKAn Ms C ILCts An»,KI. 1.0 u•wnwu Y,Feaw,A IL r • L'ODIn Mean,CALIFORNIA 92D2D-195U nV.C., L4 C. HIM V InL—r,Vn LryM^Vl,n)rLtL YLIA rv.�.L w.nL,JnY Il-0. Iwt"t Inl NwM\LA ten �• (,nwlenL4. III YHLw ' ICLEYnOIv[71•t•Dnl-Sluu FACS;M1IE 71-1-59n-10S "•"�•w "$•'In f,.,.. wn•»r•.w,0 Ln40e „wennorw nsl vuvannna,uc wn DCrvYL.LIwL.T4L0w w. IN1EttNErADDuss uOKwrOl µ �" `•: '� Dlrcvl'Dlai (714)641-3441 F-mrx11.joacrman(;1uE2111 cam November 20, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE C' r.t C= Mayor Dave Garofalo o c-, and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach C-) 2000 Main Street a 15=• Huntington Scach, CA 92648 Re. Proposed Amendments to the City's General Plan/Local Coastal P^'og 53 Downtown Specific Plan, and Zoning Text Amendment Relating to the Downtown Parking Master Plan Update Dear Mayor Garofalo and Members of the City Council: 1 am writing to you on behalf of the Huntington Beach Citi2ens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARS") and Abdelmuti Development Company ("ADC") in opposition to the proposed amendments to the City's General Plan/Local Coastal Program, the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Zoning Text Amendment relating to the Downtown Parking Master Plan Update. My understanding is that the City Council purported to introduce an ordinance or ordinances relating ro the above-referCncr-d matter .at your November 6, 2000, meeting. Although I did not attend the meeting, the information transmitted to me was that There was considerable confusion at the meeting as to exactly how the ordinance(s) should be written and what changes should be made to the text of the ordinance(s) as recommended (on a split vote)by your Planning Commission and presrntcd by the City staff. From what 1 heard, ,t sounded to ine as though the final text of the ordinance was not available for public review, nor even for City Council consideration, at the November 6"' meeting itself, This understanding seems tv be confirmed by the fact that the draft ordinance (No. 3483) sent to my office indicates that the City Attorney's office did not approve it as to form until November 8, 2000, two days after the Council meeting. If these facts are true, the adoption of this proposed ordinance at your November 2U meeting would violate Section 500(b) of the City Charter, which provides in pertinent part as fo}lows: MM A N t G&T�N Nov-20-00 04:11pm From-RUTAN & TUCKER LLP, + T-795 P.03/03 F-287 TAN &TUCKERy Mayor Dave Garofalo November 20, 2000 Page 2 ". . . In the went that any ordinance is altered after its introduction, it shall be finally adopted only at a regular or adjourned regular meeting held no less than five days after the date it was so altered_ 9) The foregoing Charter provision contains an exception for the "correction of typographical or clerical errors," bur according to the information provided to my office The changes TO the ordinance(s) in question would not qualify for that exception. it seems apparent that the lame duck City Council is intent on rushing the ordinance(s) Throu;n relating To the Downtown Parking Master Plan Update before The new City Council con Take office. Given the conflicts of interest of two Couneilmembers and the expressed opposition To this ill-conceived proposal by two uf the newly rltved Councilmembers, the Downtown Parkin- Master Plan changes would appear to have The support of only three mCmbers of the soon-to-be-seated City Council, less than The minimum four affirmative voros required pursuant to Section 500(a) of the City Charter. The fate of the M1 project and Downtown development will have to be decided by the new City Council anyway, with a super-majority of f ve votes required for eminent domain. This level of support simply does not exist—certainly not in the community and now not oven on the City Council. Once again; CARE and ADC would respectfully request that the Council slow down, consider what you are doing before you act (based upon a full Environmental Impact Report), follow the law, and deny the pending Zone change Very truly yours, RU'TAN TUCKER, LLP Je Odernian JMO:jh cc. Mike Abdelrawl Jim Lane �;?u:as3auuw Nov-1,0-00 04:11pm From-RUTAN & TUCKER LLP, + T-795 P-01/03 F-287 RUTAN &FUCKER LLP Attorneys at Law 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa California 9262&1998 Mailing Address: Post Office Box 1950, Costa Mesa, California 92628-1950 Telephone: 714,641.5100 Facsimile 714.546.9035 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION DATE. Nov F-msER 20,2000 To: Hard Cop to Follow via Mail: NO NAME FAx No. PHONE No. Office of the City Clerk (714) 374-1557 (714)374-1559 FROM. Jeffrey M. Oderman - 112 RE-. 11/20/00 City Council meeting CLIENT/M.AT rER NO.: 014820-0001 NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDrNG COVER: 3 MESSAGE: PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THE ATTACHED LETTER TO THE MAYOR AND i COUNCILMEMBERS FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING. i would appreciate it if you would call and let me know you received this letter and will take care of having it j distributed. Thanks for your help'. TILE ANFORMATION (L)NIA1Nt_1.1 IN ThIS 17-AC3LMILE MESSAGE IS INTENArI3 t-uR im Ust_GF 'I'Ht INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WtilCli iI IS ADDRESSED.AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMAL IUN I'hAL'IS YRLVILECED AND CONFIDENT1Ai IF-,Hk RaA0kK UI- fHIS NIESSAGF IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIBIENT OR AGENT RESPuNSISwi rO 0£I.IVFX 1'HF MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIP11=N1, YUU ARC HFRLBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSWINALIO,N,DIST?,iBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNK AI'IL)N IS S'fxtCTLY PROHIBITED IF YOU HAVI_ Rt--MVFD THIS COMMUNICATION IN FRRUR; YI_I=AS1 NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TE.IEPHONF AND RETURN THE URIc31NAI-MLSSAGJ'TQ US AT TILE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA ThE U S POSTAL SERVICE TILANK YOU If ihcic arc problems rccc;wn�[non Fsa Transm,l[�l plrsae call 7Ia fi41 5!W,Fxi 1235 t13!U14820-0001 t3o%0001"11i20/00 H CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 3 Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator 4 s = FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning , t. DATE: November 6, 2000 - , SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN UPDATE LATE COMMUNICATION (ITEM D-1) a > The following attachments are late communication items: 1. Revised table within the Land Use Analysis (Kaku Report Appendix) addressing an additional 3,750 sq. ft. of retail and total of 23,750 sq. ft. of retail on Block H. 2. Powerpoint Slide Show GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr00\1100wc l.doc Existing and Proposed Development BLOCK H PRE-DEVELOPMENT(1982) EXISTING/APPROVED DEVELOPMENT(2000) BUILDOUT(2005) ADDRESS USE SIZE PARKING NAME USE SIZE PARKING NAME RETAIL RESTAURANT OFFICE OTHER PARKING 410 Main Retail 6,900 24 410 Main Retail 6,900 24 Fourth Block East 424 Main Auto Repair 8,500 424 Main Auto Repair 8,500 23,750 13,000 150 428 Main Retail 5,500 428 Main Retail 5,500 438 Main Retail 2,550 438 Main Retail 2,550 440 Main Retail 2,500 440 Main Retail 2,500 504 Main Retail(4 du) 6,300 504 Main Retail(4 du) 6,300 401 Lake Res(1 du) 401 Lake Res(1 du) 405 Lake Res(1 du) 405 Lake Res(1 du) 407 Lake Res(1 du) 407 Lake Res(1 du) 409 Lake Res(1 du) 409 Lake Res(1 du) 421 Lake Res(3 du) 421 Lake Res(3 du) 427 Lake Res(1 du) 427 Lake Res(1 du) 431 Lake Res(4 du) 431 Lake Res(4 du) 435 Lake Res(4 du) 435 Lake Res(4 du) 437 Lake Res(1 du) 437 Lake Res(1 du) 443 Lake Res(1 du) 443 Lake Res(1 du) 505 Lake Res(1 du) 505 Lake Res(1 du) 201 Pecan Res(1 du) 201 Pecan Res(1 du) 205 Pecan Res(1 du) 205 Pecan Res(1 du) 209 Pecan Res(1 du) 209 Pecan Res(1 du) TOTAL: 32,250 24 TOTAL: 1 1 32,250 24 11 TOTAL: 23,750 1 1 13,000 1 1 150 DPMP Update-Oct.2000 mend Downtown Specific Plan and Local y Coastal Program by incorporating changes to Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP): -increase development cap to 710,000 sq. ft. -Consolidate Areas One and Two 9, -Establish one set of parking ratios/requirements ` ;W_ <U`SSOCIIATES 1 ram • Based on shared parking concept • Originally approved in 1995 with update of the Downtown Specific Plan • Kaku Associates conducted surveys and completed analysis for update •Report.and recommendations forwarded to City CW<U ASSOCIATES •3i3' / it/i?±11�']u'13itN':: L;ff:E.ffflb '1 33.: u 3''.a...a �v3:1L�'ifwuua .„ I -r-ate-- < � F2 OLIVE A 1 L�LJ D2 - JwA RG,A L l r I I BJ LEGEND: Owmlown Parking M—u Plan 6mndary -study Area ewna.y -kea1 O .Area J(Pedphery) ....-G1)ON-STREET) -kea2 A -Bl dendr W CUKUASSOCIATES K A K U AS SO IATE 2 x:-;Y ..., o«, rx- ,,,.,;•,¢,�r � y�%,:: - �ez�;a"rror��,.','�'«n, ,� v C GPI QE O � 9 9 ® H S C1 = D2 _ � � 1 I � '..'� LEGEND: .-Downtown Parking Master Plan Boundary C, Location of user survey -•°--• ;qu<UhSSOCVATES KAKU nSSUCInTES AO°'°°"iP°" dftw�-,,s"' Friday Saturday Origin Home 84% 93% Work 1 1% 2% Primary Purpose Farmers Market 21% na Shopping 16% 18% Eating/Drinking 47% 58% Movie/Entertainment 12% 19% Beach/Pier 28% 43% Employed 13% 7% CSWIASSOCIATES 3 j I s' NONUMNSWIN OEM Friday (9 p.m.) Saturday (3 p.m.1 Retail 215 409 Restaurant 807 587 Office 4 26 Miscellaneous 535 401 Total 1,561 1,423 CUKU/\SSOCATES i Total Retail 295,320 sf Restaurant 143,747 sf Office 125,454 sf Miscellaneous 145,285 sf Total 709,806 sf JUKUA SOCInTES 4 Day Night Future Future Surplus/ Future Future Surplus/ j Block supply Demand a Deficit Su ply Demand a Deficit Area 1 1,972 1,697 275 1,972 2,217 (245) i Area 2 299 218 81 299 184 115 Total of Area 1 &2 2,271 1,915 35 22,271 2,401 (130) Note: a] Includes some pier/beach and resident users. ;jOLW ASSOCIATES m Projected Parking Supply = 2,271 spaces Peak a ing Surplus/ Month Demand (Deficit) January 1,563 February 1,466 805 March 1,686 585 April 1,705 566 May 1,839 432 + June 2,019 252 July (Friday) 2,401 (130) August 1,998 273 September 1,544 727 October 1,484 787 November 1,410 861 December 1,329 942 <>yy CWWASSOCIATES 5 % of Peak Day of the Week Day [a] Sunday 86% Monday 67% Tuesday 68% Wednesday 70% <" Thursday 70% Friday 100% Saturday 97% Note: [a] Based on Main Promenade parking structure data provided by the City of Huntington Beach. RMSUASSOCIATES s Current City Parking Downtown vn Proposed Shared Rate [a] Land Use Parking Ratio [a] Area 1 Area 2 Retail 3.00 4.00 2.50 y Office 2.00 1.00 2.00 Cinema 0.30 0.20 n/a Restaurant 10.00 6.67 10.00 [a] Per 1,000 s.f.of floor area. [UICNASSOCIATES 6 -;l 7's t T. 1 Strategy 1 - Modified Parking Code Requirements Strategy 2 - On-Site Parking Strategy 3 - Parking Management Techniques Strategy 4 - Use of Supplemental Parking Supply �y`%yu CU�CN/�SSOCInTES Study sessions and Community meeting held to review Kaku Report and proposed amendments *Public Hearings to receive public testimony: *October 10, 2000 *October 24, 2000 Forwarded Draft Ordinance with straw vote y ecommendations ' CWUASSOCIATES 7 *Approve ZTA 99-3 and LCPA 00-2 *Increase development cap to 710,000 sq. ft. *Consolidate and utilize one set of parking ratios for the entire master plan area (Areas 1 & 2) *Amend the Downtown Specific Plan *Modify the Land Use Tables identifying the allowable floor area and parking requirements by Blocks CG WASSOCIATES Fes" Consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan: Projects parking demand based on buildout Allows for continued downtown redevelopment Provides for visitor serving commercial uses Will provide ample parking opportunities in the coastal zone ;W<VASSOCIATES g RECEIVED FROM'1i� ��h AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT TH7 COUNCIL MEETING OF I OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK My name is Bob Bolen: I am a long time resident,business owner and property owner here in downtown L — Huntington Beach. I currently own the property at 322 Main Street where my business is located. T v 4J(,'c I have owned and operated businesses here since the 1960s. I have some very valid concerns with the 14 eAr` action we are here to discuss tonight. I worked my butt off to own my property as has many of the other property owners in the area.I want to protect not only my property rights but also those of my neighbors. QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BY COUNCIL OF STAFF 1. How many parking spaces are required for the anticipated CIM project under the current Downtown Parking Code? ANSWER approximately 850-870 SPACES 2. How many parking spaces are going to be required for the anticipated CIM project under the new Downtown Parking Code if passed? ANSWER approximately 400-420 SPACES 3. How many parking spaces,both onsite and off site,currently exist on Block A? ANSWER approximately 260 SPACES(see attached) 4. Will the CIM project be required to replace the displaced 260 parking spaces,that exist on Block A, in addition to the 400-420 spaces they will be putting onsite? ANSWER NO 5. Are the 260 spaces counted in the 400 or so spaces CIM will be building? ANSWER YES 6. On page D-1.10(see attached) Staff indicates that the overall parking spaces in the"STUDY AREA" would be increased by 100 to 150 spaces(see attached). "I disagree with staff' Lets do the Math: Under the current code the parking requirement for the CIM project would be 850 spaces or more The existing parking on Block A is 260 spaces TOTAL parking spaces existing&required 1110 spaces If the CIM project supplies..................................................................410 spaces It creates a parking shortfall of...........................................................(700 spaces) If the CIM project supplies less parldug the shortfall is even greater. Another way to look at it is like this: If the CIM project is required to provide only 346 parking spaces,as is discussed in the Environmental Check List Form,(see attached)and they remove 260 existing parking spaces we only get a net gain of 86 new parking spaces for approximately 240,000 square feet of development. How can this be approved? ANSWER IT CANNOT Don't forget the 260 spaces have already been counted as"shared parking"in the DOWNTOWN PARKING SUPPLY to count them again would be double dipping. If you pass this new Parking Plan a huge parking discrepancy will be created.CIM will able to take advantage of a huge reduction in their parking requirement while the rest of us property owners will be burdened with a huge increase in their parking requirement for future development. FOR EXAMPLE: CIM OTHERS IN AREA 1 Retail 1.5 (1:333 sq. ft.) 3.00(1:333 sq. ft.) Restaurant 5.0 (1:100 sq. ft.) 10.00(1:100 sq. ft.) Office 1.0 (1:500 sq. ft.) 2.00(1:500 sq.ft.) Cinema 0.15(1:3.3 seats) 0.30(1:3:3 seats) In addition staff says,on page D-1.22: (see attached) "If the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report indicates that the parking supply is inadequate to serve the approved level of development or if the development square footage exceeds the amount described above(up to 710,000 square feet total),all development within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area shall provide parking consistent with Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance,unless and until new parking to meet the identified demand is approved and constructed". This again creates a back door for the staff to require the remaining property owners who wish to develop their property to be burdened with an even higher standard of parking requirements. Another back door is created by the Note: found on D-1.24(see attached) In summation: If the staff really feels we have enough parking in the downtown area let us continue to count our onsite parking towards any intensification of use or expansion of square footage as it currently exists in the Downtown Parking Master Plan(see attached). This does not hurt anyone.AND Give the same ability to all property owners who wish to build in the downtown area by providing the same parking ratios as will be required of the CIM project. What difference does it make if your parcel is smaller? It will just require a smaller amount of parking. There is no magic in 30,000 square feet or larger. As a property owner I am not looking for an advantage over anyone else. I am not looking for any special treatment. I only want to be treated fairly along with the other property owners in the downtown area. In other words if they can do it we should be allowed to do it. What I am really trying to do is to persuade you into treating everyone equally and by the same set of rules nothing more nothing less. Thanks for your time. I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-61 4. Additional Recommendations The existing DPMP contains parking options that authorize the City's approving body to impose on downtown development. Kaku Associates recommends additional parking strategies to improve the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Specifically, Kaku Associates recommends the following: The City encourage all future projects proposing a density of development for a commercial project that is over 30,000 sq. ft. to provide and satisfy at least 50% of its code-required parking. By_requiring these larger'projects_to_provide°50% of they' spaces, the overall increase in fhe parking supply would be increased-byT10Q_1501 _—sj� spaces in the study areal: ---r. The City should require all larger projects utilize on-site attendants (valet service) during the peak season. Parking vehicles in tandem can increase the effective capacity of the parking supply of the larger facilities. This measure would only be required during the peak summer months (i.e. June-August). The City not engage in a capital improvement program to construct additional municipal parking facilities to increase the parking supply. Based on the availability of hundreds of parking spaces within the periphery area of downtown, including the Pier Plaza parking lots south of P.C.H., there is no justification to add additional City parking facilities to the downtown parking supply. Although these spaces are excluded from the official inventory of the DPMP parking supply, they can be viewed as supplemental spaces that are available for use during peak periods. After reviewing these recommended strategies, staff determined that these measures are addressed within the Downtown Specific Plan. The existing ordinance grants the Planning Commission the authority to impose a variety of parking requirements on projects to reduce parking impacts within the DPMP (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 4). For example, the Planning Commission may require valet service be offered as part of a development; require additional on-site and/or off-site parking; and require payment of in-lieu fees. The proposed ordinance includes amended or added parking measures incorporating the recommendations by Kaku Associates. 7. SUMMARY The Kaku study confirms that the current and future parking supply is adequate to accommodate current and future demand. The analysis concludes that the study area has sufficient excess capacity to accommodate increases in parking demand. PL00-61 -10- 11/02/00 8:46 AM not exceed the Master Plan projections. The city shall retain the option to purchase property for a public parking facility. City-owned and controlled public parking in the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP) area shall be consistent with the City's certified land use plan. The DPMP is structured to protect beach user parking by providing adequate public parking within the Downtown area. 'The DPMP encourages the use of the City-owned and controlled parking sites within the DPMP area. To encourage the use of the City-owned public parking facilities, parking controls such as time limits, and parking rates may be adjusted to maintain the desired use of these spaces by patrons and employees of the downtown area. A validation program for the City-owned public parking structure has been established as an incentive for the use of the structure by the patrons and employees of the downtown area. Any changes to the program shall be submitted to the Executive Director to determine if an amendment to the Specific Plan is necessary. The Downtown Parking Master Plan anticipates a total development scenario of approximately 710,000 square feet of commercial activity. The DPMP has development thresholds of 144,000 square feet for restaurant, 295,000 square feet for retail, 126,000 square feet for office and 145,000 square feet for miscellaneous development. Area 1 will contain approximately 626,000 square fee of commercial development, with the remaining 84,000 square fee in Area 2. The Planning Department shall be responsible for monitoring the development square footage per land use and the number of parking spaces within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area. An annual review and monitoring report of the Downtown Parking Master Plan shall be prepared by the Planning Department and presented for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Following the review by the City Council, the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission for review. The Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report shall include, at a minimum: 1) amount and type of development square footage approved during the annual review period; 2) total amount of square footage in the Downtown Parking Master Plan area; 3) an inventory of existing parking spaces; 4) a parking utilization study; 5) an assessment of parking demand compared with parking supply; 6) a determination of whether adequate parking remains to serve development allowed up to the total development cap. If the Downtown Parking Master Plan annual review and monitoring report indicates that the parking supply is inadequate to serve the approved level of development or if the development square footage exceeds the amount described above(up to 710,000 square feet total), all development within the Downtown Parking Master Plan area shall provide parking consistent with Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, unless and until new parking to meet the identified demand is approved and constructed. Changes between one or more of the individual use categories may be allowed as long as the total square footage does not exceed 710,000 square feet square feet provided 22 jmp/planning/4-2 ord/10/26/00 2 TABLE 1 PARKING SPACE INVENTORY BLOCK PA ) ON-STREET OFF-STREET _ TOTAL {�A 60 1.7.6 — 236 _ B - 32 285 Y 317 C 34 20 54 D 36 826 862 E n/a n/a n/a F 42 60 102. AREA 7 TOTAL 204 1,367 1,571 G 59 44 103 H 75 78 153 I 22 21 43 AREA 2 TOTAL—� 156 143 299 AREA 1 &2 SUBTOTAL 360 1,510 1,870 131 20 0 20 C1 43 0 43 D1 39 0 39 D2 40 0 40 E1 46 0 46 F1 42 0 42 F2 18 0 18 G1* 71 0 71 PERIPHERY TOTAL 319 0 319 [77TOTAL AREA 1=671,9 1,510 2,189--J1 G1 includes the following street segments(see Figure 1): 6th Street between Orange Avenue and Main Street-west side Main Street between 6th Street and Acacia Avenue-west side Acacia Avenue between Main Streeet and Lake Street-north side Lake Street between Acacia Avenue and Orange Avenue-east side Orange Avenue between 3rd Street and 1st Street-north side -77 ATTACI PNI'-NT NO. DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN CODIFIED PARKING REQUIREMENTS Land Use Huntington Beach Code New Parking Standard Retail 1:200 1:333 Restaurant 1:100 1:100 Office 1:250 1:500 Note: At any time it deems necessary,the Planning Commission may require additional on-site parking to meet the parking demands generated by a use or development. SECTION 3. The Map of the Parking Master Plan is hereby amended as shown on Attachment A hereto. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2000. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: 16 1 / INI TED AND 7OV7ED:__ City Ad inistrator _ Planning Dir ctor 2�1 imp/planning-4-2 ord/10 26 00 4 � - 1_ . LEGISLATIVE DRAFT apfeaehes .. are neeessar-5, r^r each of the ^ . the adjusted parking requirement vias e^'-'•'^tee' for both Area 1 and Area 2 is the same (Figure 4.2). The common parking requirement is based on the shared parking concept for the entire master plan area. Existing and proposed building square footage and uses identified in the technical background report prepared by Kaku Associates (Sept., 2000), entitled `Downtown Parking Master Plan Update," (Appendix — Existing and Proposed Land Use Analysis Blocks A — I) are parked within the public parking supply within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. In the event a property owner demolishes his/her existing building, and rebuilds a new building of equal square footage and use, no additional parking shall be required. DT 574r;4_�knll bn_�r�di}n��i��-n:.r-nt•r'.�nc;^r. ^�• . ^^*�^^ ^�� All req_ir d=parking-shall-be-calculated b s d .tee s ion-the-reducetl requirements of the Downtown Parking;, :aster Plan. Ar-e-Al In Area ! the r-estaurant and retail reduced by thiFty five percent. In f the theateF parking r-equir-emen of eHe (1) b for- every f4f4h seat. This r-eduetien is based en surveys eendue;ed by the tneater industry. These r-eduetiens - space for- ever-5, third seat te ene (1) Expandingnize the time differential and eaptive ;Rar-ket Downtown Master-Plan, he ..eve.• ..dd t: a par-king fnew er- e?ipaneemmereial le 1 7 par-king restaurant and ef&ee uses should be r-equiFed. The majer-ity of publie par-king eppeaunities; euFFently exist in this area and the euffent par-kingexeeeds the demand. This par-king stipply will eentinue te be adequa;a b ' par-king recognizesArea 2 in Area 2 the re-tail and A44--l- ent was reduced by fif4y percent. T-149 b te is based on the minimal number- ef effiee eppeAiw;ities -And- the en site J' uses,Restaurant uses were net given a r-eduetien factor-. Nufnereus eenfliets are er-eated between restaurant and residential Orevide one hundred per-eent ef their-par-king requirement en site. The b thus mbin..t:e., of expanded a street and en site narking may be Recessafy f rrru..r, u�.vrrrv:rrcrcr nd d mme • r..,..'vr ae..i�purrc�ccr coznn7crcicr'c'r�cs:�vire�eY,cr-prnr^v`T'}c�cir tz�rci�-nri-srcnTrcT existing site par-king sheuld be suffiGient feF antieipated uses. All future development pr-9jeets must be earef lly-reviewed fer-paFlEiRgEefiFerH- mix ef eemmerc� ma J H may not be neeessat3, if development dees net eXeeed the Master-Plan The eity shall retain the entien to purchase ,+ . f' bl' 1 f •l•t . _ ..Y_..... _., Y».....»..., t,...,Y....J ...., ..t,..v,,., Y�rrr�rrrb .uv.,a.). The Planning Commission or City Council may impose one (1), all, or a combination of the following requirements to ensure that adequate parking is provided for each development: 1. Require projects over 30,000 sq. ft. or one-half(1/2) block in size provide 50% of.the code-required parking identified in Figure 31 4.2. en sitepar-rir r all t 1, ,F�, �7� 1 l , ^ bf r'r J e greater- � . v RECEIVED FROM •{ wtc �'1a AND MADE APART OFf THE RECORD yp�THE COUNCIL MEETING OF_ 71—f�-s'p OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK Ff eaN�r►� Downtown Parking Master Plan D LIs k,�bs+-P , c4v#►Irl/L Pv1,1,. A. The Consultant recommends the City encourage all HE&O.rf'] . $l i de future projects proposing a density of development fora 0 commercial project that is over 30,000 square feet to E POf1` t+¢S F.rde provide and satisfy at kart 50%of the City's code- l y 1Pl&I COM*4u s WWA required parking(Consultant estimates 150 to 200 spaces i V811�o00( would be added). Commission's recommendation is that the 50%be required,not optional,based on the proposed Downtown Parking Master Plan. Not requiring the 50%reduces available shared parking and establishes an unfair policy for property owners on Main Street. f Downtown Parking Master Plan Examples of making 50%an option based on a cost of 513,000 per parking space: PLAZA ALMERIA Cost$1,092,000 Required to provide 100•/.parking on-site 41,000 square foot project 100%=168 spaces on-site,50%=84 BLOCKS 104,105 Savings$468,000 Required to provide less than SON•on-site 233,000 square foot project 100%=878 spaces on-site,SOY.=439 Staffs recommendation is 403 parking spaces. This is 36 parking spaces below the 50%. 1 Downtown Parking Master Plan B. The Commission is recommending credits for parking be broken out by area. If a project is built in Area One that requires more shared parking than is available in Area One,credit from Area Two cannot be used. *Future conditions in Area One show a shortage of 210 spaces(caused by a current shortage of 395 spaces in Area one),which is partially compensated by a surplus of 185 spaces in Area Two. *Downtown Parking Master Plan Update Kaku Associates,September 27,2000 Downtown Parking Master Plan Parking Space Inventory EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY(1999) 017-STREET BLOCK(PAZ) ON-STREET PRIVATE PUBLIC TOTAL A 60 119 57 236 B 32 285 0 317 C 34 20 0 54 D 36 0 826 862 E N/A N/A N/A N/A F 42 60 0 102 AREA 1 TOTAL 294 484 293 "71 O 59 44 0 103 H 75 78 0 113 I 22 21 O 43 AREA 3 TOTAL 156 143 0 299 AREA 1!2 TOTAL 360 627 $83 1,370 ]FUTURE PARKING SUPPLY OFF-STREET BLOCK(PAZ) ON-STREET PRIVATE PUBLIC TOTAL A 22 403 0 425 B 32 285 0 317 C 42 20 0 62 D 36 0 826 862 E 36 168 0 204 F 42 60 0 102 AREA 1 TOTAL 210 936 826 1,9m O 59 44 0 103 H 75 78 0 153 1 22 21 0 43 AREA 2 TOTAL 156 143 0 299 AREA I&2 TOTAL 366 1,079 826 2,271 2 I I Downtown Parking Master Plan Main Pier Project Area and Downtown Core Third Quarter Saks Tax Revenue(July—Sept) Year Main Pier %Change Downtown Core %Change 1995 152,522 • 121,292 1996 138,722 -9.050/0 99,891 -17.64% 1997 137,372 -0.970/o 98,526 -1.37% 1998 160,920 17.14% 118,478 20.25% 1999 201,460 25.19% 126,942 7.14% •Dowrtown Core Area ircludes the tblbwmg business addresses: Pacific Coast Nghway,102-698(even numbers only);Main Street,101-816;2nd Street;3rd Street;5th Street;6th Street;lake Shed,and Olive,Orange&Walout Avenues. vIbe Main-Pier project area iockWes the Downtown Core phis the Waterfront Hilton Resort,Pier businesses,the Grinder Rest wrart,Tndewind h>8a<ables and beach concessionaires. 3 'EGEIVED FROM b LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A",ND MADE hi�ARTOF THE RECORD ATTHECOUNCI00 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CO INIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK the adjusted parking requirement*raster} b4L for both Area I and Area 2 is"the same (Figure 4.2). The common parking requirement is based on the shared parking concept for the entire ME �n9 master plan area. Existing and proposed building square footage and uses identified in the technical background report prepared by Kaku Associates (Sept., IT?I entitled `Downtown Parking Master Plan Update " (Appendix sting and )Proposed Land Use Analysis Blocks A — � are parked within the public parking supply within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. In the event a property owner demolishes his/her existing building, and rebuilds a new building of equal square footage and use, no additional parking shall be required, - _-- _- _ .. _ 41 — All required parking shall be calculated based on the reduced requirements of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. d b @ en site a • , r The Planning Commission or City Council may impose one (1), all,or a combination of the following requirements to ensure that adequate parking is provided for each development: — 1. Require projects over 30,000 sq. ft. or one-half(1!2) block in size provide 50% of the code-required arking identified in Figure 31 4.2. D ' I MEETING DATE: November 6, 2000 DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REQUESTING: Planning Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3/Local C oastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 (Downtown Parking Master Plan) City Attarn-er-- Adgption-e€-Resel el-LIL'jrL-y j11Tg-Specia:FA*sessmeAts o to ;�•-�C"7'-:.•, rzsc:.sr.,� rn-n —. ;s. Cl) c7? C� 7, r_ TODAY'S DATE October 19, 2000 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: t APPROVED BY: Ray Silver City Administrator 10/19700 4:12 PM I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE .CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,November 6, 2000, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-2 (DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN UPDATE): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach. Request: To amend Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan updating the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The update consists of recommendations to consolidate the two designated areas within the master plan, revisions to the parking ratios and requirements, and increase of the overall development cap. 'The request includes an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program(LCP)by incorporating the revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan.)Location: Downtown Specific Plan—area generally bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Acacia Avenue, and Second Street. Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)#1 is covered under Statutory Exemption, Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).jn addition,the Downtown Parking Master Plan land use and development potential has been analyzed under the General Plan EIR No. 94-1 and the Redevelopment Plan Merger EIR No. 96-2. ) ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after November 2, 2000. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (G\1ega1s\counci1\00\00cc l l 06) PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I am a Citizen of the United States and a BEFORE_THE, - CITY COUNCIL OF resident of the County aforesaid' I am THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON over the age of eighteen years, and not a BEACH ' NOTICE IS HEREBY party to or interested in the below GIVEN that on Monday, November 6, 2000, at 7:00 PM in the City entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of Council Chambers, Hunt- the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a ingtonMB Main Street; Council will hold a public newspaper of general circulation, printed hearing on the following plammng and zoning and published in the City of Huntington Items: 1. ZONING TEXT Beach, County of Orange State of AMENDMENT OA r 99-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMEND- California, and that attached Notice is a MENT NO. 00-2 DOWNTOWN PARK - true - true and complete copy as was printed NG MASTER PLAN UPDATE): Applicant: and published in the Huntington Beach city . o Huntington Beach. Request: To Huntington Beach, Call- and Fountain Valley issues of said amend Section Spec ific of fomia 9 S 2M, for inspec- the Downtown Spec tion by the public.A copy newspaper to wit the issue town Parking Master s) of: Plan updating the Down- of th staff report will Plan. The update con- available to, interested sists of recommend- parties at the, City ations to consolidate the Clerk's Office after N 7 October 26 , 2000 two designated areas ember 2, 2000. within the master plan, ALL INTERESTED revisions to the parking PERSONS are invited to ratios and requirements, attend said hearing and . and increase of the express opinions or overall development submit evidence for or cap. The request in- against the application dudes an amendment to as outlined above. If you the City's Local Coastal challenge the City Coun- Program (LCP) by in- cii's action in court, you corporating the revisions may be limited to raising I declare, under penalty of perjury, that to the Downtown Spe- only those issues you or cific Plan. . Location: someone else raised at the foregoing is true and correct. Downtown Specific'Plan the public hearing de- area generally scribed in this notice, bounded by Pacific or in written cor- Coast Highway, Sixth respondence delivered Street, Acacia Avenue, to the City at,or prior to, Executed on and• Second Street. the public hearing. If October 2 6 2 0 0 0 Project Planner: Wayne ttqhere are p any further he at Costa Mesa Carvalho. Plannng Departmentase itat California. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Items)#1 is 536-5271 and refer to covered•under Statutory the above items. Direct Exemption, Section your'written communica- 45262 of the California tions to the City Clerk. Environmental Quality Connie Brockway, Act. (GEQA). In addition, PlIty Clerk, the Downtown Parking city.of, Master Plan land use Huntington:"Beach, andas development ly e d 2000 Maln StreK Roar, fiat has been analyzed � 2nd Floor, under the General Plan Huntington Beach,' EIR No. 94-1 and the California 9264ti Signature Redevelopment Plan (714) 536-5227 a Merger EIR No. 96-2. Published Huntington ON FILE:A copy of the, Beach-Fountain Valley proposed request is on Independent 'October file n the City Clerks Of- 26, 2000 ' lice, 2000 Main Street, 104-105 CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: �ZZTA qlf- 3 A�A-- 60 "a-- DEPARTMENT: VL 14N 18 MEETING DATE: 6- CONTACT: W:S/05 CAfz�VALFf0 PHONE: Ssg5 N/A YES NQ ( ) (yam ( ) Is the notice attached? ' ( ) (✓� ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? If an appeal,is the appellant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ) (vj Is a map attached for publication? Is a larger ad required? Size ( ) ( ) (vl� Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? sjA-W F-" . ( ) ( } (vj' Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? Q17y &f:r- (vY ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? (vy' ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: l. Minimum days from publication to hearing date l d 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications 21 W10965 aasel �W�iT — V, %, ej ssa 024-133-09 024-133-12,ST/H l-2$ I173-vi 024-133-13 937- 112- 33 MANFRED &KARIN LENGSFELD ROBERT J.KOURY TOWN SQUARE MASTER COMMUNI TY PO BOX 1047 PO BOX 65176 WRIIABOREE RD TUSTIN CA 92781-1047 LOS ANGELES CA 90065-0176 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 024-133-14 024-133-15 024-133-16 DANIEL SALERNO RICHARD R.&DONNA A.AMADRIL RICHARD F.&JEANETTE B.MORAN 419 MAIN ST#111 506 PIERSIDE CIR 508 PIERSIDE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5199 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4676 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4676 024-133-17 024-133-18 024-133-19 FRANK DISPALATRO CONNOR MARY RENEAU-O KEVIN SHULTZ 512 PIERSIDE CIR 514 PIERSIDE CIR 515 PIERSIDE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4676 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4677 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4675 024-133-20 024-133-21 024-133-22 DAVID W.BROADFOOT LARRY A.HALL DOUGLAS R.J.CAMPBELL 513 PIERSIDE CIR 511 PIERSIDE CIR 507 PIERSIDE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4675 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4675 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4675 024-133-23 024-133-24 024-133-25 RAY MICHAELS MICHAEL W.MC CARTHY CARTHY STEVE S.GOLGOLAB 4311 E OSBORN RD 503 PIERSIDE CIR 501 PIERSIDE CIR PHOENIX AZ 85018-5923 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4643 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4643 024-133-261 zj 2°I .50,`;Z 31 024-133-27 024-133-29 TOWN SQR TOWNHOME_S ASSN TOWN SQUARE STER COMMUNI TY MOLA DE LOPMENT CORP 4699 JAMBOREE RD �BFAIIBIBOREE RD 4699 JAMBOREE RD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 024-133-30 024-133-31 02 -133-32 TOWN SQUARE MASTS OMMUNI TY ASSN TOWN SQ RE MASTER COMMUNI TY ASSN TOWN ARE MASTER COMMUNI TY ASS 4699 JAMBOREE RD 4699 JAMBOR RD 4699 JAMBOREE RD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 024-133-33 024-133-34 024-133-35 TOWN SQU E MASTER COMMUNI TY ASSN MARK A.NAJERA JLK TRUST PT 4699 JAMBORENRD 410 TOWNSQUARE LN 408 TOWNSQUARE LN NEWPORT BEACH 92660-2504 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4604 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4604 024-133-36 024-133-37 024-133-38 SCOT D.CAMPBELL ARTHUR LINCOLN HOPKINS ROB�EK 406 TOWNSQUARE LN 404 TOWNSQUARE LN PO HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4604 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4604 LOS ANGELES CA 90065-0176 0 133-39 024-133-41 024-133-42 ROBER .KOURY 501 MAIN INC JAMES P.&BETTY D.YOUNG PO BOX 65 6 201 WILSHIRE BLVD#A26 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#318 LOS ANGELS CA 90065-0176 SANTA MONICA CA 90401-1212 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 0091S aoj a;eldwal ash W,,s19a4s paaA 410ows W1096S losel slagel ssaippv oAU3AH 024-134-01 024-134-02 024-134-03 JAMES RILEY&GWENDOLYN G.FOX CITY OF TINGTON BEACH R MAMIE L.VANDERFORD 11783 ETON DR g p iWf HC 63 BOX 335 GRAND TERRACE CA 92313-5124 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 MOUNT IDA AR 71957-9776 024-134-04 024-134-05 024-134-06 DIANA TR FOR KANTOLA MANDIC ROBERT P JR TR OF A LBERTA BRANKO &LOUISE CAVIC 1361 PARKSIDE DR 1361 PARKSIDE DR 8940 EL PRESIDENTE AVE RIVERSIDE CA 92506-4721 RIVERSIDE CA 92506-4721 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-4307 024-134-07 024-134-08 02 134-09 BRANKO &LOUISE CAVIC BRANKO &LOUISE CAVIC CHARL C.SHIN 8940 EL PRESIDENTE AVE 8940 EL PRESIDENTE AVE FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-4307 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-4307 0 134-10 � 024-134-11 024-134-12� CYSO FAU H SZUBA VICTOR DAVID R.&SALLY J.HOPPE 437 LAKE ST 16291 MANDALAY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5202 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2107 024-134-13 024-134-14 024-134-15 KOICHI &YOKI HIRANO GEORG T.CHRISTA DIANA TR FOR KANTOLA 429 LAKE ST 10245 VIRGINIA AVE 1361 PARKSIDE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5202 SOUTH GATE CA 90280-6567 RIVERSIDE CA 92506-4721 024-134-17 024-134-18 024-134-19 ANDREW L.ORENS RICHARD ORENS THOMAS L.&BETTY J.WICKSTROM 207 APPLETREE AVE 407 LAKE ST 21571 SURVEYOR Cl CAMARILLO CA 93012-5192 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5221 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-7066 024-134-21 024-134-22 024-143-26 MARC POSCH HOWARD D.&JANICE M.HARRIS STANLEY &LOUISE DORN 411 LAKE ST 413 LAKE ST 362 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5221 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5221 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5120 024-144-01 024-144-02 024-144-03 ALICE PARNAKIAN BOLEN R D&P L 1999 TRUST ROBERT D.&PATRICIA LEE BOLEN 205 1ST ST 1818 PINE ST 1818 PINE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5303 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2742 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2742 024-144-04 024-144-10 024-144-11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ALICE PARNAKIAN LEON E.DUBOV 6771 WARNER AVE 205 1ST ST 20222 DEERVALE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-9000 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5303 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-4741 024-144-12 024-144-13 024-144-14 BEN TRAINER MARCUS M.MC CALLEN CALLEN Y.H.SUN 30 FAIRWAY DRIVE 123 PEACOCK DR 16721 CAROUSEL LN SAN RAFAEL CA 94901-2314 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901-1552 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2119 00915 loj aleldwal ash Wislaags pa9A 410ows W,096S Josef slagel ssaippy oAU3AV DU 024-147-01 024-147-03 024-147-05 BEACH REDEV P MENT AGENC DONALD GALITZEN WILLIAM G.&PHILOMENE P.GALLEGOS tmwwo 9770 JAMES RIVER CIR 208 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-7308 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5118 0 47-08 024-147-09,0$ 024-147-14 SURF CITY C ITAL SURF CITY CAPITAL LTD DOUGLAS M.S.LANGEVIN 6621 E PACIFIC COAST HWY# 8196 PAWTUCKET DR LONG BEACH CA 90803-4200 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6736 024-147-15 024-147-23 024-147-25 CDB LAND&FARMING LLC TIMOTHY PATRICK&MICHELE MARIE RICHARD A.HARLOW 215&215 1/2 MAIN ST TWYMESHWATER CIR 1742 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1122 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2723 4-147-28 4-147-29 024-147-30 ROBE J.KOURY SURF Cl APITAL WILLIAM G.&PHILOMENE P.GALLEGOS 200 MAIN #206 210 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-8123 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5118 024-\OFH 0 -147-33 024-147-34 CITY TINGTON BEACH CITY OF�HGTON BEACH RED OPMENT AGENCY OF CI TY OF POBOX1902000 MA ITAAAIN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-0190 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON AB EA 92648-2702 024-147-35 024-147-36 024-147-37 TAYLOR FAMILY TRUST COAST SPECIALTIES P.ROJECT#2 ORANGE GARY HATCH 220 VIA SAN REMO 633 E CHAPMAN AVE PO BOX 5653 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663-5512 ORANGE CA 92866-1604 LAKE HAVASU CITY AZ 86404-0211 024-147-38 024-147-39 024-147-40 JOHN C.GALLAGHER BEN ADAM TRAINER THOMAS A.CAVERLY 3255 REVA DR C 30 FAIRWAY DRIVE 553 TEMPLE HILLS DR CONCORD CA 94519-2127 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901-2314 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651-2629 024-14 024-152-01 024-152-02 SHIRLEY D.WORTHY BEACH DEVELOP MENT AGENC 801 13TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3434 HUNTINGTON 8 H CA 92648-2702 024- 2-03 4-152-04 024-152-05 CITY OF H TINGTON BEACH R EDEV BEACH ELOP MENT AGENC BEAC EDEVELOP MENT AGENC S AIN ST 1m�i�Jwgv m� HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 48-2702 HUNTINGTON BEA A 92648-2702 024-152-10 024-152-11 024-152-12 FRANK M.CRACCHIOLO B H REDEVELOP MENT AGENCB�Iii ii��II REDEVELOP MENT AGENC 19712 QUIET BAY LN m m I IN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2616 HUNTINGTON B CA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTO ACH CA 92648-2702 p091S joj a}e}dwal ash wlslaayS paaj 410ows W1096S lam slagel ssaippy (DAIMAVV 024-152-13 024-152-14 024-153-01 REDEVEL ENT AGENCY CITY OF BEACH R EVELOP MENT AGENC REDE OPMENT AGENCY OF Cl TY OF imif l ST irif M8TMAIN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON B CH CA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON ACH CA 92648-2702 024-153-02 024-153-03 024-153-04 RED ELOPMENT AGENCY OF Cl TY OF �kKCH AGENCY OF Cl TY OF JAMES A.LANE TIUI ST 637 FRANKFORT AV HUNTING BEACH CA 92648-2702 CA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4902 024-153-05 024-153-07 024-153-10 RONALD A.MASE BANK OF COMMERCE REDEV MENT AGENCY CITY OF 16642 INTREPID LN 9918 HIBERT ST#301 LCIiV S HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2826 SAN DIEGO CA 92131-1018 HUNTINGTON BEA H CA 92648-2702 024-153-11 024-153-16 024-153-17 ELDON WILLARD BAGSTAD REDEV OPMENT AGENCY OF CI TY OF GEORGE E.DRAPER 901 CATALINA AVE 1MT AIN 1210 PECAN AV SEAL BEACH CA 90740-5851 HUNTINGTON CH CA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4533 024-153-18 024 53-21 024-153-23 FRANK ALFONSO REDEVEL %BEA ENCY CITY OF ABDELMUTI DEVELOPMENT CO 6630 VICKIVIEW DR ST 101 MAIN ST WEST HILLS CA 91307-2749 HUNTINGTCA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-8118 024-154-01 024-154-02 024-154-03 MOHAMMED ZEIDAN CAROL J.FARRIS MORNING JADE CORPORATION 7021 SEAL CIR 3417 BUCKEYE PL 11642 PINE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3035 NEWBURY PARK CA 91320-5433 LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720-4159 024-154-04 024-154-17 024-172-01 LINDA D.BIGGS LLC KYRAY JOHN R.&PEGGY J.KNOX 125 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 16210 BERTELLA DR 13472 TULANE ST MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266-5431 ENCINO CA 91436-3302 WESTMINSTER CA 92683-1755 024-172-02 o3 0 -172-03 024-172-04 JAMES TRAVIS MC BEATH JAMES T.MC TH BEATH THOMAS SANETTI 19522 WESTWINDS LN 19522 WESTWINDS L 529 LAKE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-3326 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-3326 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4909 024-172-05,0 24-172-06 024-172-07 VIRGIL E.BREWSTER VIRGIL . REWSTER GUS ZISAKIS 7922 SPEER AVE 7922 SPEER 16351 TUFTS LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6728 HUNTINGTON BEACH 2647-6728 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4058 024-172-09 024-172-10 024-172-11 KIM J.EUN LEWIE P.DERIGO DAVE M.&DIANA L.BONNADONNA 17681 HELENBROOK LN $0 Mai S4 16915 EDGEWATER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4860 ��t pry (j��► Cci �f 21���s HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4205 0091S aoj aleldwal ash W1sla94S paaJ 410OWS W10965 aasel slagej ssaaPPd cAU3AV �U 024-172-12 024-1 -01 024-173-02 CITY OF TINGTON BEACH SCOTT R.CLE D GLORIA GAY TREECE 2000 MAIN ST 789 ORPHEUS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 ENCINITAS CA 92024-2156 024-173-03 024-173-04 024-173-05 KERRY L.PIEROPAN ROBE�6517 DRAPER GEORGE E TRUST PT 201 MAGNOLIA PO B 1210 PECAN AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LOS ANGELES CA 90065-0176 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4533 937-19-154 937-19-155 937-19-156 JANICE L.KLOTH ROBERT SCOTT FISHER HARRY R.&KAY L.DUNNE 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#101 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#102 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#103 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-157 937-19-158 937-19-159 EDWARD R.&MICHELE HUTCHISON GERALD D.&DOLORES SHULTZ ANDREW WILLIAM MIGLIACCIO 4782 CITRIODORA AV 11304 E PRINCE RD 8691 SALT LAKE DR YORBA LINDA CA 92886-2535 TUCSON AZ 85749-9039 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-3245 937-19-160 937-19-161 937-19-162 KERRY L.&BARBARA D.PENDERGAST PAMELA LEWIS ARTHUR R.&CAROL L.H.MONTSINGER 7175 OROZCO DR 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#108 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#109 RIVERSIDE CA 92506-5561 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-163 937-19-164 937-19-165 DONALD CHARLES THOMPSON ROBERT P.&MILDRED A.CASTRO JEFFREY M.&MARY L.HARDEN 415 TOWNSQUARE LN ill 2313 SAINT BEDES CT 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#112 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 RESTON VA 20191-1621 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-166 937-19-167 937-19-168 ROBERT T.MILLER PARMANAND PARIKH �1 BHARTI Y.PARIKH 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#113 i4i S -Ttw 0,S a Ur.re '� I l 6872 ROOK DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 I�vn h'AOf7 h (3Pcch,CA � ` HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-5665 937-19-169 937-19-170 937-19-171 WAYNE HELLER CARL R.&N.L.TRUS ANDERSON JOHN BEHLMER 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#123 3722 E SHOMI CT 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#125 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 PHOENIX AZ 85044-4526 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-172 937-19-173 937-19-174 RICHARD &DONNA RIGGLE DAWN MARIE WALKER MARIA TERESA DISPALATRO 513 N CHALBURN AVE 28627 MT WHITNEY WY 512 PIERSIDE CIR WEST COVINA CA 91790-1446 RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275-1829 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4676 937-19-175 937-19-176 937-19-177 SUSAN LYNN SCHWARTZ JOHN &CARLA D.HOOKER KAREN HEIDT 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#202 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#203 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#204 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 00915 joj aleidwal ash w jslaa4S PDA y10OWS W1096S Jasel slagel ssaippd ®AU--3AV 937-19-178 937-19-179 937-19-180 RICHARD OTTO VICTOR J.SMITH AKEMI SAWADA 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#205 220 W SPRINGFIELD AVE 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#207 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2704 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-181 937-19-182 937-19-183 WESLEY O.SMITH SCOTT MCCARTY JEFFERY D.HENLEY 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#208 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#209 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#210 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 937-19-184 937-19-185 937-19-186 THOMAS A.SAUER ELMER PHIBBS GERALD V.HOLOMBO 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#211 15642 SUNBURST LN 201 THATCHER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-2945 FOSTER CITY CA 94404-3950 937-19-187 937-19-188 937-19-189 SANDRA WARF FRED L.&MARGARET O.SHAFER JOSEPH FAZIO 339 REGATTA WAY 8262 SNOWBIRD DR 918 MAIN ST SEAL BEACH CA 90740-5987 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-5546 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3419 937-19-190 937-19-191 937-19-192 , TOM DIXON BRIAN EMERSON KEITH B.BOHR 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#217 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#218 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#219 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926484678 937-19-193 937-19-194 937-19-195 (TR) ARNOLD _ DAVID BURNETT LARRY G.FREUDE 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#220 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#221 12925 ARABELLA PL HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 CERRITOS CA 90703-6101 937-19-196 937-19-197 937-19-198 RICHARD L.&VALERIE DEEN MICHAEL R.&TAMLYN K.HAGEMEISTER BRUCE TRUST PT 2661 E CHARLINDA ST 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#224 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#225 WEST COVINA CA 91791-2901 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 937-19-199 937-19-200 937-19-201 MARISA O'NEIL GEORGE R.&JENNIFER L.VILLANO RITA SADAKO RICHARDSON - 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#226 6886 CAMBRIA COVE CIRCLE 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#301 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2640 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 937-19-202 937-19-203 937-19-204 BRIAN LEECING MICHAEL P.DELANEY NORMAN W.&TSARINA L.BRANYAN ' 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#302 7548 THOUSAND OAKS DR 19631 DEARBORNE Cl HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 TUJUNGA CA 91042-2625 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-6648 937-19-205 937-19-206 937-19-207 � I PETER OAKES PAXSON MYRA F.MICHELSON JULIAN CUMMINGS 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#305 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#306 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#309 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 p09LS ioj aleldwal asn w,slaays paaA 410ows Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 937- -208 937-19-209 937-19-210 MARIBETH KO JULIAN C.CUMMINGS JENE W.LONGO _ `'f'S W Tc o,6Ott Lu g 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#310 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 937-19-211 937-19-212 937-19-213 SABINE WROMAR ELEANOR MICHELSON JAMES &CARRIE BALDOVIN ' 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#312 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#313 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#314 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 937-19-214 937-19-215 937-19-216 DARRICK USIADEK SHELLEY L.JOHNSON STEVE LAZATIN 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#315 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#316 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#317 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 937-19-217 937-19-218 937-19-219 TIMOTHY P.YOUNG RALPH DIFIORE SZUBA TED L&CAROL A 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#318 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#319 320 6TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926484602 937-19-220 937-19-221 937-19-222 SHELDON &BARBARA S.PINCHUK PETER &NANCY T.CROWLEY JOHN P.MURRAY 4440 VANCEBORO CT 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#322 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#323 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91364-5665 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 937-19-223 937-19-224 937-19-225 ROGER D.ANDERSON ARTHUR R.NICHOLS ROBERT VIEFHAUS 419 MAIN ST#88 PO BOX 549 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#326 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5199 PLACENTIA CA 92871-0549 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926484679 937-19-226 937-19-232 937-19-233 ROBERT D.HOOP CITY OF H INGTON BEACH ROBE KOURY 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#327 2000 MAIN ST 200 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEAC A 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON BEA H CA 92648-8123 939-50-510 939-50-511 939-50-512 MARILYN MONTERO GORDON HAIN MICHAEL MING-PING TSAI 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#101 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#102 1878 CALLE LA PAZ HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 91748-2508 939-50-513 939-50-514 939-50-515 LOUIS &MARIA NEMETH VANETTA WIHLIDAL WOLFGANG &MARY HAUBOLD 19721 WATERBURY LN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#105 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#106 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-3500 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 i 939-50-516 939-50-517 939-50-518 + / RUDY J.SANCHEZ FRANCISCO R.FABREGAS JOHN A.CREWS 987 VERONA DR 18401 HAMPTON CT 13653 BEACH ST FULLERTON CA 92835-3338 NORTHRIDGE CA 91326-3601 CERRITOS CA 90703-1433 0AVE RY0 Address Labels Laser 5960TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 939-50-519 939-50-520 939-50-521 t PETER J.CAGNEY RAY EWING GORGEN G.YOUSSEFIAN 210 W TEMPLE ST#18-121 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#11 2530 UNION AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90012-3210 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 LA HABRA CA 90631-5837 939-50-522 939-50-523 939-50-524 BARTLETT TRUST PT TODD GARCIA HWANG ERNIE&KATHRYN 607 7TH ST 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#114 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#115 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4612 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5124 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 939-50-525 939-50-526 939-50-527 DIANNE THOMPSON WILLIAM H.GRIFFITH JAMES E.FISH 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#116 806 S SAPPHIRE LN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#118 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 ANAHEIM CA 92807-4854 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 939-50-528 939-50-529 939-50-530 DANIEL T.O'BRIEN RICHARD CHARLES MICHALIK MARIANO S.&LUCITA M.CRUZ 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#119 7041 BIG SPRINGS CT 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#121 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 LAS VEGAS NV 89113-1361 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 939-50-531 939-50-532 939-50-533 i DONALD GALITZEN AMALIA E.SALAZAR WILLIAM &BONNIE COPELAND 9770 JAMES RIVER CIR 835 SAN MARINO AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#124 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-7308 MONTEBELLO CA 90640-5525 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5178 939-50-534 939-50-535 939-50-536 VIDAL E.ESPELETA MANOUC B.SIMSIAN FRANCISCO ALBIZU , 2746 N VISTA HEIGHTS AV PO BOX 661884 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#127 ORANGE CA 92867-1757 ARCADIA CA 91066-1884 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5178 939-50-537 939-50-538 939-50-539 PAUL C.&DEBORAH SUE BYRNE DE ETTE PIER INC JOHN D.&KATHRYN D.PARRISH 6732 ALAMITOS CIR 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#130 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1537 ARCADIA CA 91007-6110 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5184 939-50-540 . 939-50-541 939-50-542 LEONARD LEE&NANCY S.BAILEY MEI HUI WANG BOHNKE JOANNE TRUST&PT 1377 E CITRUS AV#157 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#132 595 E COLORADO BLVD#810 REDLANDS CA 92374-4012 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5184 PASADENA CA 91101-2001 939-50-543 939-50-544 939-50-545 RANDOLPH C.PAYNE . SHIN-El U S A INC STEVEN RUSSELL&MARGARET ANN 6201 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE §AA4fMARYS CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-6103 ARCADIA CA 91007-6110 SANTA ANA CA 92705-6112 939-50-546 939-50-547 939-50-548 GINA C.C.YU MICHAEL R.&LINDA M.WOMACK SEBASTIAN J.CALABRO 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#138 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#139 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#140 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5185 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5185 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5185 �� AYERYD Address Labels Laser 5960TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM — Use template for 5160) 939-50-549 939-50-550,5l 939-50-551 RODNEY L.&REGINA A.ALBRIGHT BARTLETT TRUST PT BARTLETT ST PT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#141 607 7TH ST 607 7TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5185 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4612 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4612 939-50-552 939-50-553 939-50-554 J.E.&DOLORES M.ASH SHU ME[TSAI MARY TRACY 48322 MONTERRA CIR E 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#145 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#146 PALM DESERT CA 92260-6607 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 939-50-555 939-50-556 939-50-557 CHARLES W.SCHMIDT RICHARD C.&KAREN J.THEIL MICHAEL A.COLACARRO 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#147 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#148 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#149 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 939-50-558 939-50-559 939-50-560 TODD C.RYNEARSON ANTHONY T.&SHEILA M.LEE JACK M.FRYER 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#150 18422 VILLA DR 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#208 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 VILLA PARK CA 92861-2812 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 939-50-561 939-50-562 939-50-563 JESSICA L.PIZANO ROSS W.AMSPOKER ` EDWARD JOHN RUTYNA 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#209 36449 TIERRA SUBIDA AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#216 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 PALMDALE CA 93551-7956 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 939-50-564 939-50-565 939-50-566 WILLIAM P.LALLY KATHERINE BIXBY EMMA NIZNIK 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#217 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#218 343 S AVE 52 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 LOS ANGELES CA 90042-4505 939-50-567 939-50-568 939-50-569 ERIC M.&CHRISTINA T.YAO GUILHERME L.FARJALLA TAKIS &JOANNE STATHOULIS 25 WARMSPRING 21776 TAHOE LN 12050 WOODRUFF AVE IRVINE CA 92614-5422 LAKE FOREST CA 92630-1931 DOWNEY CA 90241-5604 939-50-570 939-50-571 939-50-572 ALFONSO RAGUS LLACUNA ROBINSON ROBERT J TR OF OK IDOKI MARIO &LORRAINE RICCIARDI 321 N OAKHURST DR 2950 E LA JOLLA ST 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#239 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210-4175 ANAHEIM CA 92806-1307 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5189 939-50-573 939-50-574 939-50-575 ALTE CO LTD THEODORE C.&KELLY A.FRANKIEWICZ MICHAEL JOHNSON 4-11-20 MINAMI SENBA CHUO-KU OSAKA 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#245 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#250 JAPAN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5190 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5190 939-50-576 939-50-577 939-50-578 HAZEM I.&NOHA SABRY RICHAR A.MILLER JAMES B.LIM 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#300 7956 PAINTER AV 1762 SOMBRERO DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5190 WHITTIER CA 90602-2413 MONTEREY PARK CA 91754-2264 aAVERY0 Address Labels Laser 5960TM Smooth Feed Sheets TM —Use template for 51600 939-50-579 l 939-50-580 939-50-581 HUNG THAI TRAN CHET COX JUNKO UEDA 8006 N EL DORADO ST 2232 CHATSWORTH CT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#306 STOCKTON CA 95210-2306 HENDERSON NV 89014-5309 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5191 939-50-582 939-50-583 939-50-584 ' ALFONS R.&MARY A.IBRAHIM KELLY K.DITMORE MAURICE H.GERARD 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#307 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#309 8311 SNOWBIRD DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5191 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5191 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6120 939-50-585 14 939-50-586 939-50-587 DANIEL FISCHER LAURA L.STOUT HAHN TRUST PT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#312 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#313 2904 E ECHO HILL WAY ` HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5191 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5191 ORANGE CA 92867-1904 939-50-588 939-50-589 939-50-590 CARY T.HAIRABEDIAN HAMILTON LORETTA LEE TR OF THE B MARK A.MILLER 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#315 17200 NEWHOPE ST#221-A 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#317 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5192 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-4240 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5192 939-50-591 939-50-592 939-50-593 SCOTT W.GRANGER JEFFREY G.HOLMES CLAY GRIFFIN EPPERSON 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#319 17000 SAMAR DR PO BOX 11927 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5192 COSTA MESA CA 92626 COSTA MESA CA 92627-0291 939-50-594 939-50-595 939-50-597 STACY LOGAN MAMDOUH Y.&EBTESAM A.KHALED WAYNE W.&THERESA R.RYLSKI 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#323 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#324 9770 LA ZAPATILLA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5192 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5193 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-3531 939-50-598 939-50-599 939-50-600 JUSTIN &VICKIE LEE BRANSON SHIN-EI U S A INC MICHAEL B.NESTOR 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#328 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#332 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5193 ARCADIA CA 91007-6110 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5193 939-50-601 939-50-602 939-50-603 SYLVIA SUE MOHUNDRO RANDOLPH C.PAYNE ERNEST &RUTH FELD 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#334 6201 MORNINGSIDE DR 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#336 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5193 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-6103 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5194 .939-50-604 939-50-605 939-50-606 ROGER DEAN WILHELM KOJI OKACHI JACK T.PARKS 4598 PARK HILL DR 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#341 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124-4785 ARCADIA CA 91007-6110 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5194 939-50-607 939-50-608 939-50-609 GREINKE CATHLEEN S TRUST P WILLIAM H.&KATHLEEN M.BYERS PEGGIE CHERIE PEARSON 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#342 433 BEACON HILL DR 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#345 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5194 COPPELL TX 75019-3717 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5195 �� AVERYo Address labels Laser 5960TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 939-50-610 939-50-611 939-50-612 DAVID T.&DONNA J.SKIDMORE ALLISON M.RICHMAN ROBERT B.&BARBARA M.BRYANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY UNIT#346 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#347 23 BOGEY LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5195 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5195 COTO DE CAZA CA 92679-4929 939-50-613 939-50-614 939-50-615 PAUL H.STRAIN HUGH &VICTORIA A.LOVE MAURICE GERARD 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#349 12082 E LAUREL LN 8311 SNOWBIRD DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5195 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85259-3349 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6120 939-50-616 939-50-617 939-50-618 JEFFREY A.DROESSLER JEFFERY MARTIN SHIN-EI USA INC t 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#404 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#406 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5196 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5196 ARCADIA CA 91007-6110 939-50-619 939-50-620 939-50-621 t LOUIS S.&MARGARET L.CHAVEZ GENE V.IANSITI JEAN(TR)FERRIN 1267 W KILDARE ST 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#413 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#415 LANCASTER CA 93534-2232 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5196 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5196 939-50-622 939-50-623 939-50-624 MARIO JAMES&LORRAINE RICCIARDI H1EN DUC TRAN ROBIN C.ADAIR 6210 MOONSHADOW PL 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#418 3321 ADMIRALTY DR ALTA LOMA CA 91737-7759 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5197 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2802 939-50-625 939-50-626 939-50-627 BIANCA HOLWERDA THOMAS E.&CAROL M.MC CANN GAMINI &SHIRANI GUNAWARDANE 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#422 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#424 937 FINNELL WAY HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5197 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5197 PLACENTIA CA 92870-4446 939-50-628 939-50-629 939-50-630 MARY SEIF • PERRI &SARINA PUTRASAHAN , ADEL ZEIDAN 1200 IMPERIAL DR 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#439 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#443 GLENDALE CA 91207-1526 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5197 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5198 939-50-631 939-50-632 939-50-633 \ t • LESLIE &JUDITH PINCHUK ROBERT &MARY LEE LAN JOY E.MIYAOKA 11425 DONA EVITA DR 16346 BROOKSTONE CIR 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#449 STUDIO CITY CA 91604-4253 LA MIRADA CA 90638-6530 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5198 .939-50-634 939-50-635 r 939-50-636 t LOREN &JUDY FIZZARD CLAIRE -ADACHI THERESA D.MC KINNON KINNON 18892 MOUNT WALTON CIR 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M-17 8444 ALBIA ST FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-7322 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-5123 DOWNEY CA 90242-2541 939-50-637 939-50-638 939-50-639 y r JANET B.DELANEY NORMAN ROSENBLATT EVEDNA THREINEN 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#M30 4808-G LA VILLA MARINA 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#M5 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5187 MARINA DEL REY CA 90292-7010 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 13AVERYo Address Labels Laser 5960TM W1096S aasel slagel ssaippd @A2J3AV �U 024-133-12 024-133-20 1 024-133-23 • ROBERT J.KOURY DAVID W.BROADFOOT RAY MICHAELS PO BOX 65176 513 PIERSIDE CIR 4311 E OSBORN RD LOS ANGELES CA 90065-0176 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4675 PHOENIX AZ 85018-5923 024-133-35 024-134-03 24-134-09.�0 JLK TRUST PT MAMIE L.VANDERFORD CHA S C.SHIN 408 TOWNSQUARE LN HC 63 BOX 335 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4604 MOUNT IDA AR 71957-9776 0%YF. 0 024-134-11 024-147-03 CGH SZUBA VICTOR DONALD GALITZEN 437 LAKE ST 9770 JAMES RIVER CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5202 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-7308 024-147-14 024-147-37 y 024-147-38 DOUGLAS M.S.LANGEVIN GARY HATCH JOHN C.GALLAGHER 8196 PAWTUCKET DR PO BOX 5653 3255 REVA DR C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6736 LAKE HAVASU CITY AZ 86404-0211 CONCORD CA 94519-2127 024-153-07 024-154-01 024-154-02 t BANK OF COMMERCE MOHAMMED ZEIDAN CAROL J.FARRIS 9918 HIBERT ST#301 7021 SEAL CIR 3417 BUCKEYE PL SAN DIEGO CA 92131-1018 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3035 NEWBURY PARK CA 91320-5433 024-172-10 024-173-02 024-173-03 LEWIE P.DERIGO ♦ GLORIA GAY TREECE KERRY L.PIEROPAN go-7 789 ORPHEUS AVE 201 MAGNOLIA �4v.Y\ ENCINITAS CA 92024-2156 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024-173-04 024-173-05 937-19-165 ROBERT J.KOURY • DRAPER GEORGE E TRUST PT JEFFREY M.&MARY L.HARDEN PO BOX 65176 1210 PECAN AVE 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#112 LOS ANGELES CA 90065-0176 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4533 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-167 937-19-175 937-19-193 1 PARMANAND PARIKH SUSAN LYNN SCHWARTZ (TR) ARNOLD w,j 7Gyt'"Y1 S���`✓e L-r +� Ili{ 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#202 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#220 Av 71+1'r fv Y1 V;c'4Lh, Co I r2 a 1-4�5' HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 937-19-201 937-19-204 937-19-207 4 • RITA SADAKO RICHARDSON NORMAN W.&TSARINA L.BRANYAN JULIAN CUMMINGS 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#301 19631 DEARBORNE CI 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#309 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-6648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926484679 937-19-208 937-19-209 937-19-214 ?v l--i Jce I m Ad by-cc JULIAN C.CUMMINGS DARRICK USIADEK S U��e Ln ` �jC� t-�IS -TnA3vlcquctrc 3Cf� 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#315 hkU�1�I nG�{efl 17PGc h,eG! �Zlyy� �}���{I'ry �p,�bbp�PgCy,Cq GrZIy�C� HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926484679 ®091S ioj aleldwal ash 1 Wls19a4s Raj 410ows W1096S easel slagel ssajppV @AU3AVj2 937-19-218 937-19-224 939-50-513 RALPH DIFIORE • ARTHUR R.NICHOLS LOUIS &MARIA NEMETH { 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#319 PO BOX 549 19721 WATERBURY LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 PLACENTIA CA 92871-0549 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-3500 939-50-514 939-50-520 939-50-525 s VANETTA WIHLIDAL • RAY EWING DIANNE THOMPSON 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#105 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#11 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#116 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 939-50-526 939-50-527 939-50-528 i WILLIAM H.GRIFFITH JAMES E.FISH DANIEL T.O'BRIEN 806 S SAPPHIRE LN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#118 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#119 ANAHEIM CA 92807-4854 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 939-50-531 939-50-533 939-50-539 DONALD GALITZEN WILLIAM &BONNIE COPELAND JOHN D.&KATHRYN D.PARRISH 9770 JAMES RIVER CIR 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#124 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#130 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-7308 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5178 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5184 939-50-540 939-50-542 939-50-544 LEONARD LEE&NANCY S.BAILEY BOHNKE JOANNE TRUST&PT SHIN-El U S A INC 1377 E CITRUS AV#157 595 E COLORADO BLVD#810 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE REDLANDS CA 92374-4012 PASADENA CA 91101-2001 ARCADIA CA 91007-6110 939-50-547 939-50-555 939-50-564 MICHAEL R.&LINDA M.WOMACK • CHARLES W.SCHMIDT ► WILLIAM P.LALLY 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#139 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#147 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#217 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5185 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 939-50-567 939-50-571 939-50-573 ERIC M.&CHRISTINA T.YAO ROBINSON ROBERT J TR OF OK IDOKI ALTE CO LTD 25 WARMSPRING 2950 E LA JOLLA ST 4-11-20 MINAMI SENBA CHUO-KU OSAKA IRVINE CA 92614-5422 ANAHEIM CA 92806-1307 JAPAN 939-50-574 939-50-579 939-50-588 THEODORE C.&KELLY A.FRANKIEWICZ HUNG THAI TRAN CARY T.HAIRABEDIAN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#245 8006 N ELDORADO ST 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#315 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5190 STOCKTON CA 95210-2306 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5192 939-50-603 939-50-612 939-50-613 ERNEST &RUTH FELD ROBERT-B.&BARBARA M.BRYANT • PAUL H.STRAIN 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#336 23 BOGEY LN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#349 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5194 COTO DE CAZA CA 92679-4929 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5195 c;7-q- )',-4 - Cal,)o 939-50-618 939-50-635 '1?)61 Lq kP St anL. SHIN-El USA INC CLAIRE ADACHIr- 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M-17 � n�to h genCtn C-,t ARCADIA CA 91007-6110 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 G12U,}cam. ®09IS iol aleldwal ash W1slaa4S PaaA 410ow5 �-S 939--505-27 939-506-12 024-134-09,10 James Fish Robert Bryant 439 Lake St Inc. 202 21st St # B 200 PCH #348 8931 Shore Cir Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 939-505-40 937-192-08 024-133-35 Leonard Lee Malcolm Albrecht Debbie Chin P_MB 363 415 Townsquare Ln #308 408 Townsquare In # 700 E Redlands Blvd #U Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Redlands, Ca 92373 939-505-42 024-147-03 024-173-03 Joanne Bohnke Tr Donald Galitzen Kerry Pieropan 13681 San Juan Ct PO Box 431 2000 PCH Apt 102 Chino, Ca 91710 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 939--505-47 937-191-65 937-192-24 Michael Womack Qi Deng Katherine Anderson 7205 Sherwood Dr 415 Townsquare In #112 6655 Sandy Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Riverside, Ca 92505 939-505-55 939-505-20 939-505-26 Charles Schmidt Ray Ewing William Griffith Westwing 515 Lake St So. #309 20431 Via Trovador Kirlington Prk Kirkland, Wa 98033 Yorba Linda, Ca 92887 Kirlington, Oxon Pncrl anr3 n3cq-' TN 939-505-64 c William Lally 6782 Canterbury Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 939--505-71 Robert Robinson ` Okidoki Trust 4811 E La Palma Ave Anaheim, Ca 92807 939-505-88 Gary Hairabedian 4141 Ball Rd #256 Cypress, Ca 90630 I Lewis TV Lucy's Alterations Mail Boxes Etc. 326 Main Street 504 Main Street,Suite B 18685 Main Street,Suite A Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 926-8 Mailbox Station Main Street Dry Cleaners Main Street Eyewear&Boutique 419 Main Street 504 Main Street 200 Main Street,Suite 107 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Main-Street Hair Co. Main Street Tanning&Skin Spa Makin' Waves 200 Main Street;Suite 108 501 Main Street,Suite B 320 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ee$eJZr "Ativlc- Mandic Motors Menilee's Michael's Surf&Sport 424 Main Street 124 Main Street 414 PCH Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Montgomery Jewelers Native Waves Pier Realty 501 Main Street,Suite G 221 Main Street,Suite E 200 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Pierside Dentistry Pierside Gallery • Pristine Porsche 501 Main Street,Suite A 300 PCH,Suite 107 A' 225 Fifth Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Robert August Surfboards Rockin'Fig Surf Headquarter Mr.Steve Daniel 300 PCH,Suite 101 316 Main Street Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 200 Main Street,Suite 106 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 bfr.•,,,�Js Sakal Surfboards _:.,,z 201 Main Street,Suite Ai;+,�•' � Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ' "-•�i,'-�" 1 (z.j3 Oabds) Papa Joe's Pizza Pergs Sports Bar Palm Court—Waterfront Hilton 508 PCH 117 Main Street 21100 PCH Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Ruby's Surf City Diner The Shed The Shore House Caf6 I Main Street 210 Yh Street 520 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subway Taco Bell == - 300 PCH 116 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Taco Surf Taxi's T Vic's Beach Concession 522 Main Street 318 M P.O.Box 488 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 H n Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Wahoo's Fish Taco Tom&Sheryl Caverly 24 Hour Fitness 120 Main Street 553 Temple Hills Drive 303 Third Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 La�cruna Beach,CA 92651 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 -- Advanced Marketing International American Vintage Clothing i Angelo's Beauty Supply&Salon 300 PCH,Suite 406 201 Main Street,Suite C j 221 Main Street,Suite D Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Annie's Nails Baskin Robbins Beach Island 501 Main Street,Suite F 201 Main Street 127 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Beach Store Leles Boutique Beachcombers Brewbakers 200 Main Street,Suite 114 207 Main Street 412 Wa Huntington Beach,CA 92648 . Huntington Beach,.CA 92648. H gon Beach,CA 92648 SurfEC andy Catwalk Mr.Don GaUtzan 101 t,Suite 111 205 Main Street 218 5`h Street Hun Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Chuck Dent Surf Center The Closet 's ' 222 Fifth Street 11614 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 - !L (g jamftbels) - ` Burger King B.J.'s Chicago Pizzeria Baskin Robbins Ice Cream Parlor Barry Ellerbroek 200 Main Street,Suite 101 Steve Daniels 101 Main Street,Suite 410 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 201 Main Street,Suite"B" Huntington Beach,CA 92648 --- - -- - Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Holly's Yogurt Sugar Shack Cafe 213 Main Street 213 1/2 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Noah's Bagels Pete's Mexican Food 215 Main Street Pedro C.Ambriz Huntington Beach,CA 92648 213 Sth Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Longboard Supreme Donuts Jamba Juice Bruce Milliken Veng Chau Jamba Juice&Elizabeth Koh 217 Main Street 602 Pacific Coast Hwy. 101 Main Street,Suite 109 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 _ Huntington Beach,CA 92648 _ Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I Sunset Grill Occupant Java Jungle Martin Jaconi 501 Main Street 602 Pacific Coast Hwy. 200 Main Street,Suite 105 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Starbucks Inc. Chimayo Restaurant 221 Main Street Mr.Rudy Pollak Huntington Beach,CA 92648 567 San Nicolas Ste.400 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Duke's Dwight's Beach Concession Gallagher's Pub 317 PCH 201 PCH 300 PCH,Suite 113 - Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 The Grinder Aloha Grill Huntington Beach Beer Company 21002 PCH 221 Main Street,Suite F Mr.Peter Andriet Huntington Beach,CA 92646 _ Huntingtoa Beach,CA 92648 201 Main Street,Suite E Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hurricane's Bar&Grill John Gilbert,General Manager TS Restaurants 200 Main Street,Suite 201 Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort W.Bill Parsons Huntington Beach,CA 92648 21100 Pacific Coast Highway 225 Plaza Street,Ste.300 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Solano Beach,CA 92075 Luigi's Louise's Trattoria Mr.K's Karaoke j 201 Main Street 300 PCH,Suite 202 300 PCH,Suite 112 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (g jar0abels) �1 Ms.Joyce Riddell,President Ms.Diane Baker Ms.Marie St.Germain Chamber of Commerce HB Conference&Visitors Bureau Downtown Residents Association 2100 Main Street Ste 200 417 Main Street 505 Alabama Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mr.Oliver Cagle Mr.John S.Given Mr.Steve Bone Capital Pacific Holdings CIM Group,LLC The Robert Mayer Corporation 4100 MacArthur Blvd.,Ste.200 10960 Wilshire Blvd.,Suite 500 660 Newport Center Dr.,Suite I= Newport Beach,CA 92658-7150 Loa Angeles,CA 90024 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8680 Lisa Chiu Mr.Keith Bohr Mr.Jeff Berg ma The Independent Newspaper 415 Town Square Lane,No.219 Team Design 18632 Beach Boulevard,Ste. 160 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 215 Main Street,Ste.A Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mr.Peter Winterfelt 226 Eleventh Street Eron Ben Yeauda Huntington Beach,CA 92648 The Independent Newspaper 18682 Beach Boulevard,Ste. 160 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mr.John Tillotson Mr.Mike Abdelmuti JT Development,LLC Abdelmuti Development Company_ Put Agendas in all City CouncthPlai 15272 Bolsa Chica Rd. 101 Main Street Commissioners,and Planners m1 b Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 VIP Cellular P Surf City Sports Chiropractic Town Market and Video 504 Main ite C 411 Main Street,Suite B 526 Main Street Hun ' B ac CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 U.S.Post Office 316 Olive Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Sea Nails Streetlight Espresso Cafe - 200 Main Street,Suite 117 201 Main Street,Suite D Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Sun'N' Sands Motel Sunshine Suit Co. 1102 PCH 123 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (g,imViabels) Lt.Tony Sollec' Jim Engle Matt Lamb Mr.Steve Daniel Ms.Judy Legan John Fuji Downtown Business Association Orange County Association of Reaimcs Deputy C' ey 200 Main Street No. 106 - 25552 La Paz Road i Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Laguna Hills,CA 92605 President Mr.William Holman President Amigos De Bolsa Chica ( PLC Huntington Beach Tomorrow 16531 Bolsa Chica Road Ste.312 23 Corporate Plaza,Ste.250 411 6th Street Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Newport Beach,CA 92660-7912 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 President,HB Historical Society Chairperson Ms.Patricia Koch do Newland House Museum Historical Resources Board HB Union High School District 19820 Beach Blvd. Community Services Department 10251 Yorktown Avenue Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mute Mudd Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Ms.Susan Roper Dr.Duane Dishno Mr.Jerry Buchanan HB Union High School District HB City Elementary School District HB City Elementary School District 10251 Yorktown Avenue P.O.Box 71 ' P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Mr.Bob Mandic ' Mr.Jeff Bergsma Mr.Dick Harlow 16242 Pisbury Circle Team Desi 211-B Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92649 215 trees, Ste.A Huntington Beach,.CA 92648 untington Beach,CA 92648 Mr.Bruce Shapiro,Principal Mr.Doug Campbell Arizona Partner 507 Pierside Circle 3200 N.Central Ave.Ste.2450 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phoeniix..Arizoaa 85012 Mr.Mike Adams Mr.Bob Bolen - Ron&Estelle Roberts 19771 Sea Canyon Circle 1818 Pine Street 220 Hartford Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 John Given Jack Clapp Bannister&Associates Insurance CIM Group 1210 Main Street Doug Bannister 10960 Wilshire Blvd.Ste.500 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 305 17d Street Los Angeles,CA 90024 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4209 rr 1j: cc (8]� abets) Coastline West Realty Color Me Mine Ceramics&Pottery Continental Cleaners ,218 Fifth Street 109 Main Street 411 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dairy Queen Diamond Lane i Diane's 102 PCH 122 Main Street i 300 PCH,Suite 103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Disc-Go-Round Edward's Pierside 6 Cinemas El Don Liquor&Deli 200 Main Street,Suite 113 300 PCH 470 PCH Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 i Espresso Roma Farmers Insurance First Bank 101 Main Street,Suite 113 P.O Box 228 501 Main Street,Suite H Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Surfcity Candy 126 Plain St, Suite 102 GNC General Nutrition Center Golden Spoon Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 200 Main Street,Suite 102 300 PCH,Suite 106A Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Jeffrey Oderman Rutan & Wicker LLP Great Western Sanitary Huntington Surf&Sport PO Box 1950 328 Main Street 300 PCH Costa Mesa, Ca 92628-1950 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach Art Center Huntington Beach Realty 538 Main Street ? 322 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Jax Bicycle Center International Surfing Museum Jack's Garage 401 Main Street P.O.Box 782 101 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ; Huntington Beach,CA 92648 f Jack's Surfboards Java Jungle Java Point Coffee 101 Main Street 602 PCH 300 PCH Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Juice It Up Law Offices of Ronald Davis 200 Main Street,Suite 114 300 PCH,Suite 410 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Connie Brockway, City Clerk I 6 — O 0 City of Huntington Beach �..r^ \�,���dN u.:;. Office of the City Clerk pg u ^ �� P.O. Box 190nrj Huntington Beach, CA 92648 u_ yy C A {� i�H METErC,tY:T,.r r 939-50-564 ��uNSINGTO,y WILLIAM P.LALLY `�_�•C0"f0"�►Fo ��,�� 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#217 P....r.—^kI D=Arul r.A g9fi48-5188 C.7 - z LALL200 926465014 1999 04 12/O1/00 — - FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND coLALLY'WILLIAM P i 6782 CANTERBURY DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-2703 C�UNTy Lai' RETURN TO SENDER LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING'��s��4i� i�iAUZ�19 III oil I III IIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIII III III Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk r� O <� Y;;) P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C P, 939-50-540 ING LEONARD LEE&NANCY S.BAILEY 1377 E CITRUS AV#157 REDLANDS CA 92374-4012 CQ cpp14 r)E 1 N T E! I'vLMA' '-ftTICE PUBLIC HEARING S A Fj 0,.? IS F C) W.M.W Connie Brockway, City Clerk ` City of Huntington,Beach ;rG� Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Y.� f C!2 'J� x� /, 4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 !i CA 14METER40. 939-50-542 ot��NTINGTpy� BOHNKE JOANNE TRUST&PT 595 E COLORADO BLVD#810 iro�,rFO �9 PASADENA CA 91101-2001 - ,OZ �puHTy ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ���°� Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 q"� 0;i 2G'i)0 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 " H METER �x max. .A CA 024-147-14 I NGtpy » DOUGLAS M.S. ANGEVIN 8196 PAV TUC T DR HUNTIN LANGIA6 4R6461009 1599 IR 11/01/00 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND LANGEVIN 410-4 LEONARD RD GRANTS PASS OR 975a7-9aSS F�ouNTy LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk 51 L. P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C A H ME'IIER 42*.""�i 937-19-224 ��hSINGTQy ARTHUR R.NICHOLS PO BOX 549 PLACENTIA CA 92871-0549 ,A LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING -a-L s rfs V l s IMMIIIIIIIIIII did 1111111 di Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 "TER H ME C A 939-50-5 42 iO F0441 BOHNKE JOANNE TRUST&PT 595 E COLORADO BLVD#810 PASADENA CA 91101-2001 F1'QUN TY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC 'S 5 1 AmlWyArr-il Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 C 12 0 j ? Huntington Beach, CA 92648 q C A 0 #1INGTpy4A ARTHUR R.NICHOLS v! PO BOX 549 .... PLACENTIA CA 92871 -0549 C4 NTI cT. LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEART Ai '-,J. �'J Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 0 N U!; POSAA !, Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C A 024-173-03 ��NSINGTO,y KERRY L.PIEROPAN PNO,44, *�e- 201 MAGNOLIA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 RTI Ga LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING sis I ; I I I 1 I Connie Brockway, City Clerk City cf Huntington Beach � '`~ C]�oeod the Chv�h�k ^ P.O. Box . V |/�oU Hu Beach. CA `- ^'r - xwErFR"�����" ^� ^ ' 024-173-03 ' ING ' `J xsRnvL.p|snOPxw 201 MAowoum HuwT|mGTOw BEACH Cxnua4u Cp NTI LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC A�AR|N[� - --`- ^- ''~ ''~^ ' ~~^'~ ''` '"`^ l,\/^Uu)'>`l//)/>v1`>n}^>`fill)o)jm1/U Connie Brockway, City Clerk 10 City of Huntington Beach Office{� kAj vi ~ ^ P.O. Box 190 } ` ^ Huntington Beach, CAG2G48 in Swe �� c � �:i� Tc" AJ-3 fV 024-147-37 PO BOX LAKE VASU CITY 6404-0211 co LEGAL 0D � , _ Connie Brockway, City Clerk REASCA C 7--C' City of Huntington Beach urdalmed ofv Office of the City Clerk Refusld 0 1�f' ,ITT, P.O. Box 190 Ahem 0 C 1 OK'0 0 ri Huntington Beach, CA 92648 3---ich street '1'. C H M E T E R 4,2;—, U rr lf-cl' In Slatt C a, ,nv.0ooe /V ING X-147-37 -1 47-37 GARYTCH PD X5 3 L L V U CITY A HAVA U CITY AZ 86404-0211 C= NTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 7 . .. , Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 u. C A H METER 42, 939-50-537 ING, PAUL C.&DEBORAH SUE BYRNE 6732 ALAMITOS CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1537 BYRN732 926481018 IA99 14 10/31/00 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND 13YRNE 5571 OCEAN TERRACE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92640-75IS p©GNTY cad LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 101,,,1.2 6 G,13 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C a K D H A ETER .X.3. V'3/217 939-5 12 ING RO RT B.&BAR A AM BRYANT F0 BOGEYLN N C.3 O-TO DE CAZA A 92679-4929 . ............. �ou E T,' IT R E TU R p TO N 0 D E' LEGAL NOT[GE.'CPU q ,[ 'VEAR 11dififiJI11:2 :st I lillididH ,F 1 i Connie Brockway, City Clerk 'T off,City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H METER 420;'V'f, S.A CA 927 10/27/00 939-50-582 ING; P044 ALFONS R.&MARY A.IBRAHIM 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#307 HUNTINGT' IBRA200 926483008 1A00 06 11/02/00 IBRAHIM RETURN TO SENDER MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER N LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING SZ 6 Vk-f,*'AVWJ 1S'r� lid I 111 1 11 11111 JIIII 111 111 1111 fill I till 11111 1 1 1 1111111111111 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 01V Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H SIETEP 024-147-03 �NjING D A ' ON J tG M ALITZEN 9770 E T FOUN A 92708-7308 GAL1770 9a7083003 1899 07 10/30/00 . FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND GALITZEN PO BOX 431 I?.its''. HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-0431 T I LEGAL NOTICE - PIJ�p AR N Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �'I'o'v 0,10 6r' Office of the City Clerk OPT P.O. Box 190 C:) '-'26 09 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 J L!"J 0 U- H IVICTER-422';' .,, 937-19-215 ING SHELLEY L.JOHNSON 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#316 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 C.2 RIETURh RETURN TO r E T n n-E, LEGAL NOTICE - LIC'HEARWGU,"; 0 gr(a 0-% 1111W11111111 11 1511 1 il oil III Connie Brockway, City Clerk oca City of Huntington Beach "'Office of the City ClerkP.O. Box 190 : , .Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937-19-225 ROBERT VIEFHAUS �V�ITINGTpy 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#326 roe„fe B�9 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 C-, RETURN l f7� f �� i)F;[, D LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLICt HEARING n r J .°"v 11 11 11 1 11 it1 I It I III I I I I I I I I I I'I I I I I I'I I I I I I I I 111 111 l ' Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ,����°� �, US.Nash•'.:; ., Office of the City Clerkf _ P.O. Box 190 ;;,� „s_ D%1? ':J n Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C A ,11 METlLf2 e121;�;': � d 939-50-526 �pSINGTp WILLIAM H.GRIFFITH y 806 S SAPPHIRE LN ANAHEIM CA 92807-4854 = s GRIF806 9aao75013 1799 13 10/50/00 co FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND GRIFFITH Z` 2826 E SHADY FOREST LN 9'yCtc eER• — `��� ORANGE CA 92967-1917 CppNTY cp` LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING S 2 e ft'.3N'S%I&XAN' II+I1111I1I oil I11I11II11I1II111111III1111II1ItItI„II,,,I,IIII Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 0 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 ri 'J Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -Z C a ti 939-5io-526 ING WILLIAM H.GRIFFITH 0 0 806 S SAPPHIRE LN AnOn7 AQJZA GRIF806 928075013 1799 13 10/50/00 C2 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND GRIFFITH 2826 E SHADY FOREST LN ORANGE CA 92867-1917 LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING S r)-"Aw? II111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I III I If 11 111 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach T 0Pj 0 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 tOt"12 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1.10 'k Zii TV "L�3/�V/'Ufl 024-147-15 ��NTINGtpy CDB LAND&FARMING LLC a F084,fo 49 fie— 215&215 1/2 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 C.3 lam- rz, Ll R11i -I- its- V LEGAL',N0 ICE PUBLIC HEARING 11.If 111 111 tills oil I 11111 11 of III Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach C)r Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 f C. CA H 1`4 E IT2,4!2- xx S .lk CH 922.1 'lr—v27/Orj 024-147-14 ING DOUGLAS M.S.tio LTNGEVIN RF044r 8196 PAWTUCK T DR 1 646-6736 HUNTINGTON B LANG196 926465016 1599 16 10/30/00 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND LANGEVIN 412-4 L.EONARD RD GRANTS PASS OR 97527-9255 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Wf oN us 4'0�'7"—t' Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 0 L[: C a H M E T E R 4 024-133-20 ��NSINGTpy DAVID W.BROADFOOT 513 PIERSIDE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4675 C-a 17.loll% ETUR t, N r fill.I I I III dII 11 1411111111 111111111111 11 Mll 11 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach r �a<�T o N 6, �s5. Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 '� f � real� �..J� (7 .!� /• ;1 �� i.* '+ .y.t Huntington Beach, CA 92648 z ` IyfC A H ME1't{la,/A♦2:.` `.+,st :r 939-50-520 VNSINGTp RAY EWING 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#11 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 R E T U RN 'I I E[�i{' LEGAL NOTICE- PUB LC A 1111,,,1111,11,,,1,111„1,11,,,,,,111,1„11,,,i,1„11 till,1,11 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach c� �'!w�`. U.S.f.;;SIM0 �.d Office of the City Clerk `i^ 1 P.O. Box 190 C�ii6'` Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ;� S .A CA 927 10 27 KGB 024-133-20 INGTpy DAVID W.BROADFOOT o� ro 513 PIERSIDE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4675 LEGAL-N 4' E - PUBLIC HEARING ••-: .. ,� �x+�3+��Ie�a s�`•r51�P 11,ir,„IJ,II,�,I,JI„I,II,,,,,�III,I„II,,,I,I„II,,,,,I,II Connie Brockway, City Clerk 1'0 IV City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk IV P.O. Box 190 e i ) '. u "'! (.", ) 0 l--1�P". Huntington Beach, CA 926480 1 Q C;Y 0.U_ C CA U H METER 4�i HUP,� NCI'I-ON 024-134-13 1XING KOICHI &YOK)HIRANO ,p1m1ING 429 LAKE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5202 F�Qu NT LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk ON -�) H City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 j Ij, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C 1), �k �A K7 V�X/U/Ium 024-172-04 THOMAS SANETTI ING 529 LAKE ST 1 0441 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4909 Fpr 1IRN ,,5:: N LEJA T�L .7.8- T T Connie Brockway, City Clerk 'T 0 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 M ';33 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -Z 937-19-198 ��pTINGTpy BRUCE TRUST PT 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#225 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 SRUC41S 926485014 1799 03 io/Bo/oo C=1 FORWARD TIMEExp RTN TO SEND BRUCE PO BOX 288 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9P-648-OL)88 pppN T1 LEGAL NOTICE - PUB, LQHJARjN, 4,54 4A4. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 0�v Office of the City Clerk p `12F;'00 r) 7 'JI P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 is Java Point Coffee 300 PCH Huntington Beach,CA 92642 ING E T U R N ZT3 SENDCR-�EL-- LEGA NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING IIIIIIIII III till Connie Brockway, City Clerk 0 N US,P0'-',1A1A' City of Huntington Beach IV N� Office of the City Clerk T- WI P.O. Box 190 N j 11 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C 939-50-531 �pNSING DONALD GALITZEN 9770 JAMES RIVER CIR FOUNTAIN VAI I PY r.A 0'27M-7�nO GAL1770 9a70810a1 1599 14 10/50tOO FORWARD 'TIME EXP RTN TO SEND GALITZEN PO BOX 431 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92640-0431 �ou NTI LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Xx S.A Ck 927 10/V/00 ING 024-133-13 TOWN SQUARE MASTER COMMUNI TY W SA"ABOREE RD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 R T G 4hil4'1 114114111111 1111 111 If 11 1111 IIIAII III III III If!If it IIIIIII Connie Brockway, City Clerk 0 01 City of Huntington Beach -� Office of the City Clerk 5�,L P.O. Box 190 M -DT Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c a H M E T E R 4.27?.'. i 024-133-14 ���NjINGjOy DANIEL SALERNO 419 MAIN ST#111 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5199 CP RN F p ALVOTICE- UBLIC HEARING Iss Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach o'y Office of the City Clerk I U.S.P05'14"11 0 P.O. Box 190 J-1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 "'1 Ji J J C A S-A CA 9Z? ING 024-133-26 TOWN SQR TOWNHOMES ASSN iOE��a�ro�„�, d 4699 JAMBOREE RD 7 — NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 co Q ISO 7 R E'! T fl NQTICE - PUBLIC FEARING 2L Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Ic"T 0 IV Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C A H ME1 Ek'a- 939-50-540 ���jINGjpp, LEONARD LEE&NANCY S.BAILEY 1377 E CITRUS AV#157 REDLANDS CA 92374-4012 LEGAL NOTICE- PU% Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach will Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 —(�7 �,1�- „. :, ') 0 ;; _ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H 1,4 E 1: 1 Jh� Mrs vx. S A 'Ui �27 10/27 AM 939-50-598 ��pNSINGTpy JUSTIN &VICKIE L E BRANSON A, 200 PACIFIC COAS HY#328 HU...... BRANROO 17a648:50015 tN 08 lo/3.1./00 RETURN TO SENDER co NO FORWARD ORDER ON F C I...a UNABLE TO FOP,'WARD TU R RETURN TO SENDER �'P'UBLIC H RTNG f4Connie Brockway, City Clerk 60 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 lr A M E f f.:R CA ErZ7 024-147-09 og, ING SURF CITY CAPITAL LTD 6621 E PACIFIC COAST HWY# LONG BEACH CA 90803-4200 co ... 908031010 IN 16 10/30/00 X 5URF621 RETURN To SENDER NO FORWARD oRDER. ON FILE UNABLE TO FORWARD LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING RETURN To SENDER lal0eiM. f:%\.MAT1 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk. P.O. Box 190 -2 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 S.A Ck 9Z? 10/27/00 024-172-09 ING KIM J.EUN m44' 4P 17681 HELENBROOK LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4860 REI JR1, AUNTY T LEGAL N17 1QEGr PIJI1 ',HEARING 2'4'W 11.1....III lilt I IIIIII Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk \ JJ ��� i' +' ' � t P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 'x-m A 927 10/22/fYJ 939-50-589 ��NTINGTpyHAMILTON LORETTA LEE TR OF THE B 4A 17200 NEWHOPE ST#221-A FOUNTAIN VAI I FY(-.A q97nR-4?4n L E E ZZ-)0 0 9Z27081019 IN 03 10/30/00 RE'rLJRN TO SENDER NO FOR t4A TM�PILE UN E U R�1 RE CAI LT&F TY MB U LEGAU60TjC&-PTN �11C HEARING IIIIIIIIIII lilt IIIIIIIIII III lot H. - sky, �ANMN Council/Agency Meeting Held: 10— —0 Deferred ontinue to: 114—00 ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied k'S ignature Council Meeting Date: Octo er 16, 2000 Department ID Number: PL 00-61 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administratorzi%P PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: OPEN AND CONTINUE OPEN TO NOVEMBER 6, 2000ZOLNG�`� TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-3 AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-2 (DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER 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. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2, a request by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department to amend the Downtown Specific Plan by incorporating recommended modifications to the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Staff recommends the City Council continue action on the request due to the Planning Commission's continuance to a special meeting on October 17, 2000. Staff will forward the action and recommendation of the Planning Commission following their October 17, 2000 meeting. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: "Open and continue open to November 6, 2000 consideration of Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2." (Downtown Parking Master Plan Update) PL00-63 -- 10/11/00 4:57 PM i RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Downtown Parking Master Plan Update COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 16, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ate ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: HZ:SH:HF:WC:rl CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: ZONI -IEF xr A N"MV\,7' A/�, co,+STlk, 0-2- DEPARTMENT: &RNI W6i MEETING DATE: Dcf.. 1 to CONTACT: Whla CAF-VA *a PHONE: SS�jrj N/A YES NO ( ) (v� ( ) Is the notice attached? ' Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) (►� ( ) Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? (✓� ( ) ( ) If an appeal, is the appeicant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ) (✓f Is a map attached for publication? Is a larger ad required? Size ( ) ( ) ( v)" Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? 5Tf}r-r- PRGPRkD ( ) ( ) (vl' Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? C4 fy fS Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? (✓j ( ) - ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? ( ( ) ( ) Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date f 2. Number of times to be published 11� / 3. Number of days between publications Al,� • ti� !' 21 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, October 16, 2000, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: [� 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-39 (POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT EXPANSION): Appellant: Tom Harman, Mayor Pro Tem. Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street. Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the expansion of the existing 108-space secured Police Department parking lot by adding 90 secured parking spaces for a total of 198 parking spaces. Location: 2000 Main Street(City Hall,northeast corner of Main Street and Utica Avenue). Assigned Planner: Amy Wolfe. ❑ 2. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-77 (OCEAN ROOM AT PETER'S LANDING): Appellant: GTN Industries, P.O. Box 100, Sunset Beach, CA 90742. Applicant: Michael Cho for GTN Industries, 3991 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. #350,Newport Beach, CA 92660. Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the establishment of a banquet/restaurant facility with live entertainment and alcohol sales in an existing two- story (12,746 sq. ft.) building at Peter's Landing commercial center. Location: 16360 Pacific Coast Highway(east side of Pacific Coast Highway, south of Anderson Street). Assigned Planner: Amy Wolfe. ><3- ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-3/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-2 (DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN UPDATE): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach. Request: To amend Section 4.2.14 of the Downtown Specific Plan updating the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The update consists of recommendations to consolidate the two designated areas within the master plan, revisions to the parking ratios and requirements, and increase of the overall development cap. Location: Downtown Specific Plan—area generally bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street,Acacia Avenue, and Second Street. Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho. ❑ 4. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 93-5/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 98-2A(CARTS AND KIOSK): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach. Request: To amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and the Downtown Specific Plan by modifying the existing Carts and Kiosks Ordinance to incorporate modifications suggested by the Coastal Commission. The amendment also includes other miscellaneous modifications. Location: Citywide Project Planner: Ricky Ramos. (cve 4 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s) 41 and#2 are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)#3 is covered under Statutory Exemption, Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). 3. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item#4 is covered under Negative Declaration No. 93-20 adopted by the City Council on May 4, 1994. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after October 12, 2000. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. County of Orange ) _ ON FILE:A of NOTICE OF AMENDMENT NO. �y . the 99-31LOCAL COASTAL proposed request is on PUBLIC HEARING file in the C' Clerks Of- BEFORE am a Citizen of the United States and a ,THE PROGRAM AMEND- fice, 20M Main Street, MENT NO. . 00-2 CITY COUNCIL OF (DOWNTOWN PARK. Huntington Beach; Cali- resident of the County aforesaid; I am THE CITY OF ING MASTER PLAN fomia 92648, for inspep- HUNTINGTON UPDATE): Applicant: lion by the public.A copy over the age of eighteen years, and not a BEACH City of Huntington of the staff report will be party to or interested in the below NOTICE IS HEREBY Beach. Request: To available to interested parties at the City GIVEN that on Monday, amend Downtown Section Specific of Clerk's Office after Octo-- October 16, 2000, at the Downtown Specific ber 12, 2000. .entit ed matter. I am a principal clerk of 7:00 PM in the City Plan updating the Down- ALL INTERESTED the HUNTINCTON BEACH INDEPENDENT a Council Chambers, town Parking Master PERSONS are invited to r 2000 Main Sheet, Hunt. Plan. The update con- attend said bears and newspaper of general circulation, printed lington Beach, the City lists of recommend- bearing Council will hold a public citrons to consolidate the express opinions or hearing on the following two designated areas submit evidence for or lannm and zoning within the master Ian, against the application an published in the City of Huntington r as outlined above.If you ttems: g g revisions to the parking challenge the C' Beach, County of Orange, State of 1. APPEAL OF THE ratios and requirements, cil's action in �r�o- PLANNING COM- and increase of fie• may be limited to raising MISSION'S APPROVAL overall development y those issues California, and that attached Notice is a OF CONDITIONAL USE cap. Location: Down- "-. you or PERMIT NO. 00-39 town Specific Plan•area someone else raised at true and complete copy as was printed ( 1 the:public hearing POLICE DEPART- Pacific y bounded byscribed In this notice,-oor MENT PARKING LOT Pacific Coast Highway, <in•-r written cor= and published in the Huntington Beach EXPANSION): Ap- Sixth Street, Acacia Av- respondence deliticopI, p�ellanl: Tom Harman, enue, and Second p and Fountain Vafley Issues of said Mayor Pro Tom. Apph' Street. Project Planner: to the Ctty at'or prior to, cant City of HuntingtonWayne Carvalho. the publlic hearing. If Beach, 2000 Main 4. ZONING TEXT there are any further newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: Street. Request: Appeal AMENDMENT NO. Questions please call the of the Planning Com- 93-5/LOCAL COASTAL — mission's decision to ap. PROGRAM AMEND. plannln Division ;at prove the expansion of MENT NO. 98-2A 9 the existing 108-space (CARTS AND KIOSK): SW5271 and refer to, secured Police Depart- Applicant City of.Hunt- the above items. Direct meet parking lot-by add- ,Ington Beach. Request Y°Uf written ing 90 secured parknngg To amend the Hunt- traits to fhe City Clerk' October 5, 2000 spaces for a total of 198 Ington Beach Zoning Connie Broibm- , parking spaces. Loca-- and Subdivision Or- � Clack.: lion:.2000 Main Street durance and the Down- CRY of +_ (City Hap, northeast cor- town Specific Plan.by Hunts on Beech ner of.Mahr_=Street-arnd modifying the existing 2000 Lek ; Utr4&—A Carts and Kiosks.Or• Ltd Roa, :q Planner. Amy Wolfe. dinance to .incorporate I Hun[lnyton_Basch,T I declare, under penalty of perjury, that 2.-APPEA OF THE modilicatlons suggested , _ Calffomle•.921143, PLANNING --COM by the Coastal .Coin-I (�4) .' the foregoing is true and correct. MISSION'S DENIAL OF .miaston. The amend Published.- Huntington. O g Beach-Fountain ..:Valle CONDITIONAL VSE'J meet also includes Other Inde nd PERMIT NO. -.99-77: miscellaneous mod- Pe ent Cdober, (OCEAN ROOM AT PE- Ifications. Location:`2000 fi01-029 'TER'S LANDING): .A i Citywide cyProject Plan-1 Executed on _ P.O Box too,Industries, tunset �1•• NOTTIICCE• IS, n t nYt a r �j . 2000 0 n Beach, CA 90742.Appli- -HEREBY GIVEN that at Costa Mesa, California. cant: -Michael Cho for Item(s) •1 and #2 are GTN Industries, 3991, categorically, -exempt MacArthur. Blvd., -Ste. om the.provisions of 9350, Newport Beach, _the California CA. 92660. Request: Environmental Quality Appeal of the Planning Act. _ Commission's decision 2. NOTICE IS to deny the establish- HEREBY GIVEN that ment of a banquet/res- ftem(sl#3 is covered un- taurant facility with live der Statutory Exemp- entertainment and alto- Non, Section 15262 of hol sales in an existing the ' California two-story (12,746 sq. tt•) Environmental Quality g building at.Petees Land- Act (CEQA). ( nature ing commercial center. 3. NOTICE IS Location: 16360 Pacific HEREBY GIVEN that Coast Higgh�way (east item#4 is covered under side of Pacific Qf ast Negative Declaration Highway, southi:.-ef No. 93-20 adopted by Anderson;'Street). A the City Council on May ^ signed-Planner -tnq 4, 1994. D Wolfe. 3. ZONING TEXT la-1b—ae DTPMP (2)/WC/9/6/00 937-191-65 A*'16 S e 937-191-67 -W%1 6 937-191-75 =tt I'l S QI DENG _ PARAG PARIKH ALLAN SCHWARTZ 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#112 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#114 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#202 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648-46 937-191-93 1 q 3 937-192-01 Z° 1 937-192-04 #2 0 9 KARINA SCHARENBERG RITA SADAKO RICHARDSON NORMAN BRANYAN 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#220 16974 CANYON CREEK CIRCLE 19631 DEARBORN CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-4678 RIVERSIDE,CA 92503-6557 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-6648 937-192-07 Zo 1 937-192-08 2 a $ 937-192-09 =W 2 0 9 LEE BURKE MALCOLM PAUL ALBRECHT JULIAN C.CUMMINGS 0 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#307 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#308 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#309 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-4679 937-192-14 21 4 937-192-18 ACT Z 115 937-192-24 :�T 2 2 4 JAMES DELZEIT SANTE CAMPANILE KATHERINE ANDERSON 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#315 24556 KINGS RD 6655 SANDY LN HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-4679 LAGUNA NIGUEL,CA 92677-7459 RIVERSIDE,CA 92505-2074 939-505-13 1:� 23 Z 939-505-14 233 939-505-20 sw 2 3 9 LOUIS NEMETH . VANETTA WII31,IDAL , RAY EWING • PO BOX 6113 2530 WISCONSIN AVE 515 LAKE ST SO.#309 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92615-6113 STOCKTON,CA 95209-3848 KIRKLAND,WA 98033-6473 I 939-505-25 *#-Z 4 4 939-505-26 ZA S 939-505-27 24 6 JAMES SORENSEN WILLIAM GRIFFITH JAMES FISH 853 E 7Tx ST 20431 VIA TROVADOR 2002 215T ST#B CHICO,CA 95928-5806 YORBA LINDA,CA 92887-3206 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663-4304 939-505-28 # 2 4-1 939-505-31 2 S O 939-505-33 *r 2s Z DANIEL O'BRIEN DONALD GALITZEN - THOMAS POLLARD PO BOX 28310 PO BOX 431 829 BEACH DR ST PAUL,MN 55128-5806 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-0431 NEEDLES,CA 92363-3708 939-505-39 2SIB 939-505-40 -it ZSCA 939-505-42 Z6 I JOHN PARRISH LEONARD LEE BAILEY + JOANNE BOHNKE PO BOX 2289 PMB 363 13681 SAN JUAN CT • CORONA,CA 92878-2289 700 E REDLANDS BLVD#U CHINO,CA 91710-4922 REDLANDS,CA 92373-6152 939-505-44,73;99 263,Za 2 939-50547 Af 2 6 6 939-505-55 Z 9 ALTE CO. MICHAEL WOMACK CHARLES SCHMIDT 4-11-20 MINAMI SENBA 7205 SHERWOOD DR w ffsTw x r+a CHUG-KU KT.R-m%mc -rom PA-P-K OSAKA HUNTINGTONBEACH,CA92648-7031 KNGL4Np-rota'axow vs_-a --JAPAN-- — Smoo}R`�eftgg� tag TM u WVMW 939-50-616 939-50-617 939-50-618 33�i 33 S 83 b JEFFREY A DROESSLER JEFFERY MARTIN SHIN-El USA INC 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#404 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#406 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5196 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5196 ARCADLA CA 91007-6110 939-50-619 33'1 939-50-620 a 3 S 939-50-621 *2 3 a LOUIS S.&MARGARET L.CHAVEZ GENE V.IANSITI - JEAN(TR)FERRIN 1267 W KILDARE ST 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#413 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#415 LANCASTER CA 93534-2232 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5196 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5196 939-50-622 939-50-623 939-50-624 340 341 342 MARIO JAMES&LORRAINE RICCIARDI HIEN DUC TRAN ROBIN C.ADAIR 6210 MOONSHADOW PL 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#418 3321 ADMIRALTY DR ALTA LOMA CA 91737-7759 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5197 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2802 939-50-625 939-50-626 3aq 939-50-627 443 34S BIANCA HOLWERDA THOMAS E.&CAROL M.MC CANN GAMINI &SHIRANI GUNAWARDANE 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#422 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#424 937 FINNELL WAY HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5197 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5197 PLACENTIA CA 92870-4446 939-50-628 939-50-629 939-50-630 3AI 3AI MARY SEIF 3a 6 PERRI &SARINA PUTRASAHAN ADEL ZEIDAN 1200 IMPERIAL DR 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#439 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#443 GLENDALE CA 91207-1526 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5197 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5198 939-50-631 939-50-632 939-50-633 3aa 3so 361 LESLIE &JUDITH PINCHUK ROBERT &MARY LEE LAN JOY E.MIYAOKA 11425 DONA EVITA DR 16346 BROOKSTONE CIR 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#449 STUDIO CITY CA 91604-4253 LA MIRADA CA 90638-6530 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5198 939-50-634 939-50-635 939-50-636 35Z 353 354 LOREN &JUDY FIZZARD CLAIRE ADACHI THERESA D.MC KINNON KINNON 18892 MOUNT WALTON CIR 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#M-17 8444 ALBIA ST FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-7322 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 DOWNEY CA 90242-2541 939-50-637 939-50-638 939-50-639 355 35.6 35� JANET B.DELANEY NORMAN.ROSENBLATT EVEDNA THREINEN 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#M30 . 4808-G LA VILLA MARINA 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#M50 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5187 MARINA DEL REY CA 90292-7010 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 7'IQCiT� "Poib ���j8)C, yTM Smoot th feeJ heels TM ZT'� y _ 3 Use template for 516 '�' Use template for 5160v 939-50-585 939-50-586 939-50-587 3oa aoS 3e-6 DANIEL FISCHER LAURA L.STOUT HAHN TRUST PT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#312 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#313 2904 E ECHO HILL WAY HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5191 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5191 ORANGE CA 92867-1904 939-50-588 939-50-589 939-50-590 Uri 3% 3 oy CARY T.HAIRABEDIAN HAMILTON LORETTA LEE TR OF THE B MARK A.MILLER 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#315 17200 NEWHOPE ST#221-A 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#317 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5192 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-4240 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5192 939-50-591 939-50-592 939-50-593 Ito St% S1z SCOTT W.GRANGER JEFFREY G.HOLMES CLAY GRIFFIN EPPERSON 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#319 17000 SAMAR DR PO BOX 11927 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5192 COSTA MESA CA 92626 COSTA MESA CA 92627-0291 939-50-594 939-50-595 939-50-597 3 t3 214 a is STACY LOGAN MAMDOUH Y.&EBTESAM A.KHALED WAYNE W.&THERESA R-RYLSKI 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#323 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#324 9770 LA ZAPATILLA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5192 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5193 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-3531 939-50-598 939-50-599 939-50-600 - 314 3t1 3tS JUSTIN &VICKIE LEE BRANSON SHIN-El U S A INC MICHAEL B.NESTOR 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#328 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#332 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5193 ARCADIA CA 91007-6110 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5193 939-50-601 939-50-602 - ----- --- 939-50-603 - - 3tq 320 3 Z! SYLVIA SUE MOHUNDRO RANDOLPH C.PAYNE ERNEST &RUTH FELD 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#334 6201 MORNINGSIDE DR 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#336 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5193 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-6103 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5194 939-50-604 939-50-605 939-50-606 ---" 322 323 3z9 ROGER DEAN WILHELM KOJI OKACHI JACK T.PARKS 4598 PARK HILL OR 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#341 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124-4785 ARCADIA CA 91007-6110 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5194 939-50-607 939-50-608 939-50-609 - - 3zs 3ZG - 3Z'► GREINKE CATHLEEN S TRUST P WILLIAM H.&KATHLEEN M.BYERS PEGGIE CHERIE PEARSON. 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#342 433 BEACON HILL DR ' 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY 9345 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5194 COPPELL TX 75019-3717 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5195 939-50-610 3 Z Q 939-50-611 3 Zq - - - _- - - - 939-50-612 33 0 DAVID T.&DONNA J.SKIDMORE ALLISON M.RICHMAN ROBERT B.&BARBARA M.BRYANT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY UNIT#346 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#347 23 BOGEY LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5195 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5195 COTO DE CAZA CA 926794929 939-50-613 - 939-5D-614 939-50-615 33 It 332 333 PAUL H.STRAIN HUGH &VICTORIA A LOVE MAURICE GERARD 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#349 12082 E LAUREL LN 8311 SNOWBIRD DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5195 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85259-3349 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6120 Smooth Feed SheetSTM Use tel lat for 516 Smooth Feed Sheets 27-A- �7-3 Use temp for 516019 939-50-555 939-50-556 939-50-557 Z14 21.5 5i 1 6 CHARLES W.SCHMIDT RICHARD C.&KAREN J.THEIL MICHAEL A.COLACARRO 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#147 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#148 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#149 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 939.50-558 939-50-559 939-50-560 2.7 Qs Z 1 9 TODD C.RYNEARSON ANTHONY T.&SHEILA M.LEE JACK M.FRYER 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#150 18422 VILLA DR 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#208 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 VILLA PARK CA 92861-2812 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 939-50-561 939-50-562 939-50-563 7,4e0 2.$1 2 62 JESSICA L.PIZANO ROSS W.AMSPOKER EDWARD JOHN RUTYNA 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#209 36449 TIERRA SUBIDA AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#216 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 PALMDALE CA 93551-7956 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 939-50-564 939-50-565 939-50-566 WILLIAM P.LALLY KATHERINE BIXBY EMMA NIZNIK 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#217 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#218 343 S AVE 52 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 LOS ANGELES CA 90042-4505 939-50-567 2 6 939-50-568 939-50-56 Z g ERIC M.&CHRISTINA T.YAO GUILHERME L.FARJALLA TAK1S &JOANNE$TATHOULIS 25 WARMSPRING 21776 TAHOE LN 12050 WOODRUFF AVE IRVINE CA 92614-5422 LAKE FOREST CA 92630-1931 DOWNEY CA 90241-5604 939-56-570 939-50-571 939-50-572 2$q Zao Za► ALFONSO RAGUS LLACUNA ROBINSON ROBERT J TR OF OK IDOKI MARIO &LORRAINE RICCIARDI 321 N OAKHURST DR,4ENZ VA",C a 2950 E LA JOLLA ST 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#239 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210-4175 �O3 ANAHEIM CA 92806-1307 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5189 939-50-573 939-50-574 Z A 3 _ 939-50-575 Z aq 2AZ . ALTE CO LTD THEODORE C.&KELLY A.FRANKIEWICZ MICHAEL JOHNSON 4-11-20 MI SENBA CHUO-KU OSAKA 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#245 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#250 JAPAN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5190 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5190 939-50-576 939-50-577 - 939-50-578--- - -- 295 Zq 6 ZQ'1 HAZEM 1.&NOHA SABRY RICHAR A.MILLER JAMES B.UM 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#300 7956 PAINTER AV 1762 SOMBRERO DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5190 WHITTIER CA 90602-2413 MONTEREYPARK CA 91754-2264 939-50-579 939-50-580 939-50-581 - ZR4 Ztq 3eo HUNG THAI TRAN CHET COX JUNKO UEDA 8006 N EL DORADO ST 2232 CHATSWORTH CT 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#306 STOCKTON CA 95210-2306 HENDERSON NV 89014-5309 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5191 939-50-582 939-50-583 939-50-584 - - 3o ♦ 3o2 303 ALFONS R.&MARY A.IBRAHIM KELLY K.DITMORE MAURICE H.GERARD 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#307 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#309 8311 SNOWBIRD DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5191 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5191 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6120 "swims I Addtbw!UbbN:s Smooth Feed SheetsT"" Use template for 516.0 'Smooth Feed SheetsTm Z T� � 3 Use template for 5160" 939-50-525 939-50-526 939-50-527 24 4 24S 1z416 DIANNE THOMPSON WiLLIAM H.GRIFFITH JAMES E.FISH 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#116 806 S SAPPHIRE LN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#118 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9264-5167 ANAHEIM CA 92807-4854 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 939-50-528 Z A'1 939-50-529 Z 4 4 939-50-530 Z 4 q DANIEL T.O'BRIEN RICHARD CHARLES MICHALIK MARIANO S.&LUCITA M.CRUZ 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#119 7041 BIG SPRINGS CT _ 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#121 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 LAS VEGAS NV 89113-1361 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 939-50-531 939-50-532 939-50-533 Zsv -X ZSz DONALD GALITZEN AMALIA E.SALAZAR WILLIAM &BONNIE COPELAND 9770 JAMES RIVER CIR 835 SAN MARINO AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#124 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-7308 MONTEBELLO CA 90640-5525 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5178 939-50-534 939-50-535 'L S q 939-50-536 Z S S 2S3 VIDAL E.ESPELETA MANOUC B.SIMSIAN FRANCISCO ALBIZU 2746 N VISTA HEIGHTS AV PO BOX 661884 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#127 ORANGE CA 92867-1757 ARCADIA CA 91066-1884 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5178 939-50-537 Z S 6 939-50-538 ZS 939-50-539 2 S is PAUL C.&DEBORAH SUE BYRNE DE ETTE PIER INC JOHN D.&KATHRYN D.PARRISH 6732 ALAMITOS CIR 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#130 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1537 ARCADIA CA 91007-6110 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5184 939-50-540 939-50-541 939-50-542 25�t 26o ZCt LEONARD LEE&NANCY S.BAILEY MEI HUI WANG BOHNKE JOANNE TRUST&PT 1377 E CITRUS AV#157 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#132 595 E COLORADO BLVD#810 REDLANDS CA 92374-4012 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5184 PASADENA CA 91101-2001 939-50-543 939-50-544 939-50-545 262. 21,s 2 G4 RANDOLPH C.PAYNE SHIN-El U S A INC STEVEN RUSSELL&MARGARET ANN 6201 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE 61 N GOLDEN WEST AVE iff SA MARYS CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-6103 ARCADLA CA 91007-6110 SANTA ANA CA 92705-6112 939-50-546 939-50-547 939-50-548 GINA C.C.YU MICHAEL R.&LINDA M.WOMACK SEBASTIAN J.CALABRO 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#138 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#139 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#140 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5185 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5185 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5185 939-50-549 939-50-550 6 939=50-551---- ---- y6g Z4a A z-to yi a RODNEY L.&REGINA A.ALBRIGHT BARTLETT TRUST PT BARTLETT TRUS 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#141 607 7TH ST 607 7TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5185 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4612 HU TON BEACH CA 92648-4612 939-50-552 - 939-50-553 It Z E 939-50-554 2 3 2't t J.E.&DOLORES M.ASH SHU MEI TSAI MARY TRACY 48322 MONTERRA CIR E 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#145 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#146 PALM DESERT CA 92260-6607 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 /! ° A� gls La5€4� 5 Smooth Feed SheetSTM Use template for 5160@' Smooth Feed SheetsTM z-T14- `��? - 3 Use template for 51600 937-19-214 937-19-215 937-19-216 2L4 2't6 Zt6 DARRICK USIADEK SHELLEY L.JOHNSON STEVE LAZATIN 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#315 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#316 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#317 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 937-19-217 937-19-218 937-19-219 2.l1 21S Zlq TIMOTHY P.YOUNG RALPH DIFIORE SZUBA TED L&CAROL A 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#318 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#319 320 6TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4802 937-19-220 937-19-221 937-19-222 yzp ZZ l SHELDON &BARBARA S.PINCHUK PETER &NANCY T.CROWLEY JOHN P.MURRAY 4440 VANCEBORO CT 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#322 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#323 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91364-5665 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926484679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 937-19-223 937-19-224 937-19-225 22 3 2 24 Z25 ROGER D.ANDERSON ARTHUR R.NICHOLS ROBERT VIEFHAUS 419 MAIN ST#88 PO BOX 549 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#326 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5199 PLACENTIA CA 92871-0549 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 937-19-226 937-19-232 -- 226 22'� Z2.�d • ROBERT D.HOOP CITY OF HUNTING BEACH ROBERT J.KOURY 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#327 2000 r NS 200 MAIN ST#206 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-8123 I 939-50-510 939-50-511 939-50-512 y2q Z3o 231 MARILYN MONTERO GORDON HAIN MICHAEL MING-PING TSAI 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#101 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#102 1878 CALLE LA PAZ HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 91748-2508 939-50-513 939-50-514 939-50-515 3-32 Za3 1 Z34 LOUIS &MARIA NEMETH VANETTA WIHLIDAL WOLFGANG &MARY HAUBOLD 19721 WATERBURY LN 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#105 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#106 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-3500 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9264&5123 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9264&5123 939-50-516 939-50-517 939-50-518 --^- Zss-. RUDY J.SANCHEZ + FRANCISCO R.FABREGAS JOHN A.CREWS . 987 VERONA DR 18401 HAMPTON CT 13653 BEACH ST FULLERTON CA 92835-3338 NORTHRIDGE CA 91326-3601 CERRITOS CA 90703-14M 939-50-519 939-50-520 - 939-50-521 - 23'6 1.3q / 24a PETER J.CAGNEY RAY EWING GORGEN G.YOUSSEFIAN 210 W TEMPLE ST#18-121 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#11 2530 UNION AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90012-3210 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 LA HABRA CA 90631-5837 939-50-522 939-50-523 939-50-524 - 24t i ZAZ 243 BARTLEfT TRUST PT TODD GARCIA HWANG ERNIE&KATHRYN 607 7TH ST 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#114 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#115 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4612 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5124 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 �° Ad4 ft"Ws Laser S966TM .�•1"iJtJlll rC���CCLSQ�TM zI A' G19-3 uSE`L,�j� �}QC11�R� 937-19-184 937-19-185 937-19-186 t0 A 4�S L4 b THOMAS A.SAUER ELMER PHIBBS GERALD V.HOLOMBO 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#211 15642 SUNBURST LN 201 THATCHER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-2945 FOSTER CITY CA 94404-3950 937-19-187 937-19-188 937-19-189 [45-i �$Q' t�q SANDRA WARF FRED L.&MARGARET O.SHAFER - JOSEPH FAZIO 339 REGATTA WAY 8262 SNOWBIRD DR 918 MAIN ST SEAL BEACH CA 90740-5987 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-5546 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3419 937-19-190 937-19-191 937-19-192 tao �a� I q7- TOM DIXON BRIAN EMERSON KEITH B.BOHR 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#217 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#218 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#219 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 937-19-193 937-19-194 937-19-195 143 . �aa gas (fR) ARNOLD DAVID BURNETT LARRY G.FREUDE 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#220 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#221 12925 ARABELLA PL HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 CERRITOS CA 90703-6101 937-19-196 937-19-197 937-19-198 - 1A RICHARD L.&VALERIE DEEN MICHAEL R.&TAMLYN K.HAGEMEISTER BRUCE TRUST PT 2661 E CHARLINDA ST 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#224 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#225 WEST COVINA CA 91791-2901 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 937-19-199 937-19-200 937-19-201 lqq zoo Za MARISA O'NEIL GEORGE R.&JENNIFER L.VILLANO RITA SADAKO RICHARDSON 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#226 6886 CAMBRIA COVE CIRCLE 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#301 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2640 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 937-19-202 937-19-203 937-19-204 2a 2 Zo 3 Ze4 BRIAN LEECING MICHAEL P.DELANEY NORMAN W&TSARINA L.BRANYAN 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#302 7548 THOUSAND OAKS DR 19631 DEARBORNE Cl HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648.4678 TUJUNGA CA 91042-2625 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-6648 937-19-205 937-19-206 937-19-207 2.V5 2,ec PETER OAKES PAXSON MYRA F.MICHELSON JULIAN CUMMINGS 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#305 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#306 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#309 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNnNGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 937-19-208 937-19-209 - - - 937-19-210 - Za$ Zs9 Ztb MARIBETH DANKO JULIAN C.CUMMINGS JENE W.LONGO 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#310 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 937-19-211 937-19-212 937-19-213 Z�l 21L 'Lt3 SABINE WROMAR ELEANOR MICHELSON JAMES &CARRIE BALDOVIN 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#312 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#313 415 TOWNSQUARE LN 4314 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926484679 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926484679 t tJ (1 h gTM Smoot�i°FeeF ee_�es 937-19-154 937-19-155 937-19-156 LSA t6S l56 JANICE L KLOTH ROBERT SCOTT FISHER HARRY R.&KAY L.DUNNE 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#101 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#102 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#103 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-157 937-19-158 937-19-159 l5't t5� LSq EDWARD R.&MICHELE HUTCHISON GERALD D.&DOLORES SHULTZ ANDREW WILLIAM MIGLIACCIO 4782 CITRIODORAAV 11304 E PRINCE RD 8691 SALT LAKE DR YORBA LINDA CA 92886-2535 TUCSON AZ 85749-9039 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-3245 937-19-160 937-19-161 937-19-162 lbC l61 [62 KERRY L&BARBARA D.PENDERGAST PAMELA LEWIS ARTHUR R.&CAROL L.H.MONTSINGER 7175 OROZCO DR 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#108 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#109 RIVERSIDE CA 92506-5561 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-163 937-19-164 1 b4 937-19-165 163 ' 16S • DONALD CHARLES THOMPSON ROBERT P.&MILDRED A.CASTRO_ JEFFREY M.&MARY L HARDEN 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#110 2313 SAINT BEDES CT 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#112 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 RESTON VA 20191-1621 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-166 937-19-167 937-19-168 - -- 166 1617 [61 ROBERT T.MILLER PARMANAND PARIKH BHARTI Y.PARIKH 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#113 6872 ROOK DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-5665 937-19-169 937-19-170 937-19-171 - f 6Q rt 0 l'l WAYNE HELLER CARL R.&N.L TRUS ANDERSON JOHN BEHL.MER 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#123 3722 E SHOMI CT 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#125 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 PHOENIX AZ 85044-4526 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-172 937-19-173 937-19-174 — - - t T 2 1,73 RICHARD &DONNA RIGGLE DAWN MARIE WALKER MARIA TERESA DISPALATRO 513 N CHALBURN AVE 28627 MT WHITNEY WY 512 PIERSIDE CIR WEST COVINA CA 91790-1446 RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275-1829 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4676 937-19-175 937-19-176 937-19-177 h S lZL SUSAN LYNN SCHWARTZ JOHN &CAROA D.HOOKER KAREN HEIDT 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#202 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#203 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#204 HUNTWGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-178 937-19-179 937-19-180 --- III RICHARD OTTO VICTOR J.SMITH AKEMI SAWADA J 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#205 220 W SPRINGFIELD AVE 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#207 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2704 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4623 937-19-181 937-19-182 --- - - 937-19-183 tQt 19Z i [BS WESLEY 0.SMITH SCOTT MCCARTY JEFFERY D.HENL.EY 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#208 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#209 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#210 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926484678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 am Wfff AdddessdibbMs " DTPMP LABELS/WC/9/6/00 2 '17- -3 024-133-10 3 S`° 024-133-12,-38;39 024-133-20 I c WILLIAM ROBERTS ROBERT KOURY DAVID BROADFOOT 320 HARTFORD PO BOX 776 4999 KAHALA AVE APT 121 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-0076 HONOLULU,HI 96816-5429 4741 024-133-23 13 024-133-35 #ZA 024-134-03 4r-S 3 RAYMOND BASHKINGY DEBBIE CHIN ROBERT KOURY 4311 E OSBORN RD 408 TOWNSQUARE LN 200 MAIN ST 206 PHOENIX,AZ 85018-5923 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-8123 024-134-09 #3`4 024-134-10 #4O 024-134-11 -4 1 343 PECAN STREET INC 439 LAKE STREET INC ' 437 LAKE STREET INC 8431 SHORE CIRCLE 8931 SHORE CIR 8931 SHORE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646-3316 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-3316 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646-3316 024-134-20 -ZF:gs 024-147-03 -it 62 024-147-14 FAYE OGDEN DONALD GALITZEN DOUGLAS LANGEVIN 1211 MONTEGO ST PO BOX 431 4124 LEONARD RD ARROYO GRANDE,CA 93420-2434 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-6431 GRANTS PASS,OR 97527-9255 . I 024-147-37 024-147-38 # 024-153-07 GARY HATCH JOHN GALLAGHER GARY MULLIGAN 181 SWANSON AVE 300 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY#113 221 MAIN ST#6 LAKE HAVASU CITY,AZ 86403-6529 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-5109 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-8 1 1 1 024-154-01 # 1°6 024-154-02 #1°'1 024-172-10 -4 11 4 MAZEN ZEIDAN CAROL FARRIS LEWIE DERIGO %OCEAN PACIFIC MARKET 17032 PALMDALE ST UNIT C 807 MAIN ST 301 17TM ST HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647-5424 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-3416 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-4209 024-173-02 # 1 =-3 024-173-03 024-173-04 GORDON HIGGINS KERRY PIEROPAN ROBERT KOURY 789 ORPHEUS AVE 2000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY#102 PO BOX 776 ENCINITAS,CA 92024-2156 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-3948 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-0776 024-173-05 1 Z b MAZ GROUSSMAN 421 ROLLING HILLS PL ANAHEIM,CA 92807-3609 of I IV DtFll"r COWATM 2- TA -024-143-26 024-143-26 024-143-26 161 l5Z AS3 JAMES V.&JEANETTE C.LOTA ROBERT KAMINSKI JAMES V.&J.C.(TR)LOTA 388 5TH ST 324 5TH ST 388 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 i WZERY15 Address labels Laser 5960TMERYe __ Address Labels Laser 5960TM S m osoTR fee ft9ee'd z7-4 -3 UsTvte"of@1o4p9--oc 024172-12 024-173-01 024-173-02 tZ 122 tZ3 CITY OF HUNTING BEACH SCOTT R.CLELAND GLORIA GAY TREECE 2000 MAIN ST 789 ORPHEUS AVE HUNT ON BEACH CA 92648-2702 ENCINITAS CA 920242156 024-173-03 024-173-04 024-173-05 17-4 12.5 12-4 KERRY L PIEROPAN ROBERT J.KOURY DRAPER GEORGE E TRUST PT 201 MAGNOLIA PO BOX 65176 . 1210 PECAN AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LOS ANGELES CA 90065-0176 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4533 024-143-26 024-143-26 024-143-26 1Z'1 124`0 1 Z9 TROY A-&LYNN NL AUZENNE VIRGINIA GERMANN IDELLE HOFFMAN 336 STH ST 338 5TH ST 334 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024-143-26 024-143-26 024-143-26 ISO - tat 13 Z PETER ANDRIET ALBERT KINDERMAN CURT RADETICH 390 STH ST 368 5TH ST 312 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024-143-26 024-143-26 024-143-26 l313 13 q l3 s THUNDER MARINE INC CHARLES H.&MARJORIE J.BUNTEN AUTUMN AHLERS 1131 SW KLICKITAT WAY 380 5TH ST 370 STH ST SEATTLE WA 98134-1108 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024-143-26 024-143-26 024-143-26 t3L 13'7 l39 GERALD L.&JEANNE HOLDREN CHRISTINA T.CLAY PETER(TR)ANDRIET 376 STH ST 328 5TH ST 226 22ND ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024-134-14 024-143-26 024-143-26 13q 14 c [Al COY F.&CHERYL A BAUGH JEFFREY PEARSON KENNETH E&MYRNA R.WALSH 443 LAKE ST 384 5TH ST 354 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024-134-10 024-143-26 024-134-09 tat 143- t4q ERIC R.&KLARA D.ZELLMER PAUL MAKHAIL T1MMY ANDERSEN 441 LAKE ST 305 5TH ST 445 LAKE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024-143-26 - - - - - 024-143-26 024-143-26 ►4.S 141 HILLARY E.&GAIL M.NEWMAN (TR) BENAVENTE ANGELA MARLOWE 20191 CAPE CORAL LN#305 316 5TH ST 326 STH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 024-143-26 t 4 $ 024-143-26 024-143-26 • l4a ts � STEVEN HANYAK ALBERT S.&NAHOKO K.LACHER SCHUYLER PETERSON 372 5TH ST 322 5TH ST 364 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92M HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92M AAdem"htgs r ATM Srxift� PsTM U �tfc � 0244152-13 q l 024-152-14 a Z 024-153-01 a3 REDEVELOPM GENCY CITY OF B EACH RREDEVEL NT AGENC RED�iN PME ENCY OF Cl TY OF HU GTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 BEACH CA 92648-2702 HUNT TON BEACH CA 92648-2702 024-153-02. . 024-153-03 024-153-04 01 a� REDEVELOP AGENCY OF Cl TY OF REDEVELOP AGENCY OF Cl TY OF JAMES A LANE ST T 637 FRANKFORT AV HU INGTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HU INGTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4902 024-153-05 Q7 024-153-07 a$ 024-153-10 A 9 RONALD A.MASE BANK OF COMMERCE - REDEVELOPMENT A CITY OF 16642 INTREPID LN 9918 HIBERTST#301 M�S{Y�tr ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2826 SAN DIEGO CA 92131-1018 HUNT N EACH CA 92648-2702 024-153-11 L O O 024-153-16 l 0 024-153-17 I o Z. ELDON WILLARD BAGSTAD REDEVELC;PM5NfAGEENCY OF Cl TY OF GEORGE E.DRAPER 901 CATALINA AVE Y6&�WW, T 1210 PECAN AV SEAL BEACH CA 90740-5851 HUN GTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4533 024-153-18 - 024-153-21 024-153-23 Lola to tes FRANK ALFONSO REDEVELOPMpPrrGENCY CITY OF ABDELMUTI DEVELOPMENT CO 6630 VICKMEW DR 101 MAIN ST WEST HILLS CA 91307-2749 HUNJeGTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-8118 024-154-01 024-154-02 024-154-03 tO6 tol I o$ MOHAMMED ZEIDAN CAROL J.FARRIS MORNING JADE CORPORATION 7021 SEAL CIR 3417 BUCKEYE PL 11642 PINE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3035 NEWBURY PARK CA 91320-5433 LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720-4159 024-154-04 024-154-17 024-172-01 to q Ito i�l LINDA D.BIGGS LLC KYRAY JOHN R.&PEGGY J.KNOX 125 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD 16210 BERTELLA DR 13472 TULANE ST MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266-5431 ENCINO CA 91436-3302 WESTMINSTER CA 92683-1755 024-172-02 — 024-172-03 024-172-04 t�z u3 . tiq JAMES TRAVIS MC BEATH JAMES T.MC BEATH BEATH THOMAS SANETTI 19522 WESTWINDS LN 19522 WESTWINDS LN 529 LAKE ST . HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-3328 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-3326 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4909 024-172-05 - 024-172-06 024-172-07 its i i f. lt7 VIRGIL E BREWSTER VIRGIL E.BREWSTER GUS ZISAKIS 7922 SPEER AVE 7922 SPEER AVE 16351 TUFTS LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6728 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6728 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-4058 024-112-09 024-172-10 024-172-11 l t� i i q Izo KIM J.EUN LEWIE P.DERIGO DAVE M.&DIANA L.BONNADONNA 17681 HELENBROOK LN 16915 EDGEWATER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649.4860 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4205 ddddrr�� $ Laser 5960TT RYA AAadress tagels Z�9 C_q -3 Laser 5960 te for 51600 Sft@�� w 2 /t Use t pl to for 51600 024-147-01 6 1 024-147-03 6 024-147-05 E,3 2 BEACH REDEVE MENT AGENC DONALD GALITZEN WILLIAM G.&PHILOMENE P-GALLEGOS � '+"� 9770 JAMES RIVER CIR 208 5TH ST HU TON BEACH CA 92648-2702 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-7308 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5118 024-147-08 64 024-147-09,-0$6 5.4 6 g 4 7 1 024-147-14 G 6 SURF CITY AL SURF CITY CAPITAL LTD DOUGLAS M.S.LANGEVIN 6621 E PACIFIC COAST HWY# 8196 PAWTUCKET DR . LONG BEACH CA 90803-4200 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6736 024-147-15 67 024-147-23 6� 024-147-25 6 9 CDB LAND&FARMING LLC TIMOTHY PATRICK 8 MICHELE MARIE _ RICHARD A HARLOW 215 8.215112 MAIN ST ; YZESHWATER CIR 1742 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1122 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2723 024-147-28 024-147-29 024-147-30 7 Z ROBERT J.KOURY SURF CITY CAP WILLIAM G.&PHILOMENE P.GALLEGOS 200 MAIN ST#206 210 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9264"123 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5118 024-147-31 024-147-33 q 024-147-34 7 5 'i 3 - CITY OF HUN71 ON BEACH CITY OF HUNT GTON BEACH REDEVELOPM AGENCY OF CI TY OF PO BOX 1 2000 MAINTM1AA1���f L6' r HUNTI ON BEACH CA 92648-0190 HUNTIN ON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HUNT GTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 024-147-35 6 024-147-36 .�7 024-147-37 TAYLOR FAMILY TRUST COAST SPECIALTIES P.ROJECT#2 ORANGE . GARY HATCH 220 VIA SAN REMO 633 E CHAPMAN AVE PO BOX 5653 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663-5512 ORANGE CA 92866-1604 LAKE HAVASU CITY AZ 86404-0211 024-147-38 ,q 024-147-39 $C 024-147-40 JOHN C.GALLAGHER BEN ADAM TRAINER THOMAS A CAVERLY 3255 REVA OR C 30 FAIRWAY DRIVE 553 TEMPLE HILLS DR CONCORD CA 94519-2127 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901-2314 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651-2629 024-148-25 024-152-01 3 024-152-02 SHIRLEY D.WORTHY BEACH RE0 OP MENT AGENC 801 13TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3434 HU GTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 024452-03 - - 024-152-04 $b--- — 024-152-05 cb7 CITY OF HUNTtN ON BEACH R EDEV BEACH REDCEVII- P MENT AGENC BEACH RED OP MENT AGENC IN,,%T HUNTINt'`f, ON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HU GTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HU GTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 024-152-10 8$ -- —- 024-152-11 8 024-152-12 9 FRANK M.CRACCHIOLO BEACH RED OP MENT AGENC BEACH RED OP MENT AGENC 19712 QUIET BAY LNrt HUN77NGTON BEACH CA 92648-2616 HUNT !TON BEACH CA 92648-2702 HU GTON BEACH CA 92648-2702 AcWagg I ahA s[s Ljwr 5§66TM G - - Ube template for 51600 �)se template for 51600 024-134-01 3, 024-134-02 3,LL 024-134-03 3 3 JAMES RILEY&GWENDOLYN G.FOX CITY OF HUNTING BEACH R MAMIE L VANDERFORD 11783 ETON DR p �f HC 63 BOX 335 GRAND TERRACE CA 92313-5124 HUN WON BEACH CA 92648-2702 MOUNT IDA AR 71957-9776 024-134-04 3 q 024-13"5 3 S. 024-134-06,-07.- 3 6 t'3'({3 8 DIANA TR FOR KANTOLA MANDIC ROBERT P JR TR OF A LBERTA BRANKO &LOUISE CAVIC 1361 PARKSIDE DR 1361 PARKSIDE DR 8940 EL PRESIDENTE AVE RIVERSIDE CA 925064721 RIVERSIDE CA 92506-4721 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-4307 024-134-01 024-134-08 3 024-134-09 3 9 BRANKO >3< E CAVIC BRANK�VALLEENYTCA AViC CHARLES C.SHIN 8940 ESIDENTE AVE 8940 E AVE F AIN VALLEY CA 92708-4307 FO AIN 92708-4307 024-134-10 024-134-11 024-134-12 4 40 4 COY F.BAUGH SZUBA VICTOR DAVID R_&SALLY J.HOPPE 437 LAKE ST 16291 MANDALAY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5202 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2107 024-134-13 - 024-134-14 024-134-15 -_ A 3 AS KOICHI &YOKI HIRANO GEORG T.CHRISTA DIANA TR FOR KANTOLA 429 LAKE ST 10245 VIRGINIA AVE 1361 PARKSIDE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5202 SOUTH GATE CA 90280-6567 RIVERSIDE CA 92506-4721 -- -- ----------------- 024-134-17 4 6 024-134-18 41 024-134-19 416 ANDREW L.ORENS RICHARD ORENS THOMAS L&BETTY J.WICKSTROM 207 APPLETREE AVE 407 LAKE ST 21571 SURVEYOR CI CAMARILLO CA 93012-5192 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5221 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-7066 -- ------------------ -------------- 024-134-21 4a 024-134-22 6G 024-143-26 5 MARC POSCH HOWARD D.&JANICE M.HARRIS STANLEY &LOUISE DORN 411 LAKE ST 413 LAKE ST 362 5TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5221 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5221 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5120 _ ------------ 024-144-011-10 024-144-02 -- - ----------- -- S% S 5 3 . 024-144-03 S q ALICE PARNAKIAN BOLEN R D&P L 1999 TRUST ROBERT L. EE BOLEN 205 1ST ST 1818 PINE ST 1818 PINE ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5303 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2742 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2742 024-144-04 S S 024-144-10 S L 024-144-11 - ---- - S� UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ALICE P LEON I-DUBOV 6771 WARNER AVE 205 1ST 20222 DEERVALE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-9000 HU TON BEACH CA 92648-5303 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-4741 024-144-12 024-144-13 ---- -- 024-144-14 BEN TRAINER S6 MARCUS M.MC CALLEN CALLEN Y.H.SUN (e0 30 FAIRWAY DRIVE 123 PEACOCK OR 16721 CAROUSEL LN SAN RAFAEL CA M01-2314 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901-1552 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-2119 �� RY® A1189d6ftels Waver 5 M Srr%ottvHet "^ G Use template for 51600 Use template for 51600 024-133-09 1 024-133-12,-3f�, 2 Z-1 #2 cb 024-133-13 3 -3cl MANFRED &KARIN LENGSFELD ROBERT J.KOURY TOWN SQUARE �Comm, TY PO BOX 1047 PO BOX 65176 N®R EE RD TUSTIN CA 92781-1047 _- LOS ANGELES CA 90065-0176 N ORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 024-133-14 4 024-133-15 5 024-133-16 co DANIEL SALERNO RICHARD R.&DONNA A.AMADRIL RICHARD F.&JEANETTE B.MORAN 419 MAIN ST#111 506 PIERSIDE CIR 508 PIERSIDE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5199 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4676 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4676 024-133-17 -1 024-133-18 a 024-133-19 q FRANK DISPALATRO CONNOR MARY RENEAU-O KEVIN SHULTZ 512 PIERSIDE CIR 514 PIERSIDE CIR 515 PIERSIDE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4676 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4677 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4675 024-133-20 t C . 024-133-21 `1 024-133-22 DAVID W.BROADFOOT LARRY A.HALL DOUGLAS R J.CAMPBELL 513 PIERSIDE CIR 511 PIERSIDE CIR 507 PIERSIDE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4675 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4675 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9264"W5 024-13323 Is 024-133-24 14 024-133-25 s -- RAY MICHAELS MICHAEL W.MC CARTHY CARTHY STEVE S.GOLGOLAB 4311 E OSBORN RD 503 PIERSIDE CIR 501 PIERSIDE CIR PHOENIX AZ 85018-5923 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4643 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4643 024-133.26i Z7 Ito 1-1 024-133-27 1.1 024-133-29 Is TOWN SQR TOWNHOMES ASSN TpO�WG[N�rS��QR COMMUNI TY MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORP 4699 JAMBOREE RD fa!WA 4699 JAMBOREE RD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 NEWPA 92660.2504 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 024-133-30i-3 i�1 g l 2 0 o Z 1 Jet-2 024-133-31 024-133-32 TOWN SQUARE MASTER COMMUNI TY ASSN TOWN SQUAB TER COMMUNI TY ASSN TjR UARE MAS OMMUNI TY ASS 4699 JAMBOREE RD 4699 J REE RD 4O D NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2SX N ORT BEACH CA 92660-2504 NBEACH CA 92660-2504 024-13333 2.2 024-133-34 Z3 ---- 024-133-35 --— ------.- - 24 TOWN SQUARE COMMUNI.TY ASSN MARK A'NAJERA JLK TRUST PT 4699 JAMB RD 410 TOWNSQUARE LN 408 TOWNSQUARE LN NEWP BEACH CA 92560-2504 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4604 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926484804 024-13336 ,Z3 024-133-37 Zoo 024-13338 -27 - - - SCOT D.CAMPBELL ARTHUR LINCOLN HOPKINS ROBERT J.KOU j 406 TOWNSQUARE LN 404 TOWNSQUARE LN PO BOX HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 926484604 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1604 LOS ELES CA 90065-0176 024-133-39 Z$ 024-133-41 1a 024-13342 3 v ROBERT J.KOU 501 MAIN INC JAMES P.&BETTY 0.YOUNG PO BOX 201 WILSHIRE BLVD#A26 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#318 LO GELES CA 90065-0176 SANTA MONICA CA 90401-1212 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4679 n� �. RYoAddr 8�m(bets Las4ser 596Vd0TM Z 74 '715-� Surfcity Candy Jeffrey M. Oderman 126 Main Street, Suite 102 Rutan & Tucker LLP Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PO Box 1950 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 Coastline West Realty Color Me Mine Ceramics&Pottery Continental Cleaners 218 Fifth Street 109 Main Street 411 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dairy Queen Diamond Lane Diane's 102 PCH 122 Main Street 300 PCH,Suite 103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Disc-Go-Round Edward's Pierside 6 Cinemas El Don Liquor&Deli 200 Main Street,Suite 113 300 PCH 470 PCH Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Espresso Roma Farmers Insurance First Bank 101 Main Street,Suite 113 P.O Box 228 501 Main Street,Suite H Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 GNC General Nutrition Center Golden Spoon 200 Main Street,Suite 102 300 PCH,Suite 106A Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Great Western Sanitary Huntington Surf&Sport 328 Main Street 300 PCH Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach Art Center Huntington Beach Realty 538 Main Street 322 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Jax Bicycle Center International Surfmg Museum Jack's Garage 401 Main Street P.O.Box 782 101 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Jack's Surfboards Java Jungle Java Point Coffee 101 Main Street 602 PCH 300 PCH Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Juice It Up Law Offices of Ronald Davis 200 Main Street,Suite 114 300 PCH,Suite 410 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Papa Joe's Pizza Perqs Sports Bar Palm Court—Waterfront Hilton 508 PCH 117 Main Street 21100 PCH Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Ruby's Surf City Diner _ The Shed The Shore House Cafd l Main Street 210 5ei Street 520 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subway Taco Bell 300 PCH 116 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Taco Surf Taxi's Tavern Vic's Beach Concession 522 Main Street 318 Main Street P.O.Box 488 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Wahoo's Fish Taco Tom&Sheryl Caverly 24 Hour Fitness 120 Main Street 553 Temple Hills Drive 303 Third Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Laguna Beach,CA 92651 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 i Advanced Marketing International American Vintage Clothing Angelo's Beauty Supply&Salon 300 PCH,Suite 406 201 Main Street,Suite C 221 Main Street,Suite D Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Annie's Nails Baskin Robbins Beach Island 501 Main Street,Suite F 201 Main Street 127 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Beach Store Leia's Boutique Beachcombers !HWIngton rewbakers 200 Main Street,Suite 114 207 Main Street 12 Wa Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Beach,CA 92648 Surf City Candy Catwalk Mr.Don Galitzan 101 Main S t,Suite 111 205 Main Street 218 5d'Street Huntin n Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Chuck Dent Surf Center The Closet 222 Fifth Street 116 %Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (g janflabels) Z 7 / e � Burger King B.J.'s Chicago Pizzeria Baskin Robbins Ice Cream Parlor Barry Ellerbroek 200 Main Street,Suite 101 Steve Daniels 101 Main Street,Suite 410 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 201 Main Street,Suite`B" Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 - Holly's Yogurt Sugar Shack Cafe 213 Main Street 213 1/2 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Noah's Bagels Pete's Mexican Food 215 Main Street Pedro C.Ambriz Huntington Beach,CA 92648 213 5th Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Longboard Supreme Donuts Jamba Juice Bruce Milliken Veng Chau Jamba Juice&Elizabeth Koh 217 Main Street 602 Pacific Coast Hwy. 101 Main Street,Suite 109 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Sunset Grill Occupant Java Jungle Martin Jaconi 501 Main Street 602 Pacific Coast Hwy. 200 Main Street,Suite 105 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Starbucks Inc. Chimayo Restaurant 221 Main Street Mr.Rudy Pollak Huntington Beach,CA 92648 567 San Nicolas Ste.400 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Duke's Dwight's Beach Concession Gallagher's Pub 317 PCH 201 PCH 300 PCH,Suite 113 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 The Grinder Aloha Grill Huntington Beach Beer Company 21002 PCH 221 Main Street,Suite F Mr.Peter Andriet Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 201 Main Street,Suite E Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hurricane's Bar&Grill John Gilbert,General Manager TS Restaurants 200 Main Street,Suite 201 Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort Mr. Bill Parsons Huntington Beach,CA 92648 21100 Pacific Coast Highway 225 Plaza Street,Ste.300 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Solano Beach,CA 92075 Luigi's Louise's Trattoria Mr.K's Karaoke 201 Main Street 300 PCH,Suite 202 300 PCH,Suite 112 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (gjanAabels) 2-r f 179 Ms.Joyce Riddell,President Ms.Diane Baker Ms.Marie St.Germain Chamber of Commerce-- FIB Conference&Visitors Bureau Downtown Residents Association 2100 Main Street Ste 200 417 Main Street 505 Alabama Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mr.Oliver Cagle Mr.John S.Given Mr.Steve Bone Capital Pacific Holdings C1M Group,LLC The Robert Mayer Corporation 4100 MacArthur Blvd.,Ste.200 10960 Wilshire Blvd.,Suite 500 660 Newport Center Dr.,Suite 1050 Newport Beach,CA 92658-7150 Loa Angeles,CA 90024 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8680 Lisa Chiu Mr. Keith Bohr Mr.Jeff Bergsma The Independent Newspaper 415 Town Square Lane,No.219 Team Design 18682 Beach Boulevard,Ste. 160 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 215 Main Street,Ste.A Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mr.Peter Winterfelt 226 Eleventh Street Eron Ben Yenuda Huntington Beach,CA 92648 The Independent Newspaper 18682 Beach Boulevard,Ste. 160 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mr.John Tillotson Mr.Mike Abdelmuti JT Development,LLC Abdelmuti Development Company Put Agendas in all City Council,Plar 15272 Bolsa Chica Rd. 101 Main Street Commissioners,and Planners mail b, Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 VIP Cellular&Paging Co. Surf City Sports Chiropractic Town Market and Video 504 Main Street,Suite C 411 Main Street,Suite B 526 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 U.S.Post Office 316 Olive Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Sea Nails Streetlight Espresso Caf6 200 Main Street,Suite 117 201 Main Street,Suite D Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Sun`N'Sands Motel Sunshine Suit Co. 1102 PCH 123 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I (g:jan/labels) Z7,+ '9y-3 Lt.Tony Sollec' Jim Engle Matt Lamb Mr. Steve Daniel Ms.Judy Legan John Fuji Downtown Business Association Orange County Association of Realtors Deputy Ci ey 200 Main Street No. 106 25552 La Paz Road Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Laguna Hills,CA 92605 President Mr.William Holman President Amigos De Bolsa Chica PLC Huntington Beach Tomorrow 16531 Bolsa Chica Road Ste.312 23 Corporate Plaza,Ste.250 411 6th Street Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Newport Beach,CA 92660-7912 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 President,HB Historical Society Chairperson Ms.Patricia Koch c/o Newland House Museum Historical Resources Board HB Union High School District 19820 Beach Blvd. Community Services Department 10251 Yorktown Avenue Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mike Mudd Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Ms.Susan Roper Dr.Duane Dishno Mr.Jerry Buchanan HB Union High School District HB City Elementary School District HB City Elementary School District 10251 Yorktown Avenue P.O.Box 71 P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Mr.Bob Mandic Mr.Jeff Bergsma Mr.Dick Harlow 16242 Pisbury Circle Team Design 211 -B Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92649 215 Main Street, Ste.A Huntington Beach,.CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mr.Bruce Shapiro,Principal Mr.Doug Campbell Arizona Partners 507 Pierside Circle 3200 N.Central Ave.Ste.2450 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phoenix,Arizona 85012 Mr.Mike Adams Mr.Bob Bolen Ron&Estelle Roberts 19771 Sea Canyon Circle 1818 Pine Street 220 Hartford Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 John Given Jack Clapp Bannister&Associates Insurance CIM Group 1210 Main Street Doug Bannister 10960 Wilshire Blvd.Ste.500 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 305 17'h Street Los Angeles,CA 90024 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4209 D �,: c� (gj abets) • Lewis TV Lucy's Alterations ZTQ �9� Mail Boxes Etc. 326 Main Street 504 Main Street,Suite B 18685 Main Street,Suite A Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mailbox Station Main Street Dry Cleaners Main Street Eyewear&Boutique 419 Main Street 504 Main Street 200 Main Street,Suite 107 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Main-Street Hair Co. Main Street Tanning&Skin Spa Makin' Waves 200 Main Street,Suite 108 501 Main Street,Suite B 320 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mandic Motors Merrilee's Michael's Surf&Sport 424 Main Street 124 Main Street 414 PCH Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Montgomery Jewelers Native Waves Pier Realty 501 Main Street,Suite G 221 Main Street,Suite E 200 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Pierside Dentistry Pierside Gallery Pristine Porsche 501 Main Street,Suite A 300 PCH,Suite 107 A 225 Fifth Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Robert August Surfboards Rockin'Fig Surf Headquarters Mr.Steve Daniel 300 PCH,Suite 101 316 Main Street Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 200 Main Street,Suite 106 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Sakal Surfboards -y"'``-Y •'=r_i 201 Main Street,Suite A Huntington Beach,CA 92648 p;: .E r•. ,, .y . (g jamnabefs) 939-505-64 2 103 939-505-67 tts.0 t. 939-505-71 4# 2 g O WILLIAM LALLY • ERIC YAO ROBERT ROBINSON • 6782 CANTERBURY DR PO BOX 17196 4811 E LA PALMA AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647-2703 IRVINE,CA 92633-7196 ANAHEIM, CA 92807-1454 2 0. 3 939-505-96 o 939-505-74 939-505-88 3 0-7 THEODORE FRANKIEWIC GARY HAIRABEDIAN • WIN TING 16727 COBBLER CROSSING 4141 BALL ROAD SUITE 256 2 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 25 SUGAR LAND,TX 77478-7156 CYPRESS,CA 90630 HUN GTON BEACH,CA 92648 51 939-506-03 W 3z 1 939-506-12 -t 33 o 939-506-13 �F33 ERNEST&RUTH FELD ROBERT BRYANT PAUL STRAIN 1957 MALCOLM AVE 200 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 2055 E BROADWAY UNIT 206 d LOS ANGELES,CA 90025-4705 UNIT 348 LONG BEACH,CA 90803 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-5195 939-506-18 33 6 939-506-35 3S3 ALTE CO. CLAIR ADACHI 4-11-20 MINAMI SENBA 33 KEWEN WAY CHUG-KU ALISO VIEJO,CA 92656-6248 OSAKA JAPAN i i i Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk +� P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939-50-582 30 % ALFONS R.&MARY IBRAHIM O��NS I MGTQ,y 200 PACIFIC COAST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5191 - v ' IBRA200 9P648SO17 1A00 16 10IR8100 RETURN TO SENDER co —�—! - IBRAHIM �,► MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER �QUNTY ca` LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ��saa '•��ctt�:'=::=i• � : I{�{„�,I,i�l{�,�1��{{„{„t,lll •t,l„fl,�l,ll��,��,lil,l„li,,,l�il,li���l,{��1 IIi'1lliil'f1111111f 1111111�1I11lilllllilllllilllli`1lliill I� d�},('\�IE ����T�7r Fi ONO3H 0118nd -30110N IV931 1r� �1Nno� cclrc-5�1�4c6 1d0 }i0t139 N01JNI-LNnH �� N"IYr►► '�i9 N-1 A.H�:iONI113 ,._'TT6T VN0tJV % Nk:IAAd.1. 2,41 S;XXVJ. : a O aNAS 01 N1Li cIX= �iWII a-ddr4aOA Qo/OT/OT 2T 669T Z20E9i;PE& 91.,IXV-1. 8b9Z6 do`prrag uoiStnlunH 6�a f►.«.arM` �! 100US uiew 81£ u.aanBZ s,ixi;,£ 91I1N�� 8V936 d0 'yoee8 uot6ul}unH 06L x08 'O'd Niel0 40 eul;o 901140 yoee8 uoj6uwlunH ;oAj!0 _,. Nje10 Al!0 'AL'mN0oa8 e1uuo0 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach °� Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 !� x:x. z.H �Jk Ye-7'` 'CEO 937-19-225 IMGj�', ROBERT VIEFHAUS ;. 0� �%CO"f0" 415 TOWNSQUARE LN#326 VIEF415 926483007 1999 10 10/10/00 RETURN TO SENDER � V IEFHAUS MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS 'AA — UNABLE TO FORWARD 19�f•� `�(O OCTI)ON] TA AFNITFO NTY �a` . LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 1! i I i if 1 if i If Ili 1 H I i H i 11 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk �w P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 FOry 939-50-616 • 32q I JEFFREY A DROESSLER I NGTQp 200 PACIFIC COAST HWY#404 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5196 o Z F�WNT1 ca LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING 32fa ,auti�� 11,1IM1111 lift 111111,fit 111:1s,Il1{ls,[lilt III III l;t1ll If if Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939-505-74 2 q 3 THEODORE FRANKIEWIC (��It-<7� 12�� IN6TQ -_._ _w 16727 COBBLER CROSSING SUGAR LAND,TX 77478-7156 Q �QUNTy Cad LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 4"1'1"•II"I'I►"II"I'lll„�js�ll�I��ti�'l'I I!i""I"II{,I,��II;I�I{���I'I! : . :�,.: UUNI3S OUN Z0Z9-mZ6 VO HOV38 NOS 3�6 �O ONV81H I-AO),V wOtOx �'yp19N11N�� ly\l1JIUIl��ry 548�8ti9Z6 400 1� uo 6u un 8t�9Z6 b'O 4 oea 8 i 3 .3 H 06L x08 'O'd Naalo At!0 a43 fo ao!ff0 a 1 yoea8 uot6u!tunH fo f%1!0 ° . n NjelC Aj!C 'AemNooa8 a!uuo0 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach i '" �'� Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 KIM J.EUN INGTpy 17681 HELENBROOKLN �rcaror�rFO B�. HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4860 C4 - y {{ cpGNTY 1- AVINOTICEL'- PUBLICK RING �,s.�� =-�::x�,� .:�':-:� "�=i : It.r. t.I.It I ?! I ItI i.►..It .t.tt .. IIt t it t I It r Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �• r `+' 024-147-03 INGTpy 6 2 iMrwro++rfo B�9 DONALD GALITZEN 9770 JAMER RI\/FR r,a w` S FOUL GALI770 9R7085015 1699 14 10/10/00 - ` FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND 9 '1` GALITZEN PO BOX 431 'jam IRI HUNI INGTON BEACH CA 92648-04 3 1 FCpGNTy Ca�� RETURN TO SENDER LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk S P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 •x:x. a .H CN ��.��.�rJ/cad,/c�q ,, , ... . 2 939-50-564 Z 3 o���NTINGTpy� wIAM ALLY 200 PACIFIC COAST COAST FIY#217 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5188 V ' LALL_000 S>a&4530ac) 1999 12 10/10/00 - - FORWA-RD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND LALL.Y ' WILT_ IAM _ 6782) CAIVT•~ROL,P.Y DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-2 103 LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING �-�F,c,;'=':���►+i��•�'��t�•�'�=� il,l,,,,l,f,ll,,,l„fl„I,,,,ill i,l„li„I,II,,,,,,lil,l„if,,,l,f„li,,,i,i„I Connie Brockway, City Clerk *. City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �x:x. �.4�► !�H �2�° fj� icjC� r�z,;-,.i. � 1 024-173-03 f KERRY L PIEROPAN J ��VNtIMGTpy� . �' V01 MAGNOLIA I•`#OtNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SILL NTy ca LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING lalz s4$ iiiIIIIIilltii:IIllliiIII III fill Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CONNIE BROCKWAy CITY CLERIC CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH http://www.ci.h untington-beach.ca.us INGTp P O BOX 190-2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ca . . ' Z O ��ouMrr ca�� LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING z�1�,�9q_3 ��.�aa cvt�p IIIItt„i,1,{I,,,{stilt,{tl{,,,,IIIILI„{lt„I,{„llt,t,t{,II 939-50-598 - 316 JUSTIN &VICIVE LEE BRANSON 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#328 INGjQ�, HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5193 y � ` Z Q ' Vt LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLICHEARING I,IIIIJ fill It III till till It III Connie Brockway, City Clerk �----. City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648x - 937-19-224 22.4 Wp11INGTpy ARTHUR R.NICHOLS PO BOX 549 ` q PLACENTIA CA 92871-0549 IT�C) cp Q Z �'\ 1 i LEGAL NOTICE -.PUBLIC HEARING "J7 '��,�f..�?�»•��.a�t�� II,I,,,,I,Isll,,,l„Il,sl,11„s,,,lll,l„Il,s,l,i„Il,,,,+l,ll . , I I Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �N Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 j Huntington Beach, CA 92648 } 024-133-35 — 2q JLK TRUST PT 408 TOWNSQUARE LN INGIpy� HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4604 Ca . , CppNTY ca` � LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEA:�RING,�. ,-..� Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 "'ii:;; '.;•) " Huntington Beach, tt 6 .k GT REa.JCiiJ rl'IC�,r\.1��/.Erroy`,4 Ur-dal n-d t2efused ---- :' " Attemrted Nnt !'aG•�: ` 024-147-37 !nsuff;c:'rt !1;'c!, ...., -_�_ $ No 3ueh 'tr^et :JOriUC�l f!'ii;^.t1'Y _ �! GARY H �NSINGTp `` ::h ', :: in rate _ P 5653 y ;, ; �r:vetore EHAVASU CITY AZ8640"211 --_— � ..rr,.....e...r,x•,c.atrmr®.u.y.wrwwG.Ja.�IY.i�X11Y� Ci �Q �CppNTI cP� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HE/ MGs/v3%sv� i { {] t f j l !! jj (( ( E �jtjltltllltljftllltJlltl!!!lIII jlfEijlt!lIIIl11t!lflllll3jltffflltllllfllllltl Commie Brockway, City Clerk City.of Huntington Beach *� Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I i 939-50-555 2�q INGjpy� LES W,SCHMIDT rol�rfo F9 100 PACIFIC COAST #147 i h => y jUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5186 C.3 . ,... �V o fir f �puNTy ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939-50-513 �32 Jngu#fiicien Address LOUIS &MARIA NEMETH �` 19721 WATERBURY LN INGTpy putell"Pted �n�cnD�n HUNTINGTON BEACH CA92646-3500 apt =t►�,tutrol�rfe ��9 p QyO Such iqUr1ibGi s �ppNTY ca` LEGA-N�OIJ.C.E=1UBL�.�H FaR!,^;G= �te4�*j�g F,tmAp Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach` Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 AA 024- 2-04 THOMA S tINGT,y ANETTI 1 VN O 529 LAKE %.w"ro++,fo eF9 HUNTINGTO BEACH CA 92648-4909 lots �NUNTY �a LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING " ssf'4p. ++.Aiw-v'0 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach , c Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ME 024-133-35 J* INGTpy� DEBBIE CHIN O �•�"'°++,fo F 408 TOWNSQUARE LN I HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 KA/Il YEt.,;na.►p � f . . pppN TY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING � 61AVAb If,I,,,,1,1,I1 fill„II„1,II,,,,,,111,1„i1,,,1,1„Il,,,,,i,il i Connie Brockway, Y City Clerk �/ ,---- L;,k, City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939-50-5 24 6 INGtpyd WILUAM H GR ITH 806 S SAP HIRE _�•C0"ro""'f` �,�� ANAHEIM CA 2807�4854 VIP e LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HE !' _� �•-V� � � 1�i��ff�,I.fil,��,iiii►f��ffi,�l�f�,ff„�f:i�,! ti —A 11,l,,.,l,lkil,,11+1111$11„skill Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ` a Rom` Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 !0 939-50-547 yGG MICHAEL R.&LINDA M.WOMACK 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#139 44, � INGIpy� HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5185 CFCpUNTY LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC kFARf ;,:1. _ _ II III II11,i, Connie Brockway, City Clerk - City.of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk `�` °F ;.... P.O. Box 190 ;j i �! r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939-50-588 C T. EDIAN INGTp�, 200 0o PACIFIC COAST FlVVY#315 44 �F9 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5192 _ HAIR200 926483005 iAO0 06 10/ii/00 RETURN TO SENDER 9 .1. HAIRABEDIAN MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS C `��,�����.►° �O UNABLE TO FORWARD r,vr� ion' Tr1 SENDER �a�NTy gyp`` LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEANNG. �- i fllllllidIII fill Ili Ili II1111!filjjjj lIII I1!!1 3Z.�Is• Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 h Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Xx 939-50-515 ---. Z34 WOLFGANG &MARY HAUBOLD O���►j I NGTpy 200 PACIFIC COAST HY#106 B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5123 � Ili :�.P�I_, � ,�'�. � . r, rr•!.t�,: ,��, !_ I A LEGAL NOTICE - PUB IC'HEARING ' ��.�►a =�: 3�► ''i= '=i} If'Il"'111111111111II I IIIliI I11'I11" 111111"111111lllllIlf'lllll"1111111 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk <" P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 x:x. '4'►. G TjCj .., yTO' 939-50-532 A/ y S 1 p01tJ a% $ `"V" AMALIA E.SALAZAR .�,� -�•.. INGT�y 835 SAN MARINOAVERx4I;eft J�� e MONTEBELLO CA 90640--5528 NO t -_--_ - �� Ic F�oulrtr ca`�� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING , Connie Brockway, City Clerk r `' City of Huntington Beach ` ,1 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 ` � 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ?-Aa 3 -1-1 sAS, 939-50-589 3 Olb �/l r TR OF THE B Hp,MILTON LORETTA LEE 17200 NEyVHOPE ST#241-A NAIN1; FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-4240 FiAMIz00'x �i�7051000 1fj99 03 10/11/00 v TIME EXP FtTN TO SEND FORWARD HAMILTON 934E EL VALLE AVE FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 42705 -4533 - PUBLIC HEA�ilN_G. LEGAL NOTICE _ ,3,41rie, -- Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92 8 . 939-50-542 HNKE JOANNE TRUST �NT so ST&PT IN6Tp'' S95 E COLORADD BLVD#810 PASADENA CA 911o1-2001 10 C a � 0 G �MTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEA RING 9NIdd31-1 0nond - 30110N IV931 't` aaaN�lS U1 Npp1{ldtr' / tILiHMkft?-1 (�SeVNF1=3lId NO tf3QLi0ac3.,,�ON 01 00/OT/OT OT aaNT�L00C9tt9 ba. 'd_'ETSVOU9 -- s 5L94-849ZS N'J HOV313 N019NUMH H10 341SI131d£l8 LOO_CryOUS AI►QM(3 oz-mV*Z0 QJ 9V9Z6 d0 'Uoeee uo16u11unH 06 L x09 'O d N1810 A110 aUl fo 901110 vo-L r yoeag uo16u11unH 1011110 ' 4 Nial0 AeM oa 0 �I 8 aluuo 0 .. �. Connie Brockway City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 939-50-527 gab �NZING JAMES E.FISH 200 PACIFIC COAST HM#118 _`9jtO�11+"fo �9� HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-5167 RETURN � RETURN ,t UNTv ° LEGAL NOTICE 'PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach *' Office of the City Clerk P.O. BOX 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937-19-198 tt `` BRUCE TRUST PT 415 TOwNSQUARE LN#225 INGTQ�, HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-4678 R TURis T 0 J E(Y D cQ�1NT PUBLIC FARING S_�:. � ii�!<<,�1�{�Ifi�t:l,�filt�l����(lfi l�lf�fl<<l�ll,k�ssrffil�l,�fii���fi�{,ill Connie Brockway, City Clerk u D City of Huntington Beach y� Q�J Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Q 024-133-14 Q �VNTINGTpy DANIEL SALERNO ro84 -- 9� 419 MAIN ST#111 v S HUNTINGTON BEACF CA 92648-5199' co —' ,..-•,GTE"eJK•' ^:TreuY.emleru:.a sr:.:m rvLwrnr.,+uGlut. . •.z^,p.J:^.^: pppNTY Ca T �- , �- ... ., LEGAL NOTI , - �l LM HARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk �- City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ( y �,F.MDHW 937 15-416 INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS '? INcroy� "a)SUICD,CH LEFT ^!O ADDRESS ` FREYMANN RONALD&JANET 1.VON fi','� ''�u s,,1cH Ni;Maer+ �� ��_G0o�0""�00 �,� 7540 58TH AVE NE �`9 !'i•,CI.A!jYlEp REFUSED ' `,�?FP >rE'rl "dOT KNOWN OLYMPIA WA 98516-9305 S a ,,'•1C I ;;Tr1:Fr®VACANT ,.. _:('TABLE CO - ` SEG NO ORDER ''•'I:RA(1t E M it is0. 9 O UiJAHLE �ouNTY ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ���s1`"�V' ' ?t4.1% P h Connie Brockway, City Clerk fjCity of Huntington Beach �A� ,f 1 Office of the City Clerk 14k' P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 x.x. J Ti +.il'► �rL ' V�i VIP Cellular&Paging Co. �M"iINGTQ 504 Main Street,Suite C Huntington Beach,CA 92648 VIP-504 92648ioi9 1500 16 10/20/00 - -- RETURN TO SENDER O : VIP CELLULAR PAGING Z MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS s•"`.- `- E UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER �QUIYT`I ca` . LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING �-t��►� '�� :'_�1'�O II:{►:::I►I:II►::I::Ii::I:►::III I.l::ll::I.II:���::IlIJ:�Il:::I:1�:i1:::l:l::! • >ytY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Connie Brockway City Clerk SUBJECT: D-3. Public Hearing Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3/ Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2, Downtown Specific Plan Updating the Downtown Parking Master Plan DATE: October 16, 2000 This memo is submitted relative to citizen inquiries to the Clerk's Office received as to whether proper procedure has been followed regarding the scheduling of Public Hearing Item D-3 on the City Council Agenda. Concerns are as follows: 1. The City Council Public Hearing legal notice was published and notification mailed prior to consideration and action on the items by the Planning Commission. 2. The legal notice for the City Council hearing advises that a staff report is available for public review in the Clerk's Office. This is not the case as the Planning Commission had not made a decision for recommendation to Council. 3. The concern that the City Council hearing was advertised before the Planning Commission consideration and decision causing the public to not be afforded an adequate timeline for opportunity to prepare input for the Council hearing. 4. Scheduling the City Council Public Hearing prior to Planning Commission action anticipates that the Planning Commission action is a foregone conclusion. 5. If the Local Coastal Program Amendment, Specific Plan, or Zoning Text Amendment is appealable if approved or denied by the Planning Commission, the time for appeal by the public is not allowed. 6. The Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 00-2 does not appear to be adequately described in the legal notice in order for comment and/or appeal to be submitted by the public. AV 0 � N _ - •, wn�tow��PY��r�king�MasteN! ; MiM rP�lan� •�, y `.x,w _ :;'",�r`m.,•� `''a$r': __ µme'_ �p :;�.r�:-"-" �h�i r ....,„:,..•. .. .. .. ..:�' ... ;::.;y:.::,:;: ••fir. ., '.t s .:.t'= �.:.d•:.` ::�i..,.:. fie;• •,•. ., .. ���..:.::,y,. ,,,:. ., .. ;•..+tea :. _ ����c�. ••,:��.rrr: -�'s:�t:�',�j"`n :rao'�::.�' ,P r: y.T "J" .c: .r; a S-tud►! Area :x I li iIU IS• Kn •,4` , ':s::°:... i;:•_:.:l:a.: RB' c.?" ,... git ::s s .f M, e„ Area On-Street Off-Street Total 1 204 1 ,367 1 ,571 2 156 143 299 Periphery 319 na 319 Total 679 17510 21189 . __ K&<Unssoan1ES ------------- V� 99 � L t / S D 1 = D2 LI EN '3 -Damtovm Padc'ey Master Plan Boundary �- ®•L=tion o1 User Survey — — (S/�N/`SS"TES KAKU AS SOCI AT ES 2 -r ' M Fridav Saturday 3 Origin 3- Home 84% 93% 4 Work 11% 2% Primary Purpose Farmers Market 21% na Shopping 16% 18% Eating/Drinking 47% 58% Movie/Entertainment 12% 19% Beach/Pier 28% 43% Employed - 13% 7% K&WASSOCUTES 'sue Total Retail 146,500 sf Restaurant 91,400 sf Office 102,900 sf ` Miscellaneous 52,975 sf Occupied 393,675 sf Vacant 24,500 sf jSOLKWA,SSOMTES 3 _ V Friday (9 p.m.) Saturday (3 p.m.) Retail 215 409 Restaurant 807 587 Office 4 26 Miscellaneous 535 401 Total 1 ,561 1 ,423 tc_PASSOCKEs `Y Total s ` Retail 295,320 sf ' Restaurant 143,747 sf Office 125,454 sf Miscellaneous 145,285 sf . Total 709,806 sf 3 5r 4 Day Night Future FutureSurplus/ Future Future SurplusTj Block Supply Demand[a] (Deficit) Supply Demand[a] (Deficit) Area 1 1,972 1,697 275 1,972 2,217 (245) Area 2 299 218 81 299 184 115 F ,2 2,271 1,915 356 2,271 2,401 (130) Note: a] Includes some pier/beach and resident users. +;'93 Jc&<UASSOCIATES ?3 Y d r�„ W � 'rWYWWY Projected Parking Supply = 2,271 spaces - Peak Parking Surplus/ Month Demand (Deficit) January February 1,466 805 March 1,686 585 April 1,705 566 May 1,839 432 a June 2,019 252 July 2,401 (130) August 1,998 273 September 1,544 727 1 October 1,484 787 November 1,410 861 December 1,329 942 K&<P/\.SSOCl/\TES 4 5 - D au ROD oQ MUDI G�3 0 oQ % of Peak Day of the Week Day [a] Sunday o Monday 67% Tuesday 68% Wednesday 70% + Thursday 70% Friday 100% Saturday 97% Note: [a] Based on Main Promenade parking structure data pro\Aded by the City of Huntington Beach. CIACNA,SSOCInTES �r n- �w i' s Strategy 1 - Modified Parking Code Requirements n� Strategy 2 - On-Site Parking + Strategy 3 - Parking Management Techniques Strategy 4 - Use of Supplemental Parking Supply y ;S&<U/ SW_tATM 6 ry, • 1 L W Current City Parking Downtown Proposed Shared Rate [a] Land Use Parking Ratio [a] Area 1 Area d Retail ss< +� Office 2.00 1.00 2.00 Cinema 0.30 0.20 n/a Restaurant 10.00 6.67 10.00 [a] Per 1,000 s.f.of floor area. CU1PASSOCIATES 7 Connie Brockway, City Clerk ;w `�7'r t.I.., PU... '�; City of Huntington Beach " �`"``Office of th Cit ClerkyyP.O. BOA 19� !' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �� CA H METER -.` 939-50-572 I \ " INGFO�Y MARIO &LORRAI �RICCIARDI 200 PACIFIC COA T HY#2Z9^.., HUNTINGTON,BE CH CA 92648 N Ty LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING `<���} ` 1 �JGF�4� s4�13t1P Iltlrtrrltlr�l'F' Itr1�IrITTltltittliltr'It lilt ItIItttl{II111111 45d- �a y r EIU TAN A,W RUTAN 11B80-19y1 M�B TUCKER,SR(IBBB-19101 R �CHARD A RCDURNUTT PHILIP D KOHNRNAK JEFFREY ROBERT OEOWE MER TTREG A.ODD 01 L TFIN ERINGTON N ATARSHSADRE DAVENPORT,III LLONARD A HAMPEL IOEL D KUPERBCRG ADAM N VOLKERT KARA 5 CARL50N RICHARD D ARKO JOH&tUCKER MILT R HURDAHLIR' STEVEN NWYND IEFFREY GOLLR ERIC ISL DUNN MARK E L NELSON MICHAEL W IMMELL THOMAS G BROCKINGTON F.KEVIN BRA71L FRED GALANTE NIKKI NGUYEN MILTORD W DAIIL,IR WILLIAM W WYNDER LAYNC H MEL"LLR CRISTY LOMFNZO PARKER MATTHEW L NELSON THEODORE I WALLACE,IR• EVRIDIKI(VICKII DALLAS L-SKI HARRISON IEFFREY T.MELCHING IErr C RISHER GILBERT N KRUGER RAND ALL M BABBUSH ELISE K TRAYNUM SEAN P FARRELL IENNIFER S.ANDERSON IOSEPH D.CARRUTH MARY M.GREEN LARRY A CERUTTI MARLCNE POSE IURGENSEN IOIiN T BRADLEY RICHARD P SIMS MICHAEL F SITZER CAROL D CARTY APRIL LEE WALTER ALISON I ROSSMAN A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W LAMES B O-NEAL THOMAS I CRANE PATRICK D McCALLA KAREN ELIZABETH WALTER BILL H IHRKE ROBERT C.BRAUN MARK 0.FRAZIER RICHARD K HOWELL NATALIE SIBBALD DUNDAS ALLISON LEMOINC-BUI THOMAS S SANGER-1 I PCNELOPC PARMCS IAMES S.WEISZ' ALISON M BARBAR0511 KAREN L MARTINEZ A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS DAVIDC LARSEN• M.KATHERINE IENSON DAVID H HOCHNER IOHN W.HAMILTON,IR CHYI G CHEN CLIFFORD E FRIEDEN DUKE r WAHLQUIST A PATRICK MUNOZ IOHN A RAMIREZ T LAN NGUYEN 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR MICHAEL D RUBIN RICHARD G MONTEVIDEO 5 DANIEL HARBOTTLL LYNN LOSCIIIN LISA V NICHOLAS COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626-1998 - IRA G RIVIN• LORI SARNER SMITH PAUL I.SIEVERS PHILIP I BLANCHARD IEFFREY M ODLRMAN• ERNEST W KLATTE,III IOSEPH L MAGA,III TERENCE I GALLAGHER OF COUNSLL DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:POST OFFICE BOX 1950 STAN WOLCOTT- CLIZABETH L.MARTYN KRAIG C KILGER ROBERT E KING EDWARD D.SYBESMA,IR BOBERr 5 BOWER KIM D.THOMPSON DEBRA DUNN STEEL DEIA M.HEMINGWAY DAVID I GARIBALDI,III COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 DAVID 1.ALFSHIRE IAYNE TAYLOR RACER DAN SLATER IULIE K WHANG TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 MARCIAA FORSYTH DAVIDB COSGROVE KENTM CLAYTON DENISEL MES7ER •A PROFESSIONAL WILLIAM M MARnCORENA HANS VAN LIGTEN MARK BUDENSIEK W ANDREW MOORE CORPORATION INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com IAMES L MORRIs srLPHF-N A HUS STEVEN)GOON ALISON L TSAO Direct Dial:(714)641-3441 E-mail:joderman@rutan.com October 16, 2000 � ? 6� Mayor Dave Garofalo 1 ag C:) li and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street > Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Proposed Amendments to the City's General Plan/Local Coastal Program, Downtown Specific Plan, and Zoning Text Amendment Relating to the Downtown Parking Master Plan Update Dear Mayor Garofalo and Members of the City Council: I am writing to you on behalf of the Huntington Beach Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARE") and Abdelmuti Development Company ("ADC") in opposition to the proposed amendments to the City's General Plan/Local Coastal Program, the Downtown Specific Plan, and the Zoning Text Amendment that are agendized for consideration at your October 16 and October 23 meetings. I respectfully request that a copy of this letter be entered into the public hearing record. I have previously communicated some of my clients' objections and concerns on this subject to the City's Planning Commission. (See my October 3 letter attached hereto as Exhibit "A.") As Planning Commissioner Biddle acknowledged at the Commission's October 10, 2000, meeting, my questions were not answered by the City's staff or parking consultant. Hopefully, before the City Council approves a massive increase in the Downtown commercial building cap and a further slashing of the parking requirements for new development, the Council will demand that the blatant errors and omissions in the parking study on which these actions purportedly are based are corrected. I will not reiterate in this letter the points that have previously been made (and ignored). I will focus instead in this letter on providing additional evidence and arguments as to why the staff/consultant proposal should be rejected. 112/014820-0001 / �I A�e N1 � 125584.01 al0/16/00 �� RUTAN &TUCKERS AT T O R N E Y S AT LAW Mayor Dave Garofalo and Members of the City Council October 16, 2000 Page 2 1. Before the City Council Considers Amending its General Plan/LCP, Specific Plan, and the Text of the City's Zoning Ordinance, a Full EIR Must Be Prepared. I addressed this issue briefly at pages 11-12 of my October 3rd letter to the Planning Commission. I would like to elaborate. One of the recommended actions you are being requested to take is to approve an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program, which is an element of the City's General Plan. It has long been established that a city's approval of a general plan amendment is a discretionary "project" that requires CEQA compliance and, if appropriate, preparation of a full-blown environmental impact report ("EIR"). See, e.g., City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 526, DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 793-794, and CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a)(1). Another action the City Council is being requested to take is an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan. It is similarly well established that a public agency must comply with CEQA before approving a specific plan or specific plan amendment. See, e.g., Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.AppAth 182,Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Ca1.App.4th 1019, 1028-1030, and A Local and Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 16 Cal.AppAth 630. Finally, your staff is recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to the text of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Once again, there is no question but that zoning ordinances require full CEQA compliance. See, e.g., City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, Rural Landowners Association v. Lodi City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, and Public Resources Code § 21080(a). Notwithstanding the clear law on this subject, your staff claims that the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment before you are exempt from CEQA compliance under the CEQA Guideline that applies to "feasibility and planning studies." Nothing could be further from the truth. That Guideline, which is set forth as Section 15262 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations,provides as follows: "A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or negative declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. This section does not apply to the adoption of a plan that will have a legally binding effect on later activities." (Emphasis added.) 112/014820-0001 125584.01 a10/16 00 RUTAN is &TUCKER; A T T O R N E Y S AT LAW Mayor Dave Garofalo and Members of the City Council October 16, 2000 Page 3 By amending the City's General Plan/LCP, Specific Plan, and Zoning Text, you most assuredly would not be dealing only with "possible future actions." The General Plan Amendment/LCP, Specific Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment would themselves have been "approved" and "adopted" and would have "a legally binding effect on later activities." The exemption does not apply. If the Council wished simply to review the DPMP Update, not adopt it as official City policy, and direct your staff and consultants to prepare a General Plan/LCP Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment for future consideration after full CEQA compliance, the Guideline could be applicable. By crossing over the line and approving and adopting legally binding amendments to the City's land use regulations, however, you step from the realm of feasibility and planning studies that are not subject to CEQA into the realm of discretionary project approvals,which are subject to CEQA. "In keeping with general principles of statutory construction, exemptions [from CEQA] are construed narrowly and will not be unreasonably expanded beyond their terms." County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 966, citing McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1149. In McQueen, it should be noted, the court expressly rejected the respondent open space district's claim that its acquisition of surplus federal property adjoining the district's open space preserve was exempt from CEQA review under the same Guideline for feasibility or planning studies. As the court noted, the exemption was not applicable because the district did more than approve a study; it acquired the property and thereby incurred a concomitant obligation to address the environmental impacts of its maintenance and use. Here, there is no question that the City's approval of a General Plan/LCP Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment will have profound environmental impacts on the Downtown Huntington Beach area necessitating the preparation of a full-blown EIR. As noted in my letter to the Planning Commission, the proposed actions would increase the commercial building cap in the small Downtown area by over 230,000 square feet, an approximately 46.1% increase, and would further reduce the already lowered off-street parking requirements by approximately one-third. Indeed, if the City were to use as a "baseline" the existing conditions surveyed by the City's parking consultant upon which the pending recommendation is based, there would be an increase of well over 100% -- more than double—in the commercial square footage. (Compare the "existing" occupied square footage of 353,000 square feet (KAKU report, p. 46) with the proposed increase to 730,000 square feet of commercial development.) A primary purpose of the proposed General Plan/LCP Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment appears to be to clear the way for the massive CIM project that is currently proposed to be developed in Block A of the Downtown Parking Master Plan area. Your own City staff has acknowledged that "implementation of the [CIM] project will 112i014820-0001 125584.01 a10/16%00 RUTAN • &TUCKERg ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mayor Dave Garofalo and Members of the City Council October 16, 2000 Page 4 result in significant impacts to land use and planning, population and housing, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, air quality, transportation/traffic, noise, public services, utilities and service systems, and aesthetics," thereby necessitating the preparation of an EIR. (See May 17, 2000, Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR for the Block 104/105 [i.e., Block A] Redevelopment Project attached hereto as Exhibit `B," at p. 2.) It is inconceivable that the City could take the position that a general plan/LCP amendment, specific plan amendment, and zoning text amendment are somehow exempt from CEQA when the primary implementation project these actions are designed to facilitate will itself generate potentially significant environmental impacts. As noted in the respected Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act published by Solano Press Books (10'h ed., 1999): "Even actions that might be disparaged as mere `governmental paper-shuffling' (e.g., the adoption of a general plan) can constitute projects, so long as they `culminate' in physical impacts to the environment. (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 277-279 [118 Ca1.Rptr. 249].) Thus, a discretionary agency action qualifies as a `project' whenever it is `necessary to the carrying out of some private project involving a physical change in the environment.' (Simi Valley, supra, 51 Ca1.App.3d at p. 664; see also, Kaufman & Broad-South Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified Scholl District (61h Dist. 1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 464, 473 [11 Ca1.Rptr.2d 792] (where government decision does not have a `direct effect' on the environment, it must be "'a necessary step in a chain of events which would culminate in physical impact on the environment"' in order to be a `project'), quoting Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization (1982) 32 Ca1.3d 779, 795 [187 Cal.Rptr. 398].)" (Id, at p. 64.) Once again, your staff is calling upon the City Council to wrongfully pre-commit to the CIM project without undertaking the required CEQA review. For ease of reference, I am incorporating into this letter all of the evidence and arguments on this issue that are set forth or referred to at pages 4-22 of the Petitioners'/Plaintiffs' Opening Brief filed on January 18, 2000, in CARE v. City of Huntington Beach, OCSC Case No. 811519 (attached hereto as Exhibit "C"), and pages 1-9 of Petitioners'/Plaintiffs' Reply Brief that was filed in that action on or about February 28, 2000 (see Exhibit"D"hereto).' ' The discussion at pp. 12-20 of Exhibit"C" is also relevant to the unsupported statement at page 4 of the City staff s October 10, 2000, report to the Planning Commission that the claimed Section 15262 exemption "is adequate because the Downtown Specific Plan and Downtown Parking Master Plan land 112/014820-0001 125584.01 a10i16i00 RUTAN &TUCKERg ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mayor Dave Garofalo and Members of the City Council October 16, 2000 Page 5 The City's promotion of the CIM project — again, before any environmental review has been conducted — has gotten to the point that the City is advertising the project on the City website, predicting that it will be open by the Fall of 2001, and referring prospective tenants to CIM's brokers for "leasing opportunities." (See Exhibit "E" attached hereto.) If and when the City and Redevelopment Agency ever get around to reviewing the environmental impacts of the CIM project, the review will be nothing more than a "post hoc rationalization to support action already taken," a result condemned by the courts. See, e.g., Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 394-395. CARE and ADC disagree strongly with the City staff s incomplete and inaccurate review of the one land use issue that has been addressed so far—parking. (See Exhibit "A" hereto and 12 of this letter, below.) For present purposes, however, a much greater point of contention is the City's refusal to even undertake the comprehensive environmental analysis that is required by law. My clients have environmental concerns regarding parking and traffic, overbuilding and land use incompatibility, impacts on historic/cultural resources, aesthetic and view impacts, the impact of overdevelopment of the Downtown in increasing business vacancies and failures that lead to further"blighting" conditions (see, e.g., Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 445-446 [reversing project approvals even though an EIR was prepared because the EIR failed to consider that "the potential economic problems caused by the proposed project could conceivably result in business closures and physical deterioration of the downtown area"] and Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 159 ["the lead agency must consider whether the proposed shopping center will take business away from the Downtown shopping area and thereby cause business closures and eventual physical deterioration of downtown Bishop"]), and other impacts in the categories referred to in the City's own Environmental Assessment for the CIM project (Exhibit "B" hereto). My clients' concerns are heightened by the fact that substantial development has occurred in the area since the last environmental review was conducted (e.g., Pier Plaza, Plaza Almeria, Duke's and Chimayo's) and there is substantial planned development in Downtown Huntington Beach just outside the Downtown Parking Master Plan area (e.g., the pending "31 acres" development just to the south, at PCH and First Street). An EIR for a general plan/LCP amendment, specific plan amendment, and zoning text amendment to substantially increase Downtown commercial development and substantially reduce code parking requirements deserves full environmental review now, taking into consideration all of the cumulative impacts of these other closely related projects. use and development potential has been analyzed under the General Plan EIR No. 94-1, and the Redevelopment Plan Merger EIR No. 96-2." Even ignoring the completely illogical nature of this statement — subsequent implementation actions are not "exempt" under CEQA because of prior environmental review — the statement is absolutely unfounded and unsupported by the two documents referred to. 112%014820-0001 125584.01 a1016i00 RUTAN &TUCKERg ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mayor Dave Garofalo and Members of the City Council October 16, 2000 Page 6 What is the rush? Why did your staff take the highly unusual step of noticing a City Council hearing on this subject before the Planning Commission hearing has even concluded? Why is the City Council proposing to go forward with consideration of the staff recommendation at tonight's meeting before the Planning Commission has acted? The process gives off all of the signs of a railroad job. On behalf of my clients, I respectfully request that the City Council slow the process down, fulfill your obligations under CEQA before approving any proposed changes to the land use regulations governing Downtown development, and satisfy CEQA's objectives of promoting informed decision-making and active public involvement. 2. The Proposed Actions are Based Upon a Seriously Flawed Parking Study. I addressed this issue at length in my October 3 letter to the Planning Commission. (Exhibit "A" hereto.) Once again, my questions have not been answered and the obvious errors and omissions in the consultant's report have not been corrected. It is incredible that the City would consider taking an action with such potentially dire consequences for the Downtown based upon a parking study with so many mistakes in it. In addition to the points raised in my October 3rd letter, consider the following: A. As a couple of the speakers at the October 3 Planning Commission meeting noted, the City's consultant improperly included private posted parking in the study's analysis of parking spaces that are "available" for shared public use. The Planning Commissioners were clearly troubled by this defect in the analysis. A shared parking concept is legitimate only if the person parking the vehicle has the right to leave the vehicle in place while he/she visits multiple destinations. This simply is not the case with the privately owned parking spaces in Downtown Huntington Beach. In addition, many of the private businesses are not even open during the evening peak hours identified by the City's parking consultant, which means that the parking spaces counted as available by the consultant are not truly available to serve even one, much less multiple, purposes. B. Much was made at the Planning Commission meeting as to how the shared parking concept has "worked" in the 5 or 6 years since it was first implemented. As noted by at least a couple of the Commissioners, however, the jury is still out on whether this history supports any change to the commercial building cap and parking requirements in the Downtown since there was virtually no new development between the time the original shared parking concept was adopted and the date that the parking study upon which the currently proposed changes are based was conducted (in September of 1999). To repeat, at that time there were only 353,000 square feet of occupied commercial square footage in the Downtown (the Plaza Almeira project had not yet been completed). The current proposal would more than double the amount of commercial development to 730,000 square feet and would further lower parking 112/014820-0001 125584.01 a10i16./00 RUTAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mayor Dave Garofalo and Members of the City Council October 16, 2000 Page 7 requirements by about one-third (on top of the 33-40% reduction that the City already approved in 1995). C. The City consultant continues to dissemble when talking about the 319 "peripheral" parking spaces. The consultant's report repeatedly refers to these parking spaces as being part of the available parking supply for Downtown businesses. (See, e.g., pp. 3, 5, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21 of the KAKU report.) As Commissioner Livengood noted at the Planning Commission meeting, however, these parking spaces are already heavily utilized by the adjacent residences and simply are not available to supplement Downtown commercial parking needs. (See also the first bullet point under 11.3 of my October 3 letter to the Commission attached hereto as Exhibit "A.") When confronted on this point at the Planning Commission meeting, the consultant then claimed that these 319 peripheral parking spaces were in no way used in the parking analysis portion of his report (after p. 33). There are two responses to this assertion. First of all, if the peripheral parking spaces are not relevant to the analysis, why were they included in the report at all? Secondly, it turns out that the consultant was not giving the Commission the straight story. In his final recommendation, at page 75 of his report, the consultant once again returned to the existence of the peripheral parking spaces as a justification for the City's not requiring or building any additional public parking facilities in the Downtown area notwithstanding that even the consultant noted there would be an overall parking deficit at full build-out(i.e.,with the CIM project). D. The City's own former Planning Director and at least three of the Planning Commissioners expressed grave reservations with the City staff s proposal that Areas 1 and 2 in the Downtown Parking Master Plan area be merged such that the parking deficiencies in Area 1 (which will be several hundred more spaces than projected, given the substantial errors in the report) can be "made up" in Area 2. From looking at the staff s revised recommendation after the Commission's October 10 meeting, it appears that the staff has ignored the Commission's expressed concerns. The biggest parking deficiency is in Block A, closest to the beach. It is completely unrealistic to think that the office and retail tenants in that block will be adequately parked if clients, visitors, and customers will have to park up to six blocks away. E. The consultant is still under the misapprehension that CIM is proposing to provide over 400 on-site parking spaces in Block A. (He so stated in response to a question from one of the Planning Commissioners.) As noted in the City's own recent Environmental Assessment for the CIM project, CIM is now proposing only 346 parking spaces (including 14 tandem spaces), a discrepancy of almost 60 parking spaces in the very block that the consultant acknowledges generates the biggest parking deficiency. (See Exhibit `B" hereto at p. 2.) 112/014820-0001 125584.01 a10/16/00 RUTAN &TUCKER A T T O R N E Y 5 A T l.A\% Mayor Dave Garofalo and Members of the City Council October 16, 2000 Page 8 F. The City's parking consultant continued to assert at the Planning Commission meeting that the peak time for Summer usage of the Downtown parking facilities is between 9:00-10:00 p.m. This conclusion is belied by the casual observation of anyone who ventures into the Downtown during a warm Summer day (which your consultant apparently couldn't find the time to do), as well as by the very statistics set forth in the (corrected) staff report to the Planning Commission. That report indicates that on 14 of the 20 Summer days studied the peak parking usage occurred during the middle of the afternoon (mostly between 2:00-4:00 p.m.). The consultant's failure to understand the most basic reality of Downtown parking needs during the busy Summer season illustrates the errors that permeate his entire report. G. As Commissioner Biddle noted at the Planning Commission meeting, business is already dying on Main Street. There have been a considerable number of vacancies and business failures over the past couple of years — at a time when there is a relative surplus of parking available. What will happen when the City more than doubles the amount of commercial development in the Downtown and further slashes the parking requirements? H. Your staff noted in its report to the Planning Commission that usage of the Main Promenade parking structure was down during the Summer of 2000. The reason is obvious (although not articulated): the City increased the cost for people wishing to park in the parking structure. The City has never addressed the concerns raised by my clients to the effect that the City is driving away potential customers by increasing the cost of parking to prohibitive levels. This problem has been exacerbated recently by the City's action in refusing to let the employees in Oceanview Promenade (ADC's building in Block A) to participate in the same employee parking validation program that is available to every other business in the Downtown that does not have its own on-site parking. This action is clearly discriminatory and appears to be intended to punish ADC for its public criticisms of the CIM project. ADC will pursue its remedies to challenge this retaliatory action, if necessary. For present purposes, it suffices to say that the City should not approve a parking plan that greatly increases parking demand while making only a negligible increase in parking supply without committing to the community that the City will not "solve" the parking problem by further jacking up parking prices to levels that simply force people to park—and do business—elsewhere. 112/014820-0001 125584.01 a10/16/00 RUTAN &TUCKERS A T T O R..N EYS AT LAW Mayor Dave Garofalo and Members of the City Council October 16, 2000 Page 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Huntington Beach Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess and Abdelmuti Development Company respectfully request that the City Council take the following actions: (1) disapprove the Downtown Parking Master Plan "Update" prepared by KAKU Associates; (2) direct that an accurate and complete parking survey be prepared during the Summer of 2001 that addresses the deficiencies and concerns in the KAKU Associates report that have been raised by members of the public; (3) direct the City staff to not bring forward any proposed amendments to the City's land use regulations dealing with Downtown development without first preparing a full EIR in compliance with CEQA; and (4) deny the proposed general plan/LCP amendment, specific plan amendment, and zoning text amendment proposed by staff. Very truly yours, RUTAN& TUCKER, LLP J ff 1y M. derman JMO.jh ' Attachments v cc: Mike Abdelmuti Jim Lane 112.014820-0001 125584.01 a10/16/00 EXHIBIT A Y A,W,RUTAN 11860-19I21 03.TUCKER.SR 11888-1950+ JAMES R. TREG A. JULI I.DREW RICHARDDA ACOURNUTT PHIIUP D.JKOHN RG RDAM N.VOLKERER KARA S.CAIRLSONR RICHARD D ARKO --AUTAN LEONARD A.HAMPEL JOEI D.KUPERBERG JEFFREY A.GOLDFARB ERIC L.DUNN MARK M.MALOVOS JOHN B.HURL BUT, MAS C.BR ER FREY & J CKER-. THEODORE 1.GI BERTT N.KRUGERACE IR• EVROIO ALL YM.0 ABBDUSH SON LARRY A.CERUUTTI 5 fARDLE EP POSE JURGENSEN ALISON L a S DYANON '- - --- JOSEPH D.CARRUTH MARY M.GREEN CAROL D.CARTY APRIL LEE WALTER BILL H.IHRKE RICHARD P.SIMS MICHAEL F SITZER PATRICK D.MCCALLA KAREN ELIZABETH WAITER ALLISON LEMOINE-8UI A T T O R N E Y 5 A T L A W TAMES B O NEAL THOMAS).CRANE RICHARD K.HOWELl NATALIE SIBBALD DUNDAS KAREN L.MARTINEZ ROB ERT C.BRAUN MARK B.FRAZIER JAMES S.WEISZ- ALISON M BARBAROSH CHYI G.CHEN THOMAS S.SALINGER' PENELOPE PARMES DAVID H.HOCHNER JOHN W.HAMILTON.JR. T.LAN NGUYEN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS DAVID C.LARSEN• M_KATHERINE JENSON A.PATRICK MUNOZ JOHN A.RAMIREZ LISA V.NICHOLAS CLIFFORD E.FRIEDEN DUKE F.WAHLQUIST S.DANIEL HARBOTTLE LYNN LOSCHIN 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR - MICHAEL D.RUSIN RICHARD G.MONTEViDEO PAUL 1.SIEVERS PHILIP 1.BLANCHARD OF COUNSEL: COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626-1998 IRA G.RIVIN' LORI SARNER SMITH JOSEPH L.MAGA.III TERENCE I.GALLAGHER EDWARD D.SYBESMA.JR.• ;RA M.ODERMAN' ERNEST W.KLATTE,III KRAIG C.KILGER ROBERT E.KING DAVID 1.GARIBALDI.111 DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:POST OFFICE BOX 1950 STAN IN LCOTT• KIM D.THOMPSON DEBRA DUNN STEEL DEJA M.HEMINGWAY COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 ROBERT S.BOWER JAYNE TAYLOR KACER DAN SLATER JULIE K.WHANC •A PROFESSIONAL DAVID I.ALESHIRE DAVID B.COSGROVE KENT M.CLAYTON DENISE L.NESTER CORPORATION TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 MARCIA A.FORSYTH HANS VAN LIGTEN MARK BUDENSIEK W.ANDREW MOORE WILLIAM M.MARTICORENA STEPHEN A.ELLIS STEVEN 1.GOON ALISON L.TSAO INTERNET ADDRESS www.rulan.com JAMES L.MORRIS MATTHEW K.ROSS DOUGLAS 1.DENNINCTON CHARLES A.DAVENPORT.III Direct Dial:(714)641-3441 E-mail:joderman@rutan.com October 3, 2000 Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3 /Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 (Downtown Parking Master Plan Update) Dear Chairman Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing to you on behalf of the Huntington Beach Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess ("CARE") and Abdehnuti Development Company ("ADC") in opposition to the proposed Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-3/Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-2 (Downtown Parking Master Plan Update) that is scheduled for consideration at your October 10, 2000, meeting. I respectfully request that a copy of this letter be entered into the public hearing record. As of the date that this letter is being written, my clients and I have not been given the opportunity to review the proposed Zoning Text Amendment, the proposed LCP Amendment, the staff report in support of the recommended actions, or any other information or documents other than the September 2000 Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan Update prepared by KAKU Associates. My office was informed that this information will not be made public until October 6th. Nevertheless, we were advised that October 3 is the deadline for submitting written input to the Planning Commission in order for our comments to be distributed to you with your Planning Commission agenda packets. Accordingly, the objections and concerns set forth in this letter are preliminary only, and are subject to being supplemented at a later date. Before addressing the merits of my clients' concerns, I would note generally that it is manifestly unfair for the public to be expected and required to submit all of its comments on a proposed action, particularly one of such overwhelming significance to the important Downtown area, when the staff report and the proposed action itself are themselves kept secret until just prior to the public hearing. 112/014820-0001 121191.01 a10/03/00 RUfAN 4 &TUCKER A T T O R N E Y 5 A T l A w Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 2 At this time, CARE and ADC oppose what we are forced to speculate is the staffs recommended proposal for the following two reasons, which will be more fully addressed hereinbelow: a. The presumed staff recommendation is based upon a seriously outdated, incomplete, and flawed parking study. b. The City is required to prepare a full-blown Environmental Impact Report("EIR") for the proposed action. The staffs apparent position that this project is exempt from compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")is flat wrong. 1. The Downtown ParkingL Master Plan Update Is Seriously Outdated, Incomplete, And Flawed, And Cannot Possibly Form The Basis Either For A Massive Increase In Commercial Square Footage Or A Reduction In The Street Parking Requirements For New Development. The Downtown Parking Master Plan ("DPMP") Update prepared by KAKU Associates purports to justify a massive increase in the commercial building cap for the Downtown Parking Master Plan area, together with a large reduction in parking requirements for new commercial developments. The existing Downtown development cap (which is incorporated into the City's Downtown Specific Plan and certified LCP) is 500,000 square feet of commercial building area. The DPMP "Update" proposes a massive increase of 46.1% in this building cap to 730,586 square feet. (Id., pp. 56-57.) In addition, notwithstanding that the original Downtown Parking Master Plan approved only 6 years ago already slashed the normal City code parking requirements for Area 1 (the portion of the Downtown Parking Master Plan area on the ocean side of Orange Avenue) by 40% and for Area 2 (between Orange Avenue and Acacia) by 33%, the DPMP Update now before you proposes a further dramatic reduction in parking requirements in this heavily beach-impacted area of approximately 33%more. Before the Planning Commission should even consider this sort of drastic departure from normal code requirements, it is incumbent upon the Commission to be certain that the recommendation is based upon up-to-date, complete, accurate, and well-reasoned information. Unfortunately, this simply is not the case. The DPMP "Update" is a disaster. The Commission should reject the DPMP Update in its entirety and terminate these proceedings. Alternatively, the Commission should demand that the DPMP "Update" itself be updated and completely rewritten to correct all of the errors and omissions contained within it before the Commission uses this report as a basis for any recommended land use changes in Downtown Huntington Beach. 112/014820-MOI 121191.01 a10/03/00 ' RUTAN &TUCKERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 3 1.1 The DPMP "Update" IS Seriously Out-Of-Date. It is ironic that the KAKU Associates report describes itself as an "update." Although the report nominally has a date of September 2000 on it, all of the key information contained in the report is at least a year old. The parking utilization studies upon which the report's recommendations are based were performed in September 1999. (Id., p. 10.) The existing land use inventory similarly is based upon September 1999 data, and does not include data regarding new development projects (such as Plaza Almeria) that have been completed for several months and that were included in the City's own DPMP "Annual Review and Monitoring Report" that this Commission reviewed over three months ago, on June 27, 2000. (Id., p. 46.) As will be shown below, the assumptions (presumably from September 1999) that the DPMP "Update" uses for projected future development (such as the Plaza Almeria project in Block E and the all-important CIM project in Block A) are outdated and in error, significantly overstating the amount of additional parking that will be provided. It is simply inexcusable that a report with such enormous implications for the Downtown businesses, residences, customers, and tourists would be brought to the Commission over a year after the data was collected. As will be shown below, Downtown parking data collected and analyzed in September 1999 is invalid, since it comes during and after a period in which the City's beaches were closed for months and business was depressed. At a minimum, the City needs to update the "Update"before taking any further action. 1.2 The DPMP Update's Analysis Of Peak Summer Parking Demand Is Entirely Unsupportable Because The Parking Surveys Upon Which The Analysis Is Based Were Not Performed In The Summer. Frankly, it is pathetic to read in the DPMP Update that "every attempt was made to conduct the various parking surveys during the peak [Summer] season of activity in Downtown Huntington Beach." Id., at p. 33. The City has been in the process of preparing this Update for at least 15 months, over not one but two summers. How difficult can it be for the City and its consultant to perform a parking study at some point during the 5 or 6 Summer months that have passed since the Update process was initiated? The only two days that actual parking utilization in the Downtown were surveyed were Saturday, September 11, 1999 (after Labor Day when the kids were back in school and families were settling in for the Fall), and on Friday, September 24, 1999 (almost three weeks after Labor Day). Using this completely invalid starting point for analysis, the DPMP Update then "cooks" the data by some method that is impossible to trace in order to arrive at magical "adjustment factors" (id. at p. 35) (1.32 for Friday and 1.24 for Saturday) to tell us what the 112/01as20-0001 121191.01 a10/03/00 • RUTAN • &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 4 parking utilization supposedly would have been on a typical weekday and weekend during the Summer. I have read the confusing narrative 3 times as to how the "adjustment factors" were determined and have concluded that there simply is no way to test the consultants' analysis based upon the information in their report. Does anybody have the foggiest idea whether these adjustment factors have any basis in reality? Even without a full understanding of the consultants' methodology, it is obvious that the analysis is flawed and should be rejected. As everyone well remembers, water pollution resulted in extensive months-long beach closures in Huntington Beach during and after the Summer of 1999. For much of the Summer, the beaches were almost deserted. Business was significantly off from the prior year and far below activity levels experienced during this past Summer of 2000. Any study of parking demand in Downtown Huntington Beach that purports to estimate Summer peak parking usage based upon data generated after the end of a Summer as aberrational as 1999 is not worth the paper it is printed on. The absurdity of the surveys is reflected in the fact that the City's consultant concluded based on them (at pp. 11, 18) that the peak period for Summer weekend parking usage in Area 1 (the area closest to the beach) is somewhere between 9-11 p.m. No "adjustment factor" can hide the fact that the consultants completely missed the boat, since by the time they performed their survey (a) beach usage was down because the Summer was over and (b) people tend not to go to the beach when the water is polluted and they can't swim. I wrote to the City's Economic Development Director last August recommending that any parking utilization study in the Downtown be postponed until the Summer of 2000 in light of the then on-going beach closures. (See Exhibit "A" to this letter.) The City ignored the request, with predictable results. Perhaps there would have been some justification for the City's action if there had been an urgent need for the City to take immediate action on the DPMP Update back in September of 1999. It is inexplicable, however, why the City performed highly questionable parking surveys in September 1999 and then waited an entire year -- bypassing the next Summer--before unveiling a flawed report in September- October 2000. CARE and ADC respectfully submit that the City put the existing DPMP Update in the "round file," get ready for Summer 2001, and prepare a valid study of actual peak Summer parking demand in the Downtown at that time. 112/014820-0001 121191.01 a10/03/00 RUTAN &TUCKER; ATTORNEYS AT LAW Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 5 1.3 The DPMP Update Uses Inconsistent And Invalid Data Regarding Both Existing And Projected Future "Available" Parking Supply. The easiest part of any parking study ought to be counting parking spaces. If the study contains factual errors of this type, it casts doubt on the entire study, particularly the more subjective and analytical aspects. In going through the DPMP Update, this office noted several inconsistencies, errors, and omissions in the description of both available existing and future parking supply. In addition, by ignoring considerations such as permit parking restrictions, high cost parking, inaccessibility of certain parking spaces, and security concerns that act as practical barriers to the public's utilization of parking spaces, the DPMP Update creates a false impression that there is a surplus in the parking supply which does not in reality exist. Consider the following: • In several places in the DPMP Update, the report overstates the supply of available parking by counting 319 "peripheral" on-street parking spaces located outside the DPMP area. (See pp. 3, 5, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 21.) It is noteworthy that nowhere in the DPMP Update does the study consider the parking demands, existing or future, in these same adjacent "peripheral" areas, not to mention usage by persons who plan to visit the City beach and Municipal Pier. (See, in this regard, the first bullet point in 11.4 below.) The integrity of the DPMP analysis requires a consistent focus on parking supply and demand within a specific defined area. • Since the inventory of parking spaces is based on outdated September 1999 information, presumably the study has failed to take into account the July 5, 2000, City Council action eliminating 58 on-street parking spaces along Pacific Coast Highway. • The DPMP Update assumes that there are 57 "available" parking spaces off 5th Street in Block 105. (Id., p. 9.) The text of the DPMP Update fails to mention, however, that these spaces are enclosed by a chain-link fence and are restricted to permit parking only. (See Table A attached to the DPMP Update.) Thus, as a practical matter, these spaces are not currently available to the general public. This is the reason why this particular parking lot is scarcely used. If these spaces were deducted from the total number of parking spaces in Block A, the parking utilization rate in Block 112/014820-0001 121191.01 a 10/03/00 RUTAN &TUCKERS A T T O R N EYS AT LAW Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 6 A would approach 100% during peak periods (even the off-peak "peak" periods surveyed by the City's consultant), which would be consistent with the obvious and visible parking situation to anyone who visits the area. (Contrast the conclusion in the DPMP Update at p. 17 that the peak parking demand in Block A between 2-3 p.m. is only 73%.) • The DPMP Update considers parking as "available" even though there is a charge for over 50% of the parking spaces (the 279 spaces in the privately-owned Pierside Pavilion parking structure and the 816 spaces in the City-owned Main Promenade parking structure) of$2 per hour. (Id., Table A.) The DPMP Update fails to address the fact that 38-42% of the surveyed parking users said they were not willing to pay M amount of money to park in the Downtown area and approximately 2/3 of the surveyed parking users said they were not willing to pay even 500 per hour. (DPMP Update, pp. 27-28.) Thus, while parking spaces may currently be "available" in the sense that they are empty, they are not available for the majority of people who would otherwise utilize them given price sensitivity. How can parking be considered as available when the cost is so high people can't or won't park there? Using the logic of the DPMP Update, if the City increased the price of parking to $10 per hour and nobody parked Downtown, there would be a vast sea of "available" parking spaces to support additional development. • The DPMP Update also fails to address how security and accessibility concerns with parking structures--particularly with subterranean parking structures such as the existing underutilized structure in Block. B and the proposed CIM parking structure in Block A--discourage parking usage. The consultants who prepared the DPMP Update appear to believe that a parking space is a parking space is a parking space. This is not true. Many people, particularly women, will be afraid to park in one of these underground structures and will either look for more remote above-ground parking or, most likely, simply avoid the Downtown area altogether. Shoppers who want to drop into a store along Main Street in Block A will have difficulty locating the single entrance to the proposed CIM parking structure 2 blocks away off 112/014820-0001 12119).01 a10/03/00 RUTAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 7 of 6th Street. The DPMP Update greatly oversimplifies and distorts the data on parking supply by implicitly suggesting that if there is a vacant parking space somewhere in the DPMP area and a driver looking for a place to park there necessarily will be a successful match. • The DPMP Update asserts (at p. 60) that the CIM project proposed for Block A will provide 403 parking spaces. In fact, the latest information, based upon the May 17, 2000, Environmental Assessment No. 99-14 prepared by the City's Planning Department (at p. 2), is that CIM will provide only 346 parking spaces (including 14 tandem spaces), a discrepancy of some 57 parking spaces. • In one place, the DPMP Update claims that the Plaza Almeria development in Block E (which was completed several months ago, but which the DPMP Update addresses as a future development project) will create a net increase of 204 parking spaces. (Id., at p. 60.) In another place (at p. 64), the DPMP Update appears to claim that the Plaza Almeria project will provide 265 parking spaces. (The consultants apparently made the error of including the designated residential parking spaces in the commercial parking count.) In fact, the City staffs August 21, 2000, report to the City Council regarding the 2000 DPMP Annual Review and Monitoring Report acknowledges (at pp. 8-9) that the Plaza Almeria has resulted in a net increase of only 168 commercial parking spaces. Thus, the DPMP Update appears to overstate the supply of parking spaces attributable to the Plaza Almeria project by up to 97 spaces (265 — 168 =97). • The DPMP Update projects (at p. 60) that 30 additional on-street parking spaces will be provided on 5th Street. What actually happened,however, as was noted in the City's 2000 DPMP Annual Review and Monitoring Report (at pp. 8-9) that the Planning Commission received a few months ago was that these 30 "new" spaces did nothing more than offset the elimination of 4 on-street parking spaces at 221 Main Street and 26 on-street parking spaces along Main Street and Olive Avenue adjacent to Plaza Almeria in Block E. 112/014820-0001 121191.01 a10/03/00 RUTAN &TUCKER; ATTORNEYS AT LAW Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 8 1.4 The DPMP Update Does Not Contain Any Evidentiary Justification For Its Analysis Of Parking Demand Or For Its Recommendation To Further Slash Parkin Requirements For New Development. The DPMP Update not only overstates the supply of available parking, it understates and fails to justify the claimed reduction in parking demand. When the City approved the original Downtown Parking Master Plan in 1994, it used a "shared parking" analysis to justify a 40% reduction in code parking requirements in Area 1 and a 33% reduction in code parking requirements in Area 2. (See Exhibit `B" hereto, which consists of page 17 of the adopted Downtown Parking Master Plan.) The DPMP Update now claims that the shared use demand analysis based on its September 1999 parking surveys justifies a further drastic reduction in code parking requirements. Although it is nearly impossible to make a comparison between the number of parking spaces required based on the existing DPMP parking standards and the total number of spaces that would be required if the recommendations in the DPMP Update were approved given the scattered way in which the information is set forth and the numerous errors in the data, by my calculation the total number of parking spaces for the 730,586 square feet of commercial uses in the new proposed "buildout" scenario (see Table 17 at p. 57) that would be required under the existing DPMP standards is approximately 2,865 plus 130 additional spaces that must be reserved for overflow parking for Duke's and Chimayo's by the Sea (which are located outside the DPMP area), whereas the actual number of parking spaces that would be provided (both off-street and on-street) if the recommendations in the DPMP Update were approved would be only about 2,000 (give or take). This amounts to a reduction of almost an approximately one-third in the number of parking spaces that would be required to be provided on top of the very large reduction that was already approved in 1994. This recommendation is based upon several faulty premises. Consider the following: • The DPMP Update's recommendation appears to be based on the faulty premise that all of the Downtown parking spaces--- both the on-street and off-street spaces — are reserved solely and available for the use of Downtown businesses. This is not the case. Even in the September 1999 surveys that were conducted while the beaches were closed and after the Summer was over, fully 28% of the respondents over a 15-hour period on Friday and 43% of the respondents over a 14-hour period on Saturday stated that the primary purpose of their trip was to visit either the beach or the Huntington Beach Pier. (See DPMP, pp. 23, 27, and 28.) The percentages during the actual hours of peak beach and pier usage doubtlessly would be much higher. In addition, 12% of the respondents stated that their primary usage was related to the fact 112/014820-0001 121191.01 a10/03/00 RUTAN &TUCKER ATTORN E Y 5 AT LAW Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 9 that they either "live in downtown area" or were "visiting area resident," i.e., indicating a residential usage unrelated to the Downtown businesses. (Id., pp. 27-28.) Thus, somewhere between 40-55% of the persons parking Downtown even during off-peak periods do so with a primary purpose unrelated to the Downtown commercial businesses. How can a shared parking analysis for commercial development that ignores this substantial, even majority, usage of parking spaces for other purposes possibly be valid? How can code parking requirements be slashed so dramatically in an area that is so heavily impacted by beach usage? • Another flaw in the DPMP Update's shared parking "analysis" is that it appears to ignore the substantial number of business vacancies in the Downtown at the time the September 1999 parking surveys were conducted. As these vacancies are eliminated over time, parking demand will increase. (The original 1994 DPMP did not ignore business vacancies. See, e.g., p. 16 of the approved DPMP.) The assumed parking demand of currently unoccupied'space should have been included in the analysis of the long-term parking demands for the DPMP area. • A major fallacy in the DPMP Update is the claim (at pp. 38-44) that the consultants know how many parking spaces in the study area are being utilized for each (commercial) land use category on an hour-by-hour basis. It is from this (false) claim that the DPMP Update purports to calculate peak hour usage by land use category, perform its shared use analysis, and justify the overall lowering of parking requirements. There are two elements to this fallacy. First of all, the parking surveys upon which the DPMP Update is based did not even ask the users when they parked their car, when they left, and what was the purpose for their visit. (Id., pp. 23-29.) Without this basic information, it is pure speculation on the part of the consultants how many parking spaces were occupied by each land use category each hour during the day. Secondly, since the surveys were performed after the Summer was over and during a period of extended beach closures due to water pollution, the surveys are absolutely meaningless in evaluating the impact on an hourly basis of beach parking during a typical Summer peak period. There is no way to extrapolate from data developed during 112/014820-0001 121191.01 a10/03/00 RUTAN &TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW - Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 10 a non-peak time when the beaches are closed how many people will park in the Downtown on a Summer weekend day to visit the beach. • The City's recently approved 2000 DPMP Annual Review and Monitoring Report acknowledged (at p. 9) that Duke's Surf City Restaurant and Chimayo's by the Sea are required to implement a valet parking plan to provide up to 130 additional parking spaces in the Main Promenade parking structure when the on-site valet lot is full. This parking demand does not appear to have been addressed in the DPMP Update. The validity of the "shared parking" concept cannot be questioned. The basic point is that a huge shared parking credit was already provided when the Downtown Parking Master Plan was originally adopted in 1994 (40% in Area 1 and 33% in Area 2) and the DPMP Update provides no justification for a further dramatic reduction of parking requirements at this time. 1.5 The DPMP Update Does Not Justify the Proposal to Consolidate Areas 1 and 2 for Calculating the Adequacy of Downtown Parking. Retail businesses, including the Downtown merchants, require an adequate supply of convenient and accessible parking. Although the original Downtown Parking Master Plan acknowledged as much (see, e.g., p. 5 of the original DPMP where the statement is found that "[o]f prime concern [to the effectiveness of a shared parking plan] is the location and availability of parking facilities"), the 1994 approval stretched this concept to the maximum by allowing parking requirements to be met collectively within Areas 1 and 2, respectively. Now, apparently, the City staff is not satisfied. Even with the massive recommended reductions in parking requirements, the City's consultants acknowledge that future development in Area 1 would produce a 395-space parking deficit. (DPMP Update, p. 73.)1 Accordingly, the consultants and your staff propose to "solve" the problem by simply merging Areas 1 and 2 and allowing the "surplus" of parking spaces in Area 2 to make up for the deficit in Area 1. I Given the overstatement of parking supply and the understatement of parking demand, the actual deficit is hundreds of spaces higher. 112/014820-0001 121191.01 a10/03/00 • 'RUTAN &TUCKER A T TORN E Y S AT LAW Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 11 This proposal has no justification whatsoever. The biggest looming parking problem is within Block A, where the proposed CIM project alone would produce a deficiency of several hundred parking spaces. This is already an area, it should be noted, that is most heavily impacted by beach parking usage during the heavy Summer peaks. It is absurd to think that potential customers, office tenants and invitees, and others are going to.park 5-6 blocks away in Area 2 and hike to the businesses in Oceanview Promenade in Block A (ADC's property). The original Downtown Parking Master Plan study noted (at p. 5) that"in order to receive optimum utilization by shoppers, a parking facility should be within 300-500 feet of the commercial area which it serves." The result of a policy "merging" Areas 1 and 2 would be to destroy the availability of convenient and accessible parking for businesses in Area 1, most particularly for Oceanview Promenade in Block A. The City's Zoning Code would not permit, and the Planning Commission would never allow, a development to satisfy its off-street parking requirements in a remote location several blocks away. CARE and ADC strongly urge the Commission to not throw your planning standards out the window in order to accommodate someone's idea of the benefits of intense urbanization of Downtown Huntington Beach. 2. Approval of the Proposed Zoning Text Amendment and LCP Without Preparation of a Full EIR Would Violate CEQA. The public hearing notice that was sent to my office on this matter sets forth the City staffs position that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and LCP Amendment are exempt from CEQA under a regulation (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15262) that applies to "feasibility and planning studies." This statutory exemption is not available. A Zoning Text Amendment and LCP Amendment are discretionary "projects" subject to CEQA. The Downtown Parking Master Plan is an integral part of the City's Downtown Specific Plan and the LCP that must be certified by the California Coastal Commission. If your staff does indeed intend to proceed with a Zoning Text Amendment and LCP Amendment, CEQA compliance most definitely is required now. Given the enormous changes that these proposed amendments would authorize in the City's existing land use regulations, a full-blown EIR would have to be prepared. In these circumstances, the legal standard for determining whether an EIR is required is whether it can be fairly argued on the basis of go substantial evidence (regardless of any contrary evidence) that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. That standard definitely is met by a proposal to add almost 50% to the Downtown commercial building cap, while at the same time further reducing parking requirements by 112/014820-0001 121191.01 a10/03/00 RUTAN • &TUCKERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Chairman Gerald Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission October 3, 2000 Page 12 almost one-third and allowing parking requirements to be satisfied anywhere within a six-block area. Hopefully, a full EIR would shed light on the issues obscured by the errors and omissions in the DPMP Update. Based upon the foregoing, the Huntington Beach Citizens Against Redevelopment Excess and Abdelmuti Development Company respectfully request that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and LCP Amendment be denied and that the Downtown Parking Master Plan Update be disapproved. Very truly yours, RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP *yM. derman JMOac I, Enclosures cc: Mike Abdelmuti Jim Lane 112/014820-0001 121191.01 a10/03/00 • • A.W.RUTAN It BBB-19]Z) JAMES B.TUCKER,SR,II631-19501 DAHL.SR.11.919.19118) H.RODGER NOWELL 1192S.19031 RE' JAMES RRIS DAVID B. KENT M.CLAYTON ROBERT E.KING CURNUTT MICHAEL T HORNAI STENPHEN A OELLL SNVF JOSEPH L DMAGA III UlH 9 WHANG WAY PUTAN PAUL RICHARD A. S VAN LEONARD A.HAM►EL PHILIP D.KOHN MATTHEW K.ROSS KRAIG C.KILGER DENISE L.MESTER JOHN B.HURLBUT.JR. JOEL D.KUPERBERG JEFFREY WERTHEIMER STEVEN J.GOON W.ANDREW MOORE MICHAEL W-IMMELL STEVEN A.NICHOLS ROBERT O.OWEN DOUGLAS 1.DENNINGTON ALISON L.TSAO MILrORDW.DAHL,JR. THOMAS G.BROCKINGTON ADAM N.VOLKERT TRIG A.ULANDER CHARLES A.DAVENPORT,111 THEODORE 1.WALLACE.JR.• WILLIAM W.WPNDER JEFFREY A.GOIWARE TODD O.LRFIN DANIEL L.GEBfRT &TUCKER,., GILBERT N.KRUGER EVRIDIKI(VICKI)DALLAS F.KEVIN BRAZIL KARA S-CARLSON JULIE L.DREW JOSE►H D.CARRUTH RANDALL M.BABBUSH LAYNE H.MELZER ERIC L.DUNN NATASHA K.LA MP RICHARO I.SIMS MARY M,GREEN L.SKI HARRISON FRED GALANTE RICHARD D.AR KO A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W JAMES B.O'NEAL GREGG AMBER EASE K. TRAYNUM CRISTY LOMENZO PARKER MARK M.MALOV05 ROBERT C.BRAUN MICHAEL F.SITZER LARRY A.CERUTTI JEFFREY T.MELCHING NIKKI NGUYEN THOMAS S.SALINGER' THOMAS J.CRANE CAROL D.CARTY MIKE D.NEW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS DAVID C.LARSEN' MARK B.FRAZIER PATRICK O.MKALLA SEAN P.FARRELL OF COUNSEL' 611 ANTON BOULEVARD,FOURTEENTH FLOOR CIIFFORD E.FRIEDEN PENEIOVE IARMES RICMARD K.HOWffI MARIFNE POSE FDWARD D.SYBfSMA,)0.• MICHAEL D.RUBIN M.KATHERINE JENSON JAMES S.WEISZ' APRIL LEE WALTER DAVID J.GARIBALDI.III COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626-1998 IRA G.RIVIN' DUKE F.WAHLQUIST DAVID H.HOCHNER KAREN ELIZABETH WALTER DIRECT ALL MAIL 70:POST OFFICE BOX 1950 JEFFREY M.OOERMAN• RICHARD G.MONTEVIDEO A.PATRICK MUPOZ NATALIE SIBBALD DUNDAS 'A PROFESSIONAL STAN WOLCOTT' LORI SARNER 5MJ11F S.DANIEL HARBOTTLE ALISON M-SARBAROSH CORPORATION COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 ROBERT S.BOWER ERNEST W.KLATTE.III PAUL 1.SIEVERS JOHN W.HAMILTON.JR. TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 DAVID 1.ALESHIRE ELIZABETH L.MARTYN MICHAEL R.SLATTERY LYNN LOSCHIN MARCIA A.FORSYTH KIM D.THOMPSON DEBRA DUNN STEEL PHILIP 1.BLANCHARD INTERNET ADDRESS www.rulan.com WILLIAM M.MARTICORENA JAYNE TAYLOR RACER DAN SLATER TERENCE 1.GALLAGHER August 30, 1999 David C. Biggs Economic Development Director City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Downtown Parking Master Plan and CIM Project Dear David: I am writing as a follow-up to the request in my August 10, 1999, letter that the City and Redevelopment Agency move quickly to conduct a parking study in Downtown Huntington Beach before the end of the busy Summer season. As you know, since that letter was written.- the sewage spill has resulted in the extended and continuous closure of 41h miles of the City and State beach, including the entire beach adjacent to the Downtown. As a result, beach traffic has dropped off tremendously and the local businesses have been severely impacted. Given these unanticipated events, any parking study performed during Summer 1999 will have no validity in predicting parking demand during a normal Summer season. For this reason, my clients request that the City and Redevelopment Agency plan now to do a complete parking study for the area encompassed by the Downtown Parking Master Plan during the Summer of 2000 and that no action be taken on any development approvals for the CIM project until after the results of that parking study are made available for public review. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP J ff ey M. Oderman JMO:jh cc: Mike Abdelmuti Edon Bagstad Gail C. Hutton, Esq., City Attorney Murray O. Kane, Esq., Redevelopment Agency Special Counsel Melanie S. Fallon, Assistant City Administrator 112/019493.OM,/3289815. JB08r30/99 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B As stated before, maximum buildout for the Downtown area will be between 450,000 - 500,000 square feet of commercial activities . Area one will contain approximately 350, 000 to 400, 000 square feet with the remaining 50, 000 to 100, 000 square feet of activity occurring in Area 2 . The traditional code required parking for this intensity and mix of commercial activities would indicate a need for approximately 2,700 parking spaces in Area 1. This would require 1, 000 additional parking spaces over the current and anticipated supply. Although this is a 40% reduction, the mix of activities is ideal for the shared parking approach. A comparable reduction of 33% is also identified for Area 2 (code required parking is approximately 300 spaces with a supply of approximately 200 spaces) . Therefore, the Downtown Parking Master Plan proposes an overall reduction of the code required number of parking spaces based on these assumptions along with a proposed maximum buildout of commercial activities . Parking Master Plan -17- EXHIBIT f3 (1915D) EXHIBIT C + . I 5-►�i Notice of Preparation* • State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento,CA 95814 (916)445-0613 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: Agency Name: City of Huntington Beach Firm Name: EIP Associates Street Address: 2000 Main Street Street Address: 11601 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 1440 City/State/Zip: Huntington Beach,CA 92648 City/State/Zip: Los Angeles,CA 90025 Contact: Jane James,Associate Planner Contact: Terri S.Vitar,Regional Manager The City of Huntington Beach will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report(EIR) for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental impact information which will be included in the EIR. The document to be prepared by the City of Huntington Beach should include any information necessary for public agencies to meet any statutory responsibilities related to the proposed project. The EIR prepared by the City of Huntington Beach will.attempt to provide sufficient environmental analysis to address any potential permits or other approvals necessary to implement the project. A public Scoping Meeting will be held to solicit comments regarding the scope of environmental review for this project on Thursday,June 1,2000 from 6:30-8:30 PM. The meeting will be held in the Talbert Room at Huntington Beach Central Library,7111 Talbert Avenue,Huntington Beach,CA 92647. The project description,location,and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study(19 is ❑ is not)attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Jane James,Associate Planner, at the address shown above. Agency responses to this NOP should include the name, address, and phone number of the person who will serve as the primary point of contact for this project within the commenting agency. Project Title: Block 104/105 Redevelopment Project(The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach) Project Location: City of Huntington Beach,County of Orange Project Description: The project proposes to redevelop the 6.31-acre(3.87-acre developable) Block 104/105 site,which is currently occupied by retail,commercial,office,and residential uses,with 243,610 leasable square feet of visitor-oriented commercial uses and office uses. Proposed uses include retail commercial, entertainment oriented retail, a specialty market, restaurants, and a 139 room hotel. Implementation of the proposed project requires demolition of the existing uses on-site, including existing residences. Some on-site uses occupy structures that are more than 50 years old and may be historically significant. Date: May 17,2000 Signature: Qp, P— Title: Associate Planner Telephone: (714)596-5596 i Reference: California Code of Regulations,Title 14(CEQA Guidelines)Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375. I. Project Description PROJECT LOCATION The Block 104/105 project site is bounded on the north by Sixth Street,on the south by Main Street,on the west by Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1), and on the east by Walnut Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. Fifth Street, an 80-foot right-of-way, bisects the project site from Walnut Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing on site uses include a row of one-and two-story commercial buildings,which house various retail and restaurant uses and some second-story residential uses, fronts Main Street and extends from the comer of Walnut Avenue and Main Street to the edge of the Oceanview Promenade. Several of the existing structures to be removed have been identified as historically significant. Additionally, two historic structures lie on the Worthy property, which is located within Block 105, but outside of the project site. These two structures would not be removed. The project site is located at the northern edge of the City's downtown core, and surrounding uses are primarily commercial, with the exception of the Pacific Ocean across Pacific Coast Highway to the Southwest. PROJECT PROPOSAL The project proposes to redevelop the Block 104/105 site with 243,610 square feet(sf)of office and visitor- serving commercial uses, including retail, restaurants, a specialty market, and 139 room hotel in three buildings. Additional features of the project include a 331-space subterranean parking garage and a 15- space, ground-level parking court on Fifth Street. All structures and landscaping would be designed to comply with the Downtown Specific Plan. The project, as proposed, is compatible with the zoning and General Plan land use designations of the project site, however, Special Permits may be necessary for encroachment into the minimum ground floor and upper-story setbacks,depending on final building design. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impacts not Anticipated to be Significant Based on the information currently available to the City of Huntington Beach, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant impacts on agricultural resources, biological resources,mineral resources,and hazards and hazardous materials. Impacts that may be Potentially Significant Based on the information currently available to the City of Huntington Beach, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project will result in significant impacts to land use and planning, population and housing, geology and soils,hydrology and water quality,air quality, transportation/traffic, noise,public services,utilities and service systems,and aesthetics. However,the City of Huntington Beach anticipates that these impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impacts that may be Significant and Unavoidable Based on the information currently available to the City of Huntington Beach, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project may result in significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources. I ,A ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 99 14^•- �. 4 - e asp'. b 1 PROJECT TITLE Huntington Beach Block 1041105 Redevelopment Project(The Strand at Downtown Huntington Beach) Concurrent Entitlements Tentative Tract Map No (not assigned) Conditional Use Permit No 99-45 Coastal Development Permit No 99-16 2 LEAD AGENC i City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Contact Jane James,Associate Planner Phone (714)536-5596 Fax (714)374-1540 3 PROJECT LOCATION Area bounded by Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) on the West, Walnut Avenue on the Fast, Sixth Street on the North, and Main Street on the South (project area does not include Oceanview Promenade or the Worthy property) 4 PROJECT PROPONENTS CIM Group City of Huntington Beach 6922 Hollywood Boulevard Redevelopment Agency Suite 900 2000 Main Street Hollywood California 90028 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 5 GENERAL PLAY DESIGNATION MV F 12-sp-pd(Mired-Use Vertical-Specific Plan Overlay-Pedestrian Overlay) 6 ZONING- Downtown Specific Plan-District 3 (Visitor-Serving Commercial)-Coastal Zone 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to redevelop the 6 31-acre (3 87-acre developable) Block 104/105 site which is currently occupied by retail,commercial, office,and residential uses Three buildings (A, B and C) are proposed which would consist of 243,610 leasable square feet of visitor-oriented commercial uses, including retail, restaurants, specialty market, a hotel, and office uses Table 1, below, summarizes the square footages of the proposed uses TABLE 1 PROPOSED PROJECT LEASABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE Building Retail Office Market Restaurant Hotel Total A 44,440 3,600 -- 7,900 -- 55,940 B -- 2 830 -- 15,260 -- 18,090 C 25,420 -- 20,000 21,050 *103,110 169,580 Totals 69,860 6,430 20 000 44 210 103,110 243,610 Source CIM Group 2000 'The hotel would include 139 rooms 1 Buildings A, B, and C are oriented toward Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street, with a proposed parking court and open plaza area on Fifth Street serving as the focal point of the development. All structures and landscaping are designed to comply with the Downtown Specific Plan and to complement and expand the existing grid pattern of Downtown Huntington Beach. Additional components of the proposed project include a 331-space subterranean parking garage(300 standard spaces, 17 compact spaces,and 14 tandem spaces),which would be accessed from Sixth Street, and a 15-space,surface-level parking court on Fifth Street. Implementation of the proposed project requires demolition of the existing uses on-site, including existing residences. Some on-site uses occupy structures that are more than 50 years old and may be historically significant. 8. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The project represents a continuation of the implementation of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project(EIR 96-2), and is considered part of the project analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for that project, pursuant to Section 21090 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The EIR prepared for this project would,therefore,be considered a subsequent EIR to EIR 96-2, which Section 21166 of CEQA necessitates, due to changes in the project description and the existing conditions in the Downtown Specific Plan Area. Although the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and general plan land use designations for the project site, the Lead Agency determined that impacts particular to the project site required analysis that was not provided in EIR 96-6 (which analyzed the merger of the redevelopment area that includes the project site), and that a subsequent EIR was required, pursuant to Section 15183(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states: CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established in the existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Issues addressed in the EIR may incorporate existing settings data by reference from EIR 96-2. Other environmental documents prepared that are relevant to the proposed project and which may be incorporated by reference include the following: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2, Subsequent EIR 82-2, Addendum to SEIR 82-2, Main Pier Phase II and Main Street 100 Block EIR 89-6,Addendum to EIR 89-6,and the Huntington Beach General Plan EIR. 9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED(AND PERMITS NEEDED): California Department of Transportation(Caltrans Encroachment Permit for encroachment into the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way),California Regional Water Quality Control Board (permit for dewatering during construction, and operation of the subterranean parking structure). 2 • s ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"or is"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 19 Land Use/Planning 0 Transportation/Traffic 0 Public Services 19 Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources Utilities/Service Systems 19 Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation ❑ Agriculture Resources 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant effect(s)on the environment,but at ❑ least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL EWACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 17. Zc Sikhature U Date Jane James Associate Planner Printed Name Title I 3 �► s EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3, Title 14, California Code of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. (Note: Standard Conditions of Approval - The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However, because they are considered part of the project,they have not been identified as mitigation measures. 4 SAMPLE QUESTION: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or 0 regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources:2,3,7,8) Discussion: The proposed site is zoned Downtown Specific Plan District 3—Coastal Zone in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and is designated as MV-F12-sp-pd (Mixed-Use Vertical—Specific Plan Overlay—Pedestrian Overlay) in the General Plan. The project,as proposed,is compatible with the existing zoning and general plan land use designations. Although not entirely determined, it is anticipated that the current design of the project requires approval of special permits to encroach into minimum ground floor and upper story setbacks. Additional special permit requests may be defined as project components are officially identified. The project will also be subject to review and approval of the Design Review Board for compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Therefore, a complete analysis of the proposed project's consistency with applicable land use plans,policies, and regulations will be included in the subsequent EIR. b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 3,7) Discussion: No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan affects the project site. No impact would occur,and no further analysis of this issue is required. Atially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 3,7) El 9 El Discussion: The proposed project would not result in a change to site access, and would, therefore, not disrupt or divide the project site. The proposed changes to on-site uses and parking are not expected to physically divide the area,although the project site contains several apartments above the existing liquor store. While these apartments will be removed to accommodate the proposed development,this action would not be considered a community division. This would constitute a less-than- significant impact,and no further analysis of this issue is required. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly11 ❑ 11 a (e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source:Project Description) Discussion: The proposed project would not create any new residential dwelling units or create any new roadways, therefore, the project would not result in a direct or indirect population increase. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating 11 El the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: N/A) Discussion: The proposed project will require the demolition of existing housing units located within the project site. The demolition of existing residential structures will result in the temporary displacement of existing residents. A complete analysis of this impact will be required in the subsequent EIR. The analysis will include an evaluation of the impact in relation to relocation of and/or compensation to residents according to Federal and State Relocation Law(USC Section 33352(f)and CSC Section 33411,respectively). c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 1,5) Discussion: The proposed project will require the demolition of existing housing units located within the project site. The demolition of existing residential structures will result in the temporary displacement of existing households,as well as the permanent removal of dwelling units. A complete analysis of this issue will be required in the subsequent EIR. 6 Ontially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact III.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the 0 11 El 13 most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault(Refer to the California Division of Mines and Geology Spec.Pub.42)? (Sources:3,7, 11, 19) Discussion: Page 5.6-21 of the General Plan EIR states that fault rupture constitutes a direct impact to affected areas within the City of Huntington Beach. The most likely areas for fault rupture are the more restricted Alquist-Priolo zones (p. 5.6-21), and "engineering,geologic, and geotechnical engineering investigation report requirements are in place to mandate studies as a means of developing mitigation measures(usually avoidance)for construction." Although the subject site is not located within an identified Alquist-Priolo zone,the site is within the Newport-Inglewood Fault zone. Consequently, the proposed project may expose on-site structures to significant seismic hazards if an earthquake occurs along this fault. An analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources:3,7, 11) Discussion: Page 5.6-22 of the General Plan EIR states that the effects of groundshaking on the provision of utilities and services constitute an indirect impact. Additionally, ground-shaking resulting from pile-driving or other, similar construction activities may adversely affect adjacent properties,notably the historic Worthy Property located on Block 105,but outside of the project site. Therefore, as described above in the discussion for Item III.a.i., a geologic investigation will be included within the EIR. This investigation will analyze the issues identified, and will include conclusions and recommendations for mitigating identified seismic impacts. iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? a (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The project site in not located within a liquefaction zone, according to the online California Division of Mines and Geology online Seismic Hazard Zones Maps. However,the site is located within an area identified by Figure EH-7 in the City's General Plan as having a"very high"potential for liquefaction. Additionally, as stated above for item IH.a.i., the site is located within a fault zone, which may subject the site to other forms of seismic-related ground failure. A geological report is in preparation for the project,and this issue will be analyzed in the EIR 7 atially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact iv) Landslides? (Sources: 3,7, 11) El El El 19 Discussion: The project proposes the redevelopment of commercial uses along an already developed area located on flat land that is not expected to generate any landslides. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Sources:N/A) Discussion: The project site is currently developed with structures and impervious surfaces, and the proposed project would also entirely cover the site. Given the presence of hardscape throughout the site, no topsoil is known to exist. Grading for above-ground project components is anticipated to be minimal. However, grading for the proposed subterranean parking structure is expected to be substantial, and while it would not impact topsoil, it may result in erosion. Therefore, an analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 0 El El El would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: While the project site is currently developed, it is located within an area identified by Figure EH-7 in the City's General Plan as having a very high potential for liquefaction and by Figure EH-12 in the General Plan as having a low to moderate (6%-27%)probability for expansion. The site soils could therefore be considered unstable, and an analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources:3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for Item III.c.,above. 8 Wally Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IV.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge a requirements? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The City's Standard Conditions of Approval require the preparation of a water quality management plan, pursuant to NPDES requirements, which would ensure the project's compliance with applicable waste discharge and water quality requirements. This impact would,therefore,be less than significant,and would not require further analysis. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere El 11 substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: According to City staff, groundwater wells currently supply 80% of the City's water; the remaining 20% is imported. While the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge (since the majority of the site is already developed with impervious surfaces), according to Pages 5.12.1-5 to 5.12.1-8 of the General Plan EIR, the cumulative theoretical build-out scenario exacerbates current inadequacies in water distribution and storage capacity. This constitutes a potentially significant cumulative impact. A hydrology report is currently in preparation for the proposed project,and an analysis of this issue will be provided in the subsequent EIR. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Although the project site contains no streams or rivers, erosion or siltation could occur during construction activities, and the proposed project could alter the drainage pattern of the project site. This alteration will result partially from additional impervious surfaces,which could affect the velocity of stormwater flows. A hydrology report for the project is currently in preparation, and an analysis of this issue will be provided in the subsequent EIR. Refer also to the discussion for Item III.b.,above. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 0 area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? (Sources: 3,7, 11) 9 Ontially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item IV.c. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the El capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources:3, 7, 11) Discussion: The commercial uses proposed for the project are not anticipated to create polluting discharges beyond wastewater (sewer) associated with ordinary human occupation of the facility, and the project will comply with all waste discharge requirements and water quality objectives of State and Federal agencies as part of the City's standard conditions of approval; however, the proposed project would alter the drainage pattern of the site, and would contribute additional impermeable surfaces, which could result in additional runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing systems. As stated above in the discussion for Item IV.c., a hydrology report is currently in preparation for the project, and this issue will be addressed in the subsequent EIR. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 3,7, El El 0 0 11) Discussion: The nature of the existing and proposed land uses (i.e., urban) are sufficiently similar so as not to substantially alter the quality of urban runoff. The anticipated changes to the rate will be addressed in the subsequent EIR as described above in the discussions for Items IVA. and IV.e. As stated above in the discussion for item IV.e., the proposed project would comply with all State and Federal waste discharge requirements and water quality objectives as part of the City's standard conditions of approval. No further analysis of this issue is required. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped El El on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source:3,7, 11, 19) Discussion: The proposed project does not include the development of residential dwelling units. No further analysis of this issue is required. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 0 ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 3,7, 11, 19) Discussion: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)and Figures SD-2 and SD-3 of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project site is classified as"Low Threat"flood hazard area and would be subject to"minimal flooding"(i.e., 10 S etially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact less than 1 foot depth). These flood risk assessments reflect the possibility of the failure of the Prado Dam (the primary flood control mechanism for areas downstream along the Santa Ana River), as well as the raised and strengthened levees along the Santa Ana River. As stated on page 3-28 of the SEIR 82-2 Addendum,FEMA revised the flood maps for areas within the City of Huntington Beach, including the project site, in 1997 in recognition of the improvements to the Santa Ana River Channel: these revisions actually reduced the anticipated flood level by 6.5 feet, which estimated the flood level below the elevation of the project site. Therefore,the proposed project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, seiches, or tsunamis, nor would substantial flood flows be redirected by the placement of structures on the project site. No further analysis of this issue is required. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources:3,7, 11, 19) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item IV.h. As stated above, the flood risk and potential flood level assessments for the City include the possibility of the failure of Prado Dam, which,while located in Riverside County,provides the primary flood protection means for areas downstream of it. The levees constructed along the Santa Ana River also minimize the flood risks to areas within the City that include the project site. Additionally, as stated on page 5.12.3-6 of the General Plan EIR,the channelization of the Santa Ana River from Weir Canyon Road to the Pacific Ocean has improved the capacity of the channel sufficiently that the channel can convey the water volume associated with a 190-year flood event. As stated above in the discussion for Item IV.h.,the revised FEMA flood maps for the City reflect this further minimization of flood risks to the City. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Source: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The site is located on a flat area that is not expected to generate mudflows. In regard to tsunamis and seiches,page 5.12.3- 7 of the General Plan EIR states that the tsunami hazard for the City is classified as "very low," and that seiche area damage would be most severe in the same areas as tsunami hazards. Further,Figures EH-8 and SD-4 of the General Plan show that the project site is not located within or adjacent to a moderate tsunami run-up area. A less-than-significant impact is therefore anticipated from the proposed project and no further analysis of this issue is required. V. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air El 11 11 quality plan? (Source: 3,7, 11) Discussion: As proposed,the project entails significant earth movement and construction activities,and would potentially result in the generation of a significant number of new vehicle trips. These activities could result in inconsistencies with local and regional planning standards on which the air quality plan was based. Therefore, the project's potential impacts on local and regional air quality will be addressed in the EIR with respect to the following issues: 11 atially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ■ Exceedance of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds of potential significance,which may result in a conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP; ■ Violation of any local and regional air quality standards during construction and operation; ■ Local,ambient CO"hot spots"; ■ Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant in the South Coast Air Basin;and ■ Exposure of surrounding sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations(as defined by the SCAQMD) during construction and operation. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources:3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item V.a.,above. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant Q concentrations? (Sources:3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item V.a.above. d) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item V.a.,above. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 11 El 0 people? (Source: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The project does not propose, and would not facilitate,uses that are significant sources of objectionable odors. The only potential source of odor associated with the proposed project may result from construction equipment exhaust during construction activities, or the storage of operation-related solid waste. Given the short-term and temporary nature of construction activities, as well as the standard construction requirements imposed on the applicant, impacts associated with construction-generated odors are expected to be less than significant. It is expected that any project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations. Therefore, odors generated by project-generated solid waste are not anticipated to have a significant impact and no further analysis of this issue is required. 12 fentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to 19 ❑ ❑ El the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: In general,the proposed project is expected to have significant traffic impacts due to a project-related increase in vehicular movement in the area. A number of community traffic issues will be addressed in the EIR,including: ■ Level of traffic increase and adequacy of the surrounding arterial network to accommodate additional traffic from the proposed development; ■ Impacts of the increase in vehicle trips on the level of service standards established within the Orange County Congestion Management Plan; ■ Impacts on nearby residential streets; ■ Turning movements into/out of parking driveway(s),and queuing; ■ Layout of parking garage and accessibility of spaces for different uses; • Physical and operational adequacy of the proposed parking plan to meet the parking demand of the project and its obligations with respect to other users; ■ Replacement parking for the existing spaces during construction; ■ Construction parking,hauling and staging; ■ Truck circulation and turning movements; ■ Loading activities and their impacts on affected roadways and other businesses located adjacent to the proposed project; ■ Alternative transportation options supported by adopted plans,policies,and programs; • Cumulative impacts;and ■ Possible design features to eliminate traffic-related hazards. b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 19 ❑ El ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item VI.a.,above. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an 0 increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 21) 13 Pbially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed project is not located within vicinity of any known airports and does not propose any structures whose height would interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns. No further analysis of this issue is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item VI.a.,above. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 3,7, 11) El 1 Discussion: Vehicular access to the project will change somewhat, due to the proposed reduction of the Fifth Street right-of-way, and possible periodic closure of Fifth Street to vehicular traffic. However, the project is currently located within the boundaries of the Huntington Beach Fire Department's 5-minute response time area. Further, the Huntington Beach Police Department and Huntington Beach Fire Department will review the project site plans to ensure compliance with the City's emergency access requirements, per the City's standard conditions of approval. No significant impact is anticipated,and no further analysis of this issue is required. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item VI.a.,above. g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative El El transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?(Sources: 3, 7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item VI.a.,above. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through El 19 habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 3,7, 11) 14 *ially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: According to Figure ERC-2 of the General Plan and Figure BR-1 of the General Plan EK the project site is not located within any of the generalized habitat areas defined by the Natural Resources Chapter of the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element, nor does the project site lie within or contain natural open space with biological resource value. Additionally, the majority of the project site is developed and the only vegetation on the vacant(graded dirt)portion of the site consists of three common, ornamental trees, and sparse, common weeds. While the project may support common, urban animal life (e.g., gophers, ground squirrels, and perhaps snakes), no habitat for special status species exists on-site, and none of these species would be expected to occur. The proposed project would result in an intensification of largely existing land uses,and would not impact biological features. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 0 El 0 other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The project site is currently fully developed with urban uses. Therefore, the project would not have any effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish Wildlife Service.No further analysis of this issue is required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 0 wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The site contains no wetland habitat, as defined by the Clean Water Act or the Fish and Game Code of California. Therefore, no impacts to this type of habitat would occur. No further analysis of this issue is required in the subsequent EIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or withEl 9 established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Because the site is developed with urban uses, the site does not contain any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and does not contain any native resident or migratory wildlife movement corridors. Furthermore, the site is surrounded by urban uses and does not provide links between natural areas. No further analysis of this issue is required in the subsequent EIR. 15 atially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protectingEl F-1 19 biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The project site is not covered by any local policies or ordinances pertaining to the protection of biological resources.No further analysis of this issue is required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat El El 19 Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources:3,7,9, 11) Discussion: No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan affects the project site,therefore,no impact would occur. No further analysis of this issue is required. VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 9 that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The General Plan does not identify any important mineral resources on the project site. Therefore,no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated,and no further analysis of this issue is required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources:3,7, 11) Discussion: The proposed demolition of existing structures and construction of the proposed project will not result in a loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource identified in the General Plan, since, as stated above in the discussion for Item VIII.a.,no important mineral resources have been identified on the project site. Therefore,no impacts to mineral resource availability are anticipated and no further analysis of this issue is required. IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmentEl 0 through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources:3,7, 11) 16 entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: I The project includes the development of ordinary commercial uses and is not expected to introduce any acutely hazardous materials to the area. As the project would be subject to compliance with CalOSHA (California Occupational Safety and Health Administration)requirements and other State and local requirements,no significant hazards impacts are expected from the project. Further,page 5.11-11 of the General Plan EIR states that implementation of General Plan Policies(such as the existing City and State requirements)would reduce potentially significant impacts based on build-out to less-than- significant levels. Therefore,no further analysis of this issue is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment Z through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources:3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to discussion item IX.a.,above. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: No school lies within one-quarter mile of the project site. Additionally,refer to discussion item IX.a.,above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources:3,7, 11,20) Discussion: According to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the project site is not on the State's Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List(CORTESE) and has no known history of use involving hazardous materials.No further analysis of this issue is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,whereEl El 0 such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source:3,7, 11) Discussion: Although the project site is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the County of Orange, it is not located within 2 miles of any known public or private airstrip. Additionally,the proposed structures will not exceed heights that require review and approval by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The project would not,therefore,result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area,and no further analysis of this issue is required. 17 Poally Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the El Z project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to discussion for the item IX.e.,above. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Vehicular access to the project will change somewhat, due to the proposed reduction of the Fifth Street right-of-way, and possible periodic closure of Fifth Street to vehicular traffic. However, the project is located within the boundaries of the Huntington Beach Fire Department's 5-minute response time area. Further,the Huntington Beach Police Department and Huntington Beach Fire Department will review the project site plans to ensure compliance with the City's emergency access requirements,per the City's standard conditions of approval. No significant impact is anticipated, and no further analysis of this issue is required. With regard to emergency response plans, City staff have indicated that the project site does not serve a function in any emergency response or evacuation plan(schools are typically employed for this purpose), and that no emergency response plans would be impaired. No impact is anticipated,and no further analysis of this issue is required. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury, El 9 or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The project is not located within the vicinity of any wildland areas;therefore,no impacts would occur.No further analysis of this issue is required. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess 19 El El El of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 2,3, 8) Discussion: Noise would be generated by the proposed project during periods of construction and by increased traffic during operation and by activity at the site once built and occupied. Construction of the project would also result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. The noise created by the project could affect residences across Sixth Street (the nearest sensitive receptors),the Oceanview Promenade,and other land uses in the Downtown Core area. Although noise from mechanical equipment(such as air conditioning systems)associated with operation of the project will be required to comply with the State Building Code requirements pertaining to noise attenuation such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB in any 18 tontially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact habitable room (including hotels), and with City regulations requiring adequate buffering of such equipment, the amount of traffic generated by the project remains to be calculated, and the potential for excessive noise to be generated by the traffic is therefore also unknown and must be considered significant for the purposes of this analysis. This issue will be addressed in the subsequent EIR. Chapter 8.40 of the Municipal Code for Noise Control generally prohibits construction activity between the hours of 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and all day on Sundays (§8.40.090). Certain after-hours construction is allowed provided that the noise standards (§8.40.050) of the ordinance are met. Daytime noise greater than 75 dBA in residential areas,and greater than 80 dBA in commercial areas, is prohibited by the ordinance. Additionally, a permit for the construction activities(which requires a review of the proposed activities)must be obtained from the City. Reference data for construction equipment noise illustrates that operation of typical heavy equipment would result in noise levels between approximately 75 dBA and 100 dBA when measured 50 feet from the source,depending primarily on the type of equipment in operation.' The most intense noise would be associated with pile driving, which may be necessary on a portion of the project site. Noise levels from a single piece of equipment tend to drop off at a rate of 6 decibels per doubling of distance; therefore, distance to sensitive receptors would help to reduce the construction noise. However, because a combination of equipment could possibly be operating simultaneously,the noise could still be perceptible in the Downtown Core area, and to the residences across Sixth Street. However, noise generated by construction would be intermittent and short-term, and because construction would be temporary and would be required to comply with the Noise Control ordinance and with other standard conditions of approval, no significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project construction,and no further analysis of construction-related noise is required. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne a vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 3,7,8, 11) Discussion: In the project vicinity, the only existing source of perceptible ground-borne vibration would be travel of heavy trucks or buses over bumps on the adjacent streets and the Pacific Coast Highway. Pile driving and the use of heavy equipment during construction of the project may cause substantial additional ground-borne vibration; however, this issue will be analyzed in the geotechnical investigation for the project,as described above in the discussion for Item Il.a.ii.. While this is considered a potentially significant impact, it will be addressed in the geology and hydrology section of the subsequent EIR,and would not be considered a noise-related issue in this analysis. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 11 (Sources: 3,7,8, 11) Discussion: Existing noise levels in the project area are dominated by traffic and by the activities of people throughout the Downtown Core and Oceanview Promenade areas. As stated above in the discussion for Item X.a., the project would contribute to the traffic noise and would cause additional noise from the activity of the people visiting the project site and from operation of mechanical equipment and other facilities at the buildings. Noise from the project's mechanical equipment would be regulated by the Noise Control ordinance; however, the noise generated by project traffic once the project is built and occupied is unknown. In order for project-related traffic to generate a noticeable noise impact (greater than 3 dBA) on any of the surrounding streets, the project would have to cause a two-fold increase in the existing traffic. Although the project lies along heavily traveled Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway,the traffic generation is unknown and must,therefore,be considered significant for the purposes of this analysis. As stated above in the discussion for Item X.a.,this issue will be addressed in the subsequent EIR. `Noise levels from typical construction equipment are shown in the guidance document: U.S.Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration,Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,April 1995. 19 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise El ❑ X❑ El levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 3,7,8, 11) Discussion: Project construction activities would cause a temporary increase in ambient noise,however the construction noise would be regulated by the Noise Control ordinance as discussed in item Ka,above. The temporary noise increase would not be considered substantial,and no further analysis of this issue is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public ❑ 19 airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 3,7, 11,23) Discussion: The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport,public use airport,or private airstrip. The project site is about four miles from the decommissioned Meadowlark Airport and about ten miles from either the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or the John Wayne Airport. Although the City is included within the Airports Environs Land Use Plan of Orange County, the City is outside of the 60 dB CNEL contour for the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. The project would not,therefore,expose people to excessive noise from airports,and no impact would occur. No further analysis of this issue is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the ❑ ❑X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 3,7, 11,23) Discussion: Refer to discussion for item X.e.,above. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources: 3,7, 11) ❑ Discussion: As a proposed commercial development surrounded by commercial uses and served by fire protection services (the site lies within the Department's 5-minute response time area),the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact fire 20 P>!!lsntially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact protection services. However, due to the volume of commercial development in the project area, the proposed development may result in an increased need for additional fire protection. Therefore, an analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR. b) Police Protection? (Sources: 3,7, 11) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: As a proposed commercial development surrounded by commercial uses and served by police protection services, the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact fire protection services. However, due to the volume of commercial development in the project area, the proposed development may result in an increased need for additional police protection.Therefore,an analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR. c) Schools? (Sources: 3,7, 11) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Discussion: The proposed project does not include the development of residential dwelling units.Therefore,the project will not induce any new demand on existing schools serving the area. No further analysis of this issue is required. d) Parks? (Sources:3,7, 11) ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 Discussion: The project proposes no alteration of existing park facilities and would not result in a loss of recreational opportunities. Additionally, no additional parks are proposed or required as part of the project. No further analysis of this issue is required. e) Other public facilities? (Sources: 3,7, 11) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Discussion: i The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any additional public facilities or services other than the issues identified above. No further analysis of this issue is required. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to discussion for item IV.a.,above. 21 *tially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The project will require incremental extensions of water and wastewater infrastructure to the site,which will be provided by the developer, and by respective governmental agencies and utility companies. All utility connections to the proposed uses will be in accordance with all applicable Uniform Codes, City ordinances, Public Works standards, and Water Division criteria. Extension of these services is not anticipated to create any significant adverse impacts. However, the proposed project may contribute to an impact on wastewater treatment facility capacity. An analysis of this issue will be provided in the subsequent EIR. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources:3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for Item IV.e.,above. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or ❑ ❑ ❑ expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: As described above in Item IV.b. above and on pages 5.12.2-7 to 5.12.2-9 of the General Plan EIR, the project-related water demand may contribute to an existing shortage of water supply, distribution, and storage capacity. An analysis of this issue will be provided in the subsequent EIR. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate 19 ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to discussion for item XII.b.,above. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources: 3,7, 11) 22 Sially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Solid waste collection service for the City of Huntington Beach is provided by Rainbow Disposal, under an exclusive long-term contract with the City. Collected solid waste is transported to a transfer station where the solid waste is sorted and processed through a Materials Recovery Facility where recyclable materials are removed. The remaining solid waste is transported to the Bee Canyon Landfill located in the City of Irvine. The landfill has a remaining capacity in excess of 30 years based on present solid waste generation rates. However, the proposed project will result in an intensification of land use and generate more solid waste than existing uses. Therefore,this issue will be further analyzed in the EIR. g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations Mpi related to solid waste? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Although participation in City and/or County recycling programs is assumed, final density and design of project features are not yet finalized. Therefore, a full analysis of the project's consistency with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste will be included in the subsequent EIR_ XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 0 3,7, 11) Discussion: The project site is located on Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the Huntington Beach pier. As stated within the General Plan, the Huntington Beach Pier and Pierside Pavilion are considered a "landmark," which is defined as a significant reference point that helps to identify a particular area in the city. Furthermore, Pacific Coast Highway is designated by the State of California as a Scenic Highway, containing visual amenities, which enhance the visual quality and ambiance of the City. The proposed project will result in the demolition and construction of new commercial facilities within these areas. In addition, the two-block project site also contains the four-story Ocean View Promenade retail and office building and the historic Worthy property. Neither Ocean View Promenade nor the Worthy property are part of this development proposal and both would be unaffected by the project. However,development of the project site would encroach visually on both properties. The proposed project involves the redevelopment of a relatively large-scale commercial/retail facility. As such, the surrounding uses (in particular the Huntington Pier to the southwest of the project), which would have direct views of proposed structures, could perceive project development as degradation of the existing visual character of the neighborhood. Therefore,the following aesthetic issues will be evaluated in the EIR: ■ The proposed project's consistency with the visual character of the neighborhood; • Proposed streetscaping and adequacy of proposed landscaping; ■ Overall mass and scale of structures and their compatibility with surrounding uses; ■ Compatibility of the structures with adjacent,historic properties; ■ Architectural quality of structures; 23 • Ontially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ■ Pedestrian-friendly aesthetics;and ■ Potential impacts from shade and shadows cast by proposed structures on surrounding uses. b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings IJ El within a state scenic highway? (Source:3,7, 11, 19) Discussion: Refer to the discussion for item XIII.a.,above. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 19 ❑ El the site and its surroundings? (Source: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Refer to discussion for item XIII.a.,above. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would 19 ❑ 11 adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(Source: 3,7, 11) Discussion: Light impacts could result from new building activities, security lighting, such as along the buildings' perimeter, in the parking garage,and for the surface lot on Fifth Street. Ambience lighting and security lighting from the parking court,the surface parking area, and general project lighting may be visible from the street or light-sensitive receptors immediately surrounding the project site,including the Pier,which could be potentially affected by the new lighting system. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR. Glare can result from daytime reflection of sunlight off flat building surfaces. The proposed project may create reflective surfaces(e.g.,windows,brightly colored or bare concrete building fagade treatments),and this issue will be addressed in the EIR. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 19 historical resource as defined in§15064.5? (Sources: 3,7, 11, 18) Discussion: Approximately 11 structures within the project site are part of the Main Street Historical District, which is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historical Places. The proposed project includes the demolition of some of these structures and an updated cultural resources technical report is currently in preparation. Additionally, as described above in aesthetics, the visual compatibility of the project with the adjacent historic properties will be analyzed: this issue may also have an effect on the historical setting.of these adjacent resources,particularly the Worthy property. An analysis of 24 Sially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact the project's effect upon these structures will be provided in the subsequent EIR. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Sources: 18) Discussion: Although the project site has been previously developed,the subsequent EIR will examine the potential for archaeological resources to occur on-site. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1,2) Discussion: Neither the General Plan nor the General Plan EIR identifies any unique paleontological resources on the project site; therefore,no impacts are anticipated. This issue will be analyzed in the subsequent EIR. d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of El formal cemeteries? (Sources:N/A) Discussion: The EIR will examine the potential for buried human remains on the project site. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, 0 ❑ 11 11 community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 3,7, 11, 13, 14) Discussion: Significant impacts from the project could occur if the demand or need for lifeguard services from increased beach use exceeds the capacity of the existing level of service. Intensified development and additional parking could result in improved public access and increased beach use. The existing lifeguard staff and resources may not be sufficient to provide protection for an increased beach user population. Therefore, analysis of this issue will be included in the subsequent EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,whichEl El ❑X El might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 3,7, 11, 13, 14) Discussion: The proposed project does not propose to increase the size of existing beach recreation facilities. While the proposed project is anticipated to increase the amount of visitors to the nearby beach area, it is not anticipated to require an expansion of any recreation facilities.No further analysis of these issues is required. 25 0 Potially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Sources:3,7, 11) El El 19 Discussion: The project proposes no alteration of existing recreational facilities, and would not result in a loss of opportunities. No further analysis of these issues is required. XVI. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: According to Appendix C of A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program from the California Department of Conservation(1994),the Orange County Board of Supervisors determined that there is no farmland of local importance for the county. This issue will not require further analysis. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a El Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The project site is currently zoned Downtown Specific Plan—District 3—Coastal Zone and has never been under a Williamson Act Contract.No further analysis is required in the subsequent EIR. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources:22) I 26 Otially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The USDA Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California(1974)indicates that the soils present on-site are not Class I or II (i.e.,prime) agricultural soils (Sheet 9). Additionally, the site is currently developed with urban uses and is not adjacent to active farmland. No environmental changes associated with the proposed project would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.No further analysis is required in the EIR XVH.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of El 1:1 the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 3,7, 11, 18) Discussion: As discussed above in sections and V, XIII, and XIV (air quality, aesthetics, and cultural resources, respectively), the proposed project could potentially affect air quality,aesthetics,and significant cultural resources. Additionally,impacts to any of the issue areas described above (for which significant impacts have been identified) could be considered to affect the quality of the environment. This will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The EIR will discuss the potential for cumulative impacts in all issue areas analyzed. c) Does the project have environmental effects,which will cause El substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 3,7, 11) Discussion: The proposed project is adjacent to a number of sensitive receptors and a number of projects proposed for development in the near future. Concurrent construction activities of the proposed project along with those of cumulative projects in the area could have potentially significant impacts on the surrounding neighborhood in all of the issue areas discussed above for which potentially significant impacts have been identified. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative construction traffic,air quality,and noise impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. 27 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 [c][3][D]). The following earlier documents have been prepared and utilized in this analysis: Reference# Document Title 1 Community History Project. 1981. Huntington Beach:An Oral History of the Early Development of a Southern California Beach Community. Oral History Program, California State University, Fullerton. 2 Huntington Beach, City of(City). 1994. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 3 Huntington Beach, City of(City). 1995. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 94091018.Prepared by Envicom Corporation. 4 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1989. Main Pier Phase II and Main Street 100 Block Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 89091304. Prepared by STA Planning Incorporated. 5 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1991. Main Pier Phase II and Main Street 100 Block Environmental Impact Report Addendum/Response to Comments. State Clearinghouse No. 89091304. Prepared by STA Planning Incorporated. 6 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1979. "The Ranch" Planned Residential Development Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Environmental Resources Group. 7 Huntington Beach,City of(City). 1996. General Plan. Prepared by Envicom Corporation.May 13. 8 Huntington Beach, City of(City). 1990. Municipal Code. 9 Huntington Beach, City of(City). 1999. Northam Ranch House Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 99081123.Prepared by EIP Associates. 10 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1999. Waterfront Development Project Section 108 Loan Guarantee Draft Environmental Assessment. Prepared by EIP Associates. 11 Huntington Beach, City of(City). 1996. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 96041075.Prepared by LSA Associates. 12 Huntington Beach,City of(City). 1995. Downtown Specific Plan. 13 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1983. Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. 14 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1988. Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by LSA Associates. 15 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1998. Final Environmental Impact Report and Responses to Comments: Crest View School Site, City of Huntington Beach. State Clearinghouse No. 97081046. Prepared by Planning Consultants Research. 16 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1998. Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by EIP Associates. 17 Huntington Beach, City of (City). 1998. Waterfront Ocean Grand Resort Transportation and Circulation Analysis. Prepared by LSA Associates. 28 18 Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 1986. Historic Resources Survey Report, City of Huntington Beach. Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach.Thirtieth Street Architects,Inc.,Newport Beach. 19 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1998. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Orange County, California. 20 State of California. 1998. CORTESE Hazardous Site Listings. 21 Thomas Bros.Maps. 1996. Los Angeles and Orange Counties. 22 United States Department of Agriculture. 1974. Soil Survey of Orange County and the Western Part of Riverside County, California. 23 County of Orange. 1995. Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan. 29 EXHIBIT D 1 IV. 2 RESPONDENTS' APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT VIOLATED CEQA 3 A. Introduction: Respondents Have Wrongfully Shirked Their Duty Under CEQA to 4 Analyze the Environmental Impacts of the Project. 5 Respondents'cursory treatment of their mandatory duties under CEQA is reflected in the 6 Initial Study prepared for the Project,which is full of internal inconsistencies, legal inaccuracies, 7 and diametrically opposed conclusions (and is totally devoid of environmental analysis). 8 The Initial Study commences at A.R. Vol. I,p. 206. The Initial Study essentially - 9 concludes all of the following: (1) that although the Project may have numerous significant 10 environmental effects which have not been analyzed, Respondents do not have to analyze them 11 now but promise to analyze them sometime later; (2)that all the potential significant 12 environmental effects already have been analyzed and mitigated in old Environmental Impact 13 Reports prepared years before the Project was even conceptualized; and (3) the Project is exempt 14 from review under CEQA, and Respondents do not have to do any environmental review at all. 15 Thus,with regard to CEQA review,Respondents are contending, all in the same breath, that "we'll 16 do it later," "we already did it," and "we don't ever intend to do it." 17 Respondents most certainly have not taken to heart the California Supreme Court's oft- 18 repeated admonition that CEQA must be interpreted and applied "in such manner as to afford the 19 fullest possible protection to the environment." Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors 20 (1972) 8 CaI.3d 247, 259. Rather, Respondents seem to regard CEQA as some kind of 21 bureaucratic shell game in which the environmental analysis "pea" is never beneath the 22 development approval "shell" that Respondents are holding. The only consistency in Respondents' 23 position is their consistent shirking and avoidance of their duty under the law. 24 Putting aside the patent inconsistencies in Respondents' three-way "later-earlier-never" 25 approach to CEQA compliance, each approach is legally flawed. As analyzed below, Respondents 26 were required, at the time of DDA approval, to perform the only environmental review option 27 which they failed to exercise, which is "we'll do it now." 28 R..•Tu UD attorneys of law 290/019483-0001 -4 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I B. Respondents Could Not Lawfully Defer CEQA Analysis Until Later. 2 The first of the Initial Study's internally inconsistent excuses for not analyzing the 3 environmental impacts of the Project was that, although there may be numerous unanalyzed 4 environmental effects from the Project, all Respondents were really doing on June 7 was 5 approving a DDA,not granting actual development entitlements, so the pesky CEQA review 6 process could be put off until some future unspecified date. (A.R. Vol. I,p. 222.) Respondents _ 7. chose t9 defer environmental analysis for most of the required environmental categories until - 8-.some unspecified future time in the development entitlement process. These categories-include 9 impacts to geology and soils (A.R. Vol. I,p. 210),hydrology and water quality Cid.,p. 211), air 10 quality id.,p. 212), transportation/traffic (id.,p. 213), mineral resources (id.,p. 214), hazards and 11 hazardous materials (id., p. 215), noise (id.,p. 216),public services (id.,p. 216),utilities and 12 service systems (id.,p. 217), aesthetics (id., p. 13), cultural resources (id.,p. 218),recreation(id., 13 p. 219), and agriculture resources (id.,p. 219). For each of these categories,the Initial Study 14 states that the potential impacts "will be evaluated at the time of future development." The 15 asserted justification for this deferral of evaluation was that "[t]he proposed DDA does not provide I 16 any entitlements for development, even though a proposed development may ensue as a result of 17 this agreement." Respondents then simply checked the "no impact" box for virtually every 18 category in the Initial Study, and issued a negative declaration. This deferral of CEQA review was 19 a fatal error under applicable law. 20 A primary purpose of an initial study is to "[f]acilitate environmental assessment early in 21 the design of a project." 14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CEQA Guidelines") § 15063(c)(4), emphasis 22 added.' Based upon the results of a properly-conducted initial study, the public agency then 23 makes the determination either that project will not have significant environmental effects, in 24 which case it prepares a negative declaration, or that the project may have significant effects, in 25 which case it prepares an EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15063. 26 Under CEQA, a"project" is defined as comprising "the whole of an action which has the 27 28 ' For the Court's convenience, a full copy of the CEQA Guidelines is being filed concurrently with this brief. R~\Tucker LLD attom ys at law -5- 290/019483-0001 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably 2 foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) 3 The term "project" refers to the entire activity for which approval is sought, even if it "may be 4 subject to several discretionary approvals by government agencies." (CEQA Guidelines 5 § 15378(c).) As such, the scope of review of CEQA is not confined to the immediate physical 6 effects on the environment of the action at hand but all reasonably foreseeable indirect effects 7 which may result from the ultimate project. Public Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines - 8 § -15063(a)(1). "A project under CEQA is the whole of an action which has the potential for - 9 resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately, and includes the activity 10 which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by 11 government agencies." Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler(1991) 233 12 Cal.App.3d 577, 592. 13 The Initial Study prepared by Respondents for CIM's Project attempts to excuse its total 14 absence of environmental analysis by noting that the DDA does not "provide entitlements for 15 development," apparently to support its unstated contention that the Project is too ill-defined and 16 speculative for environmental review at this time. Respondents are mistaken as a matter of fact 17 and law. 18 As a matter of fact, the Project is extremely well-defined and well on its way to fruition. 19 The DDA provides: 20 Developer shall develop the Site accordance [sic] with plans first approved in writing by the City with a new hotel including at least 21 115 and approximately 130 guest rooms, at least 130,000 and approximately 135,000 square feet of new retail and restaurant 22 improvements, a parking facility with the number of public parking spaces required by the City per applicable City requirements, and 23 other amenities, all in accordance with entitlements and plans first approved by the City. (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 66.) 24 25 The DDA also provides, among other things, a detailed description of the Project site(A.R. Vol. 1, 26 p. 61 and 99), a comprehensive Schedule of Performance culminating in "complete construction of 27 all improvements" (A.R. Vol. 1, 63-64), detailed provisions concerning the acquisition and 28 disposition of the site (A.R. Vol. 1, p. 10-29), the actual development of the site (A.R. Vol. 1, p. R.-A T-J-LLP attorneys at taw 290/019483-0001 -6 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF 1 29-38), the uses of the site (A.R. Vol. 1, p. 38-45), financing for the Project (A.R. Vol. 1, p. 10, 2 13, and 104-110), and immediate payment by CIM of a Developer's Deposit in the amount of 3 $150,000. (A. R. Vol. 1,P. 8.)2 4 As a matter of law, Respondents' contention that no environmental review must be 5 performed until some undefined later stage in the development process is at odds with statutory 6 and case law which broadly define the term "approval" and require full environmental review of 7 projects which were far more speculative than the one at issue here was at the time the DDA and 8 Cooperation Agreement were approved. 9 A public agency must comply with CEQA "[b]efore granting any approval of a project 10 subject to CEQA." CEQA Guidelines, § 15004(a). Under CEQA Guidelines § 15352(b), public 11 agency "approval" of a private project is deemed to occur 12 upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public 13 agency of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form of financial assistance, lease,permit, license, certificate, or 14 other entitlement for use of the project. 15 The DDA and Cooperation Agreement clearly constituted "discretionary contracts" and both 16 contained substantial "subsidies, loans, or other forms of financial assistance." Respondents 17 themselves must have deemed the approval of the DDA and Cooperation Agreement to be an 18 "approval" under CEQA, as evidenced by their decision to prepare the Initial Study and to make 19 (or at least attempt to make) environmental findings. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(a)(10)requires 20 that an initial study must study "[a]ll phases of projects,planning, implementation, and operation." 21 Here,the question is whether Respondents can get away with deferring environmental analysis 22 until some unspecified time in the Project process, or whether they must study all reasonably 23 2 The Project is even more precisely defined in the "Section 33433 Summary Report and Re-Use 24 Appraisal" prepared by the Agency pursuant to the CRL to justify its and the City's massive financial contribution to the cost of the Project. (See, generally, A.R. Vol. I,p. 225.) This report 25 similarly defines the Project as including a 130-room hotel consisting of 65,000 square feet of building area, 137,225 square feet of retail/restaurant space, a 380-space parking structure, and 26 20 surface parking spaces. (A.R. Vol. 1,pp. 227 and 246.) The Agency has calculated the direct and indirect development costs for the Project virtually to the last dollar(A.R. Vol. I,pp. 231 and 27 252), as well as the precise size, location, use, and income and expense number allocated to every separate tenant space within the development (A.R. Vol. I,p. 253.) The notion that the Project is 28 too ill-defined to subject to environmental review,when it has been subjected to this level of precise economic review, is yet another internal inconsistency in Respondents'position. Ft—a Tu LLP attorneys at Ww 290/019483-0001 -7 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I foreseeable effects now. The cases are quite clear the Respondents were required to engage in full 2 CEQA review at the time they approved the Project.3 3 In Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regent of the University of California 4 (1988)47 Cal.3d 376, the University of California purchased a 354,000 square foot building, 5 intending to move its School of Pharmacy research units into 100,000 square feet of the facility. 6 The remaining 245,000 square feet were occupied by a preexisting tenant under a lease which 7 would not expire for many years. The University had no firm plans for the space after the tenant 8 moved out. The University performed CEQA review with regard to the environmental effects 9 caused by initially moving the School of Pharmacy into the building,but failed to review the 10 environmental effects of possible future uses of the facility after the tenant vacated the remaining 11 space. This was based upon the University's contention(which is strikingly similar to 12 Respondents' claim in the Initial Study)that it "need not evaluate the effects of future uses because 13 the Regents have not yet formally approved any particular use of the remaining space." (Id. at 14 394.) 15 The Supreme Court disagreed,holding as follows: 16 A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to provide decisionmakers with information they can use in deciding whether to approve a proposed 17 project, not to inform them of the environmental effects of projects that they have already approved. If post-approval environmental 18 review were allowed, EIRs would likely become nothing more than post hoc rationalizations to support action already taken. 19 20 A basic tenet of CEQA is that an environmental analysis should be 21 prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and 22 design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment. . . We agree that environmental resources 23 and the public fisc may be ill-served if the environmental review is too early. On the other hand, the later the environmental review 24 process begins, the more bureaucratic and financial momentum there is behind a proposed project, thus providing a strong incentive to 25 ignore environmental concerns that could be dealt with more easily at an early stage of the project. 26 27 3 It is important to note that approval of the DDA is the culmination of the Agency's role in the entitlement process, as the Agency has no power to issue actual development permits. There is no 28 future Agency "approval" to trigger a more detailed CEQA review requirement. As far as the Agency's compliance with CEQA goes, it is truly "now or never." R~6 T..k r LLP attorneys at law p —O- 290/019483-0001 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I (Id. at 394-395., italics in original.) 2 The Supreme Court then articulated the prevailing standard for determining whether a 3 particular environmental effect should be included within the CEQA review process for a 4 proposed project: 5 We hold that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonably 6 foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change 7 the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. 8 (Id. at 396.) Thus, although no specific decisions had been made regarding the University's future 9 use of the facility once the tenant vacated the building, the Supreme Court held that such use was 10 reasonably foreseeable under the announced standard and had to be included within the CEQA 11 analysis. 12 In Christward Ministry v. Superior Court(1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, a city adopted a 13 general plan amendment in response to state legislation requiring local planning agencies to 14 identify solid waste facility sites and to adopt guidelines for avoiding potential conflicts between 15 solid waste facilities and surrounding land uses. The general plan amendment did have the effect 16 of authorizing potential new landfill uses at the affected site, but did not permit the development 17 or expansion of any particular facilities on the site, which could occur only after numerous permits 18 were issued. The City attempted to use that excuse to justify its preparation of a negative 19 declaration instead of an EIR for the general plan amendment, promising that it would perform 20 later environmental reviews when specific landfill proposals were received. 21 The court rejected this excuse, holding: 22 The fact later development or expansion of facilities can occur only after a permit is obtained and an EIR prepared does not excuse the 23 city from addressing the potential environmental impacts of GPA 02-84. . . The fact future development is not certain to occur and the 24 fact the environmental consequences of a general plan amendment changing a land use designation are more amorphous does not lead 25 to the conclusion no EIR is required. 26 (Id. at 194-195.) 27 In City of Carmel by the Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, a county 28 approved the rezoning of a hotel to a zoning designation which was consistent with the hotel use R-i Tu W attanpys at law 290/019483-0001 —7 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF 1 but which would have permitted the property owners to later apply for a use permit for residential 2 use. The property owner's rezoning application specifically stated that no new development was 3 proposed as part of the rezoning. Given this, the county adopted a negative declaration in 4 conjunction with the rezoning. The court held that this was improper: 5 Thus it appears from the record that the rezoning application was not merely an effort to comply with state law in the abstract but was a 6 necessary first step to approval of a specific development project. Even if this were not so, the rezoning by itself, contrary to [the 7 owner's] assertions, did in fact represent a commitment to expanded use of the property, in addition to finally fixing the size oft an 8 environmentally sensitive area. These consequences would appear to qualify it as an activity with "a potential for resulting in a physical 9 change in the environment directly or ultimately" under Guideline 15378. 10 11 (Id. at 244.) 12 In Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Education(1982) 32 13 Cal.3d 779, the State Board of Education approved a plan for the formation of a new unified 14 school district based on a division of territory of an existing high school district. The State Board 15 failed to conduct an initial study under CEQA, contending as Respondents do here that numerous 16 further decisions were necessary before the plan could come into effect and that the environmental 17 consequences of the plan would be studied at that time. The Supreme Court disagreed,holding 18 that the State Board "cannot argue that its approval of the secession plan is not a project merely 19 because further decisions must be made before schools are actually constructed,bus routes 20 changed, and pupils reassigned." (Id. at 795.) 21 In Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission(1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, LAFCO failed 22 to perform environmental review prior to approving an annexation proposal. LAFCO argued that 23 although the development of the land following annexation might have an environmental effect, 24 the mere approval of an annexation had no such effect. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that 25 the "granting of the conditional use permit--a piece of paper--does not directly affect the 26 environment any more than an annexation approval--another piece of paper. Friends of i 27 Mammoth, of course, said that the word 'project' appears to emphasize activities culminating in 28 physical changes to the environment . . . In response to that concept,the Guidelines refer to R.-•T-1-LLP aftomeys at law 290/019483-0001 -10- 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF 1 'physical impact on the environment, directly or ultimately"'. (Id. at 795.) 2 Many more cases could be cited to the same effect. The "bottom line" is clear. The 3 Project approved by the City and Agency on June 7, 1999, is already highly defined in terms of 4 location, size, cost,type, and quality of improvements, identity of the developer, financing, 5 property acquisition, Agency and City financial participation, and even a construction schedule. 6 The potential for physical effects on the environment is far more immediate, direct, and 7 foreseeable than a university's potential use of a building which would not be vacated for years, - 8 which the Supreme Court ordered to be analyzed in Laurel Heights, or the effects of solid waste 9 facilities which had not even been proposed, which the Christward Ministry court ordered 10 examined. Respondents essentially contend, as LAFCO unsuccessfully did in Bozung,that the 11 approval of a "mere piece of paper"—the DDA—does not in and of itself affect the environment, 12 and therefore they can wait until "the time of future development" (whatever that means)before 13 conducting proper environmental review.4 However,by that time millions of dollars will have 14 been spent by Respondents and CIM in acquiring the numerous private properties necessary for 15 the Project and performing the myriad other acts required by the DDA, thus creating considerable 16 "bureaucratic and financial momentum" behind the Project.5 Any environmental analysis at that 17 point would be "nothing more than post hoc rationalizations to support action already taken", a 18 practice condemned by the Supreme Court in Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 395. 19 20 4 Respondents' statement in their Environmental Assessment is strikingly similar to LAFCO's unsuccessful excuse in Bozung: "The Disposition and Development Agreement contemplated by 21 this Environmental Assessment is an administrative action and will not, of itself, make any physical changes to the environment." (A.R. Vol. I,p. 222.) 22 5 In this regard, it is noteworthy that the DDA's provisions for acquisition of the 7 remaining 23 privately owned properties within the Project site—for which the Agency is obligated to reimburse CIM and which the Agency appears to assert will cost "only" $7.1 million(but see Section VI.C.2 24 of this Opening Brief)—proceed independently of Respondents' later approval of development permits for the Project and/or "post hoc" CEQA compliance. (See A.R. Vol. I, pp. 10-13, 25, and 25 63-65.) Section 303 of the DDA requires CIM to submit entitlements applications to the City "within the times established therefor in the Schedule of Performance," but the Schedule of 26 Performance is silent on the issue. (Id.) Thus, unless restrained by this Court, before Respondents get around to analyzing the environmental impacts of the Project (if they ever do), substantial 27 property acquisition activities will have occurred and millions of dollars will have been spent to implement the Project. But see Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler(1991) 28 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 587-591 (held: public agency's compliance with CEQA is prerequisite to decision to condemn property for public project). R-A Tu LLP atromeys at law -11- 290/019483-0001 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I Respondents cannot lawfully defer proper environmental analysis, and their"we'll do it 2 later" excuse for evading CEQA compliance fails as a matter of law. 3 C. Respondents Did Not Examine the Environmental Effects of the Project In Prior 4 EIR Nos. 89-6 and 96-2. 5 Respondents' second purported justification for not analyzing the environmental impacts of 6 the Project is that, even though the Project may have significant environmental effects, those 7 effects were already adequately analyzed in prior EIR Nos. 89-6 and 96-2. (This is the "we 8 already did it" excuse.) Respondents'Notice of Determination for the Project states: 9 This is to certify that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially 10 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable 11 standards, and (b)have been avoided or mitigated to [sic] that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or 12 mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required . . . Prior environmental documentation 13 includes Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 96-2 for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project and EIR No. 89-6 Main- 14 Pier Phase II and Main Street 100 Block. 15 (A.R. Vol. VI,p. 1909.) 16 Thus, the primary issues regarding the validity of Respondents' internally inconsistent 17 "we already did it" excuse are (1)whether EIR's Nos. 89-6 and 96-2 did in fact adequately analyze 18 and mitigate the environmental impacts of the Project under applicable law, and(2)whether 19 Respondents used timely and proper procedures for using prior EIR's for the current Project. 20 CEQA permits an agency to use an earlier EIR prepared in connection with an earlier 21 project as the EIR for a later project only "if the circumstances of the projects are essentially the 22 same." CEQA Guidelines § 15153(a). Further, if an agency proposes to use an EIR from a prior 23 project, it must comply with specific and detailed notice,procedural, and findings requirements. 24 § 15153(b). Finally, "an EIR for an earlier project shall not be used as the EIR for a later project if 25 any of the conditions described in [CEQA Guidelines] Section 15162 would require preparation of 26 a subsequent or supplemental EIR." § 15153(d). 27 As analyzed below, Respondents utterly failed,both procedurally and substantively, to 28 comply with applicable law which would permit them to use EIRs 89-6 and 96-2 as the EIR for Rune•T.e-Lll azfomers at faw 290/019483-0001 -1 2 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I the Project. 2 1. Respondents Failed to Provide Proper or Timely Notice of Their Intent to Use a 3 Prior EIR. 4 CEQA Guidelines § 15153(b)(2)provides that if an agency believes that a prior EIR may 5 be used for a later project, "it shall provide public review as provided in Section 15087 stating that 6 it plans to use the previously prepared EIR as the draft EIR for this project." This notice must 7 contain, among other things, "[a] statement that the agency plans to use a certain EIR prepared for 8 a previous project as the EIR for this project" (§ 15153(b)(2)(B)),and "[a] statement-that-the key 9 issues involving the EIR are whether the EIR should be used for this project and whether there are 10 any additional,reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures that should be considered as ways 11 of avoiding or reducing the significant effects of the project." § 15153(b)(2)(D). Respondents 12 failed to provide both timely and substantively adequate notice of their intent to use prior EIRs for 13 the Project. 14 The public review period required by § 15087 (which is referenced by § 15153(b)(2)) must 15 commence at least 30 days prior to the hearing. See § 15105(a),which is referenced by 16 § 15087(a). Here, the Project was approved on June 7, 1999, and the record shows that notice was 17 not first published until May 20, 1999, only 18 days prior to the hearing. (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 118.) 18 Respondents thus failed to provide the mandatory 30-day public notice of their intent to use a prior 19 EIR for the Project. This alone invalidates their attempt to use any prior EIRs as the EIRs for the 20 Project. 21 Moreover, even if Respondents' notice had been timely, the notice failed to comply with 22 substantive requirements. Respondents'tardy notice merely stated: 23 The environmental impacts of the proposed project have already been analyzed in previous environmental impact reports and 24 documents, and the project is therefore exempt from further environmental review. 25 26 (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 118.) This "notice" is a far cry from identifying the "certain"prior EIR 27 Respondents intended to rely upon, as required by § 15153(b)(2)(B), and it certainly did not 28 include "a statement that the key issues involving the EIR are whether the EIR should be used for ft—a T.0—UP attorneys at faw 290/019483-0001 -13- 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I this project and whether there are any additional, reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures 2 that should be considered as ways of avoiding or reducing the significant effects of the project," 3 as is required by § 15153(b)(2)(B). 4 Thus, the recipients of Respondents' late notice had no idea which EIRs Respondents were 5 intending to rely upon and no notice of the key issues presented, and therefore had no way of 6 providing timely and substantive comments to Respondents before they approved the Project. 7 Case law has consistently invalidated public agency actions under CEQA for failure to comply 8 with mandatory public notice requirements, irregardless of whether the same ultimate result would 9 have occurred if the agency had provided proper notice. See, ems,Fall River Wild Trout 10 Foundation v. County of Shasta(1999) 70 Cal.AppAth 482 (county's failure to timely send copy 11 of negative declaration to trustee agency mandated invalidation of county's CEQA findings, even 12 absent factual showing of prejudice.); Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 13 Cal.App.3d 692, 712 (". . . the failure to include relevant information precludes informed 14 decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR 15 process"); and Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1023 16 (County's failure to timely submit draft EIR to State Clearinghouse invalidated the EIR approval. 17 "We conclude that where that failure to comply with the law results in a subversion of the 18 purposes of CEQA by omitting information from the environmental review process, the error is 19 prejudicial."). 20 The required deadlines and procedures for using prior EIRs for current projects are not 21 merely insignificant formalities. The Discussion under § 15153 recognizes that this approach can 22 be useful to public agencies, but should only be used if the public has adequate notice and 23 opportunity to review and comment on the prior EIR. Thus, "[t]he section places necessary 24 conditions on the use of a prior EIR to avoid abuse of this approach." Respondents did abuse this 25 approach by providing late and inadequate notice, and pursuant to the above-cited cases their 26 determinations should be overruled as an abuse of discretion. 27 2. EIRs 89-6 and 96-2 Cannot Properly Serve As Prior EIRs for the Project. 28 Even assuming for the sake of argument that Respondents did provide adequate public R—l Tudor LLP attorneys of law -14- 290/019483-0001 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I notice of their intent to use prior EIRs in conjunction with their consideration and approval of the 2 DDA and Cooperation Agreement for the Project, the prior EIRs upon which they relied are 3 woefully inadequate to serve this intended purpose. 4 As previously stated, § 15153(a)permits use of an EIR from an earlier project only "if the 5 circumstances of the projects are essentially the same." EIR 96-2, one of the two EIRs which 6 Respondents contend adequately analyzed the Project, was prepared for the purpose of analyzing 7 the merger of five geographically diverse redevelopment project areas scattered around the City 8 totaling 619 acres in size. (A.R. Vol. II,p. 307.) The purpose of the merger was to provide the 9 Agency with expanded financial and statutory authority relating to such things as increased tax 10 increment revenues, increased allowable levels of outstanding monetary indebtedness, and 11 extended time periods within which the Agency may incur indebtedness and receive tax increment 12 funds. (A.R. Vol. II,p: 292-293.) As such, EIR 96-2 was extremely general in its environmental 13 analysis. 14 Notably, EIR 96-2 specifically indicated that "there are no specific development projects 15 included within the Merged Project Area" and that it would therefore not analyze the effects of 16 any particular development. (A.R. Vol. II,p. 329.) The EIR did promise to "conduct the 17 appropriate environmental review of each project in compliance with CEQA to determine whether 18 further environmental documentation will be required beyond this EIR. If, during their review, 19 City staff determines that a project could have a significant impact that has not been identified in 20 the EIR, the City will require subsequent environmental documentation to fully evaluate any 21 potential impacts." (Id.) 22 EIR 96-2 did not even mention, much less analyze, the Project. (Indeed, the Project was 23 not even proposed until three years after EIR 96-2 was certified.) As such, it is impossible to say 24 that the "circumstances of the projects are essentially the same" under § 15153(a). 25 EIR 89-6, which is the second EIR Respondents contend adequately analyzed the Project, 26 was prepared for the purpose of analyzing a vastly different and much smaller project. The 27 decade-old EIR 89-6 addressed the development of only 115,000 square feet of commercial/retail/ 28 office uses, along with 140 condominium units, and 491 on-site parking spaces within all of Rum&T- LLD attorneys at law 290/019483-0001 -15- 39257.01 a01/I8/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I Blocks 104 and 105 (including both the current Project site and the Oceanview Promenade 2 property). (See A.R. Vol. V, pp. 1501 and 1505-1518.) Since ADC's Oceanview Promenade 3 project has been built, its 48,000 square feet must be deducted to compare "apples to apples." 4 Insofar as CIM's Project site is concerned, EIR 89-6 assumed development of only 63,000 square 5 feet of retail/office space, whereas the current Project proposes 137,225, an increase of 74,225 6 square feet or 118%. EIR 89-6 assumed a substantial amount of the upper floor space would be 7 developed with office uses (id, at p. 1510)which generate only 1/4 of the parking demand of retail 8 and less than 1/6 of the parking demand of restaurant uses (id, at p. 1772), whereas the commercial 9 portion of CIM's Project is all retail/restaurant (id, Vol. I, pp. 251, 253, and 256). EIR 89-6 10 assumed that 491 parking spaces would be provided on site, including the 296 spaces required to 11 fully "meet projected residential demands" and 195 spaces for the commercial uses (id, Vol. V, pp. 12 1505, 1510-11, and 1518),whereas the Project results in a staggering deficiency of several 13 hundred parking spaces for the combination of uses planned(see, generally, Section VI.C.I of this 14 Opening Brief hereinbelow). Finally, a good portion of the project analyzed by EIR 89-6 15 consisted of residential condominium units (id,pp. 1510-1511), whereas CIM's Project has 16 eliminated the residential units and replaced them with a 130-room hotel, hardly the same land 17 use. 18 In addition to the fact that the Project itself is entirely different than the project addressed 19 in EIR 89-6, a lot has happened in downtown Huntington Beach in the decade since EIR 89-6 was 20 prepared. Therefore, aside from analyzing a different project altogether, EIR 89-6 analyzed a 21 project in a completely different environmental setting. Unlike the project analyzed by that EIR, 22 Respondents propose to shove the Project into a downtown area now containing the following: 23 ➢ The recently completed Plaza Almeria located a couple of blocks away, 24 which includes 15,000 square feet of retail, 15,000 square feet of 25 restaurants, 11,000 square feet of office space, and 45 townhouses. 26 (A.R. Vol. VIII, p. 2489.) 27 ➢ Pier Plaza, located directly across the street, which contains 12,000 square 28 feet of restaurants, an amphitheater, a recreation area, concessions, and R.—\Tu .LLP attorneys at bw 290/019483-0001 -16- 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I restrooms. (A.R. Vol. VIII, p. 2489. 2 ➢ A 500-room destination resort hotel for which the site has been cleared less 3 than a mile down PCH. 4 ➢ A 2,400 square-foot restaurant located at the end of the pier, which begins. 5 across the street from the Project. 6 The Project has not only never been the subject of any environmental review, it certainly has not 7 been reviewed within the context of the significant changes to downtown Huntington Beach which 8 have occurred since EIR 89-6 was prepared. 9 In summary, there is no evidence in the record to support a conclusion—which if reached 10 at all was reached without any apparent analysis or study—that "the circumstances of the [CIM 11 Project] are essentially the same" as the circumstances of the development scenario reviewed a 12 decade ago in EIR 89-6 so as to justify Respondents'refusal to update the old EIR. In this regard, 13 it is noteworthy that Respondents themselves pledged in EIR 89-6 that "[t]he City will be 14 responsible for further review as future entitlements are requested to ensure CUP's fall within the 15 buildout figures analyzed in this Addendum EIR and Final EIR 89-6." (Id, p. 1505.) To the extent 16 that Respondents now wish to refer back to EIR 89-6 and refuse to examine the impacts of a 17 project that grossly exceeds the buildout figures analyzed in that document they have both broken 18 their promise to the public and violated CEQA. 19 Respondents'utter failure to perform any meaningful CEQA review in connection with the 20 CIM Project is not a mere technical error which may be excused and rectified later in the process. 21 The Project will have a tremendous and permanent impact on the downtown Huntington Beach 22 area. No one even knows how serious these impacts may be,because Respondents have refused to 23 perform the required environmental analysis. 24 For example, existing roadway levels of service on PCH in Huntington Beach average in 25 the "E" and "F" range. (A.R. Vol. IV, p. 1269.) These designations mean "poor operations" and 26 "jammed conditions", respectively (A.R. Vol. IV,p. 1268), and are well below the City's stated 27 standard of level of service "C" (A.R. Vol. IV.,p. 1296),which translates into "good operation." 28 Petitioners are extremely concerned about the traffic impacts caused by adding over 137,000 ■m.-a r-a«u.v attorneys at law 290/019483-0001 -17- 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I square feet of high-intensity retail and restaurant uses and a 130-room hotel into this already 2 heavily impacted area. (It is noteworthy that EIR 89-6 did not even purport to address traffic 3 impacts of the smaller project then considered.) 4 Further, the Project calls for CIM to construct a parking structure for only about 380 cars, 5 which is less than half the amount that the Project would require under the City's own codes. This 6 is a serious problem which should have been studied and mitigated before, not after, Respondents 7 approved the Project. 8 The Project will also have impacts on the historically important Worthy Building, located 9 at the northwest corner of the Project site. EIR 89-6 concluded that the effects of that much 10 smaller project on historical resources would be so severe that they could not be mitigated to a 11 level of insignificance. (A.R. Vol. V.,p. 1468.) It is anyone's guess (including Respondents') 12 what the effects of the much larger CIM Project will be. 13 Given these differences, there is no way that the "circumstances of the projects are 14 essentially the same" under § 15153(a). Aside from Respondents' failure to give timely and 15 adequate notice of its intent to use a prior EIR for the Project, its attempt to do so is substantively 16 flawed. 17 3. Respondents Cannot Use the Prior EIRs Because a Subsequent or Supplemental 18 EIR Would Be Necessary. 19 CEQA Guidelines § 15153(d)provides an additional restriction on an agency's use of a 20 prior EIR for a current project: 21 An EIR prepared for an earlier project shall not be used as the EIR for a later project if any of the conditions described in Section 15162 22 would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 23 Section 15162, in turn, describes circumstances under which a subsequent or supplemental 24 EIR must be prepared, which include substantial changes in the proposed project(§ 15153(a)(1)), 25 substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken 26 (§ 15153(a)(2)), or the existence of new information relating to the project that has become 27 available (§ 15153(a)(3)). (These three factors are also specified in Public Resources Code 28 § 21166.) R—1 Tua LLP attorneys at law O 290/019483-0001 —10- 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I As discussed immediately above, the Project is completely different from what was studied 2 in EIR 89-6 in terms of density, size, types of land use, environmental setting, and cumulative 3 impacts. These substantial differences have simply never been studied in any environmental 4 document and, despite Respondents'promises in the Initial Study, as a matter of law cannot be put 5 off until later. The Administrative Record is entirely bereft of any evidence that Respondents even 6 considered the environmental consequences of these substantial changes, and their approvals must 7 be set aside. See, e.g., City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1005, 8 1007, in which the court held that an agency erred in failing to consider whether a change in the 9 water provider for a project triggered the need for a subsequent or supplemental EIR: "We 10 conclude that the City violated CEQA by failing to make a determination whether a subsequent or 11 supplemental EIR was required by the redesign of the project." 12 4. Respondents Failed to Make the Findings Mandated By § 15153. 13 Assuming arguendo both that Respondents had provided the notice required by law and 14 that the use of EIRs 89-6 and 96-2 for the Project was substantively appropriate in every respect, 15 Respondents still erred because they utterly failed to make any of the findings mandated by 16 § 15153(b)(4)(D), which provides the following rule if an agency wants to use a prior EIR for a 17 current project: 18 (4) Before approving the project, the decision-maker in the lead agency shall: . . . (d) Make findings as provided in Sections 15091 19 and 15093 as necessary. 20 Section 15091(a)mandates: 21 No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant 22 environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects. [Emphasis 23 added.] 24 EIR 89-6 identified numerous separate significant environmental effects resulting from the project 25 it examined. (A.R. Vol. V,p. 1483-1488.) However, Respondents'resolutions approving the CIM 26 Project failed to even identify any of these significant effects, and certainly did not make the 27 required findings for any of those effects. (A.R. Vol. I,p. 268 and 274.) 28 Section 15091(d) also requires an agency to "adopt a program for reporting on or RW lT- LLD attorneys at law 290/019483-0001 -19- 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF I monitoring the changes which it has either required in the projector made a condition of approval 2 to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be made 3 fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures." Respondents 4 completely failed to comply with this mandatory requirement with respect to the Project. (A.R. 5 Vol. I,pp. 268 and 274.) 6 Section 15093 requires that an agency, in conjunction with its approval of a project, must 7 adopt a "statement of overriding considerations with regard to each significant effect which 8 cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance." EIR 89-6 identified two such unavoidable 9 significant adverse environmental effects: increased light and glare and project-specific and 10 cumulative impacts to historic and architectural resources. (A.R. Vol. V,p. 1482.) Respondents 11 failed to adopt the required statement of overriding considerations in conjunction with its approval 12 of the Project, thus violating mandatory requirements. (A.R. Vol. I,p. 268 and 274.) 13 CEQA permits agencies to use prior EIRs under appropriate circumstances,but only if the 14 old EIR analyzed a similar project and the agency essentially treats the old EIR as a new EIR in 15 terms of public notice, opportunity for public review and comment,making findings, adopting 16 statements of overriding considerations, and imposing enforceable mitigation measures. 17 Respondents did none of that, and therefore their"we already did it" excuse must be rejected. 18 D. The Project Is Not Exempt From Environmental Review. 19 In startling contrast to the numerous promises in the Initial Study that Respondents will 20 conduct future environmental review regarding the Project, the Notice of Determination filed after 21 their June 7, 1999, actions states as follows: "In addition, the proposed project is found to be 22 exempt(CEQA Section 15168 C, Public Resources Code § 21083.3)." Apparently, in an effort to 23 cover every possible base that could conceivably justify avoidance of CEQA's environmental 24 review requirements, Respondents are also contending that they have performed all the 25 environmental analysis they will ever do for the Project, even though no document has ever 26 examined its specific environmental effects. This "we don't have to do anything" excuse does not 27 withstand legal scrutiny any better than Respondents' other excuses. 28 Rusin!Tuck.LlP - aftaneys at law 2 9 0/0 1 9483-000] -20 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF 1 1. Public Resources Code § 21083.3 is inapplicable. 2 Public Resources Code § 21083.3 authorizes a public agency to limit or narrow the focus 3 of its CEQA review under narrowly defined circumstances, including when an EIR was previously 4 certified for a general plan and the specific development project under consideration is consistent 5 with the general plan. § 21083.3(b). The statute does not provide a wholesale exemption from 6 any obligation to comply with CEQA, however. When § 21083.3 applies, CEQA review of the 7 new development project can simply be limited to environmental impacts that are "peculiar to" the 8 affected parcel or project and that were not addressed as significant impacts in the general plan 9 EIR or impacts that substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in 10 the general plan EIR. § 21083.3(a)-(b). 11 There are at least three reasons why § 21083.3 is inapplicable here and unavailable as an 12 excuse for Respondents'refusal to address the environmental impacts of the Project: 13 (a) There are impacts "peculiar to" the Project which were not addressed at all in EIR 14 No. 94-1,which analyzed the City's General Plan Update. (This EIR appears at A.R. Vol. III, p. 15 621 et seq., and the General Plan appears at A.R. Vol. VI, p. 1911 et seq.) EIR 94-1 only 16 examined the general regional environmental effects caused by the adoption of a 20-year general 17 plan for the entire 27.7 square miles of the City of Huntington Beach(A.R. Vol. II,p. 669), 18 whereas EIR No. 94-1 most assuredly did not examine the numerous site-specific effects "peculiar 19 to" the Project. Indeed, EIR 94-1 did not even specifically mention the Project at all. 20 (b) In order for § 21083.3 to apply to a subsequent approval, the agency "shall 21 undertake or require the undertaking of any feasible mitigation measures specified in the prior 22 environmental impact report relevant to a significant effect.which the project will have on the 23 environment." § 21083.3(c). The agency must make "a finding, at a public hearing, as to whether 24 those mitigation measures will be undertaken." (Id.) Here, Respondents failed to require the 25 undertaking of mitigation measures relating to the environmental effects of the Project, and also 26 failed to make the required findings that each mitigation measures would be undertaken. (A.R. 27 Vol. 1,p. 268 and 274.) As such, Respondents may not rely upon § 21083.3. 28 (c) Section 21083.3(c)provides: "Nothing in this section affects any requirement to R- T-a 11D attorneys at law 290/019483-0001 -21- 39257.01 a01/18/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING BRIEF { � i I analyze potentially significant offsite impacts and cumulative impacts of the project not discussed 2 in the prior environmental impact report." EIR 96-1 simply did not examine any impacts caused 3 by the Project itself, and § 21803.3 cannot serve to excuse Respondents' failure to utterly ignore 4 these impacts during Project approval. 5 6 7 .8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 f 24 25 26 27 28 R—•T— LLD attorneys at law -22- 290/019483-0001 39257.01 a01/I8/00 PETITIONERS'/PLAINTIFFS'OPENING 13RIE1: 1 I. 2 RESPONDENTS HAVE IMPROPERLY CHOSEN TO 3 STICK WITH THEIR "WE'LL DO IT LATER" CEQA EXCUSE 4 Buried within Respondents'lengthy briefing concerning redevelopment projects, tiered and 5 program EIRs, and myriad CEQA Guidelines is one very critical (and damaging) admission: 6 Respondents admit that further site-specific environmental analysis needs to be performed for the 7 CIM Project. See Respondents'brief,p. 17:15 and p. 19:7-9.) This means that Respondents have 8 chosen the "we'll do it later" excuse for their lack of CEQA compliance. Therefore, the primary 9 CEQA issue for this Court to resolve is not whether further site-specific environmental review 10 must occur, but when it should be performed. Respondents•contend the CIM Project is merely a 11 "proposed" project and that CEQA review can be put off until actual building entitlements are 12 issued. The Supreme Court says otherwise. 13 A. The Project Is Extremely Well-Defined. 14 With scant attention or citation to the facts contained in the Administrative Record, 15 Respondents baldly assert that the Project as approved in the DDA is not sufficiently detailed as to 16 permit site-specific environmental analysis. Respondents' entire defense of this CEQA action 17 stands or falls on the legal validity of this assertion. A look at the Record reveals the fallacy of 18 Respondents'position. 19 The following was known about the Project at the time Respondents approved the DDA: . 20 1. The exact location of the Project. (A.R. Vol. 1, p. 61.) 21 2. The identity of the Project's developer. (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 8.) 22 3. That the Project site consists of 127,400 square feet of land area(2.92 acres). 23 (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 244.) 24 4. That the Project will include a 130-room hotel consisting of 65,000 square feet of 25 building area, 137,225 square feet of retail/restaurant space, a 380-space parking structure, and 20 26 surface parking spaces. (A.R. Vol. 1,pp. 227 and 246.) 27 5. That the total development costs will be approximately$47,400,000. (A.R. Vol. 1, 28 p. 231.) -1- 290/019483-0001 53550.01 a02/28/00 PETITIONERS'REPLY BRIEF a 0 1 6. The exact line item breakdown for all direct and indirect development costs. (A.R. 2 Vol. 1,p. 252.) 3 7. That the total building area for the Project, including parking, is 340,000 square 4 feet. (A.R. Vol. 1, p. 251.) 5 8. The precise size, location, use, and income and expense number allocated to every 6 separate tenant space within the development. (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 251.) 7 9. The number and location of the private properties which need to be acquired for the 8 Project. (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 61.) 9 10. Detailed provisions regarding the maintenance and repair of the Project 10 improvements. (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 41.) 11 11. The zoning of the Project site. (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 61.) 12 12. Specific details and standards concerning the 137,225 square foot retail/restaurant 13 portion of the Project, such as no drive-through fast food or bar establishments. (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 14 66.) 15 13. A detailed Schedule of Performance culminating in "complete construction of all 16 improvements". (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 63-64.) (Notably, there is nothing in this schedule which 17 includes CEQA compliance.) 18 14. Landscaping standards. (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 79.) 19 15. That the hotel will be of the type similar to a Residence Inn or a Courtyard, and that 20 negotiations are almost finalized with the specific hotel operator. (A.R. Vol. 1, p. 79.) 21 16. That the first block of 51h Street will be vacated. (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 61.) 22 17. The actual configuration of the new buildings and parking areas. (A.R. Vol. 1,p. 23 182.) 24 The list goes on,but the above is sufficient to expose the disingenuity of Respondents' 25 contention, upon which its entire CEQA defense is based,that the Project is too ill-defined for 26 site-specific environmental analysis. To the contrary, there is far more than enough information 27 concerning the location, size, scope, uses, and costs of the Project to perform all required 28 environmental analysis of the Project's effects on traffic,parking, air quality,housing, land use, 2901019483-0001 2 53550.01 a02/28/00 PETITIONERS'REPLY BRIEF 40 ft 1 hydrology, and all other mandatory environmental categories which Respondents have yet to 2 analyze. The numerous cases cited in Petitioners' Opening Brief have required such analysis for 3 projects which were far less defined than the Project, and Respondents have failed to cite any 4 authority for their ridiculous proposition that the Project is too ill-defined for CEQA review. 5 B. Respondents' Promise to Conduct Future Site-Specific Review Does Not Excuse 6 Their Lack of CEQA Compliance. 7 Respondents also contend that their vague promise to conduct some kind of future 8 environmental review somehow absolves them from performing any site-specific environmental 9 review in conjunction with their approval of the DDA. This contention is entirely unsupported by 10 law. 11 The Supreme Court has declared that the primary legislative intent behind CEQA is to 12 ensure "that environmental considerations play a significant role in governmental decision- 13 making." (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors(1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 263.) 14 Consequently, "EIRs and negative declarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the 15 planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design 16 With private projects, the lead agency shall encourage the proponent to incorporate 17 environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design, and planning at the earliest 18 feasible time." (CEQA Guidelines § 15004); emphasis added.) The purpose behind this 19 requirement of early environmental review "is to inform the public and its responsible officials of 20 the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus,the EIR protects 21 not only the environment but also informed self-government." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board 22 of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564; emphasis in original.) Essentially, the key distinction 23 as to whether a potential environmental effect must be studied prior to an agency approval is 24 between"a governmental approval which constitutes a essential step culminating in an action 25 which may affect the environment" and an approval "which portends no particular action affecting 26 the environment." (Fullerton Join Union High School District v. State Board of Education(1982) 27 32 Cal.3d 779, 796.) 28 Reviewing courts have strictly enforced the requirement of early CEQA review of potential 290/019483-0001 -3- 53550.01 a02/28/00 PETITIONERS'REPLY BRIEF I environmental effects. Several of these cases were discussed in Petitioners' Opening Brief at 2 pages 8-11. 'Another of the legion of cases on point is Citizens for Responsible Government v. 3 City of Alban X(1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1297. There, a city negotiated a development 4 agreement with a developer and submitted the agreement to the voters for approval prior to 5 conducting CEQA review. The agreement mandated that the developer must comply with 6 environmental laws prior to final development approvals. The city attempted to justify its failure 7 to conduct CEQA review, much the same as Respondents do here, by contending that 8 development was contingent upon future events and that in any event environmental review would 9 definitely occur at the time the project received later necessary approvals. The court soundly 10 rejected this argument and declared as follows: 11 . . . [T]he appropriate time to introduce environmental considerations into the decisions making process was during the 12 negotiation of the development agreement. Decisions reflecting environmental considerations could most easily be made when other 13 basic decisions were being made, that is, during the early stage of "project conceptualization, design and planning." Since the 14 development site and the general dimensions of the project were known from the start,there was no problem in providing 15 "meaningful information for environmental assessment." At this early stage, environmental review would be an integral part of the 16 decisionmaking process. Any later environmental review might call for a burdensome reconsideration of decisions already made and 17 would risk becoming the sort of"post hoc rationalization[] to support action already taken," which our high court disapproved in 18 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 394. 19 20 (Id., at 1221.) As noted above, far more is known about the CIM Project than "the development 21 site and the general dimensions of the project," which of itself was sufficient for the Citizens for 22 Responsible Government court to require full site-specific CEQA review at the time a 23 development agreement was negotiated. 24 The rule requiring early CEQA review is not just a paper-generating device, as it has real- 25 world consequences on the design, size, and scope of a project. Here, if site-specific CEQA 26 analysis is delayed until far in the future, as Respondents desire, there will be greatly reduced 27 1 incentive and opportunity to consider alternative developments or to impose mitigation measures 28 on the Project, which the Supreme Court has described as "the core of an EIR." (Citizens of R—•T—. UP affMMys at law 290/019483-0001 -4 53550.01 a02/28/00 PETITIONERS'REPLY BRIEF 1 Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564.) 2 This fact was demonstrated by an exchange between City Councilmember(now Mayor) 3 Garofalo and City Economic Director Biggs during the public hearing at which the Project was 4 approved. This exchange confirmed that once the Project gets going, Respondents will have 5 strong disincentives to consider alternatives or to impose mitigation measures on the Project. 6 Mr. Garofalo asked: 7 What happens in the case—let's say we're into this a year and a half and we are about to break ground and all of the sudden a decision 8 has to be made, do we want to approve a 30 foot building versus a 50 foot tall building. Then we're confronted with the reality that 9 we've just invested a year and a half and we don't have a choice. What would you anticipate? (A.R. Vol. 1, p._169;emphasis added.) 10 11 Economic Development Director Biggs, after explaining that it would be technically possible to 12 renegotiate the DDA, indicated that there would be strong financial disincentives to reducing the 13 scale of the project after DDA approval: 14 However, there are also some disincentives for that, the developer does have—it's certain costs go up, for example, there is a condition 15 of approval that requires they spend$1 million dollars on public art which is out of scale with what has occurred before, then that would 16 exceed that threshold and so that would be something that would come out of the Agency's pocket. (A.R. Vol. 1,pp. 169-170.) 17 18 The entire DDA "locks in" a specific size, scope, and breakdown of uses to be developed 19 by CIM. (See, e.g., DDA § 401 at A.R. Vol. 1,pp. 38-39, and Attachment No. 6 to the DDA at 20 A.R. Vol. 1,pp. 75-77.) The way the DDA was negotiated,Respondents would have a strong 21 financial disincentive from later considering seriously any mitigation measures or alternatives to 22 the Project defined in the DDA that would change this fixed scope of development or increase 23 Project costs. For example, notwithstanding that the Project generates a massive parking 24 deficiency of approximately 521 vehicles, in itself an extremely significant environmental impact 25 in an area that is already heavily impacted by traffic and parking problems during the busy 26 Summer and on holiday weekends (see Section III.B of this Reply brief, infra), the DDA 27 practically forecloses any attempt Respondents might later make to rectify the problem by 28 releasing CIM from any obligation to provide more parking and obligating the Ate, not CIM, R-A Tu .UP attorneys at law 290/019483-0001 -5 53550.01 a0228/00 PETITIONERS'REPLY BRIEF so ft 1 to pay for"extraordinary" costs such as costs for offsite parking. (Ld. See also, DDA, § 505.3 at 2 A.R. Vol. 1; p. 48.) Moreover, to the extent that Respondents were to later impose mitigation 3 measures on the Project that increased Project costs above certain fixed levels, the Agency, not 4 1 CIM, would have to pay all of the increased costs dollar for dollar, subject only to a right to 5 terminate the DDA if the additional Agency financial investment were determined to exceed 6 certain prescribed levels (which, depending on the circumstances, could be several million 7 dollars). (See DDA, § 505.3 and Attachment No. 8¶¶(a) and(i)(2) at A.R. Vol. 1,pp. 48, 104, 8 107; and 108.) Similarly, Respondents have disincentivized themselves from later doing anything 9 that would increase the cost of the already inadequate parking structure to be constructed by CIM, 10 since the Agency would be financially obligated to contribute additional public funds to offset the 11 cost increase. (See DDA, Attachment No. 8, ¶(c)(vi) at A.R. Vol. 1,p. 106.) 12 Thus, by the time Respondents propose to get around to performing site-specific CEQA 13 analysis, thousands of hours and millions of dollars will have been spent in furtherance of the 14 Project as previously approved through the DDA. As a practical matter, this will foreclose good 15 faith consideration of project alternatives and mitigation measures. While site-specific 16 environmental review might reveal that reduction in the size of the Project, a change to less 17 intensive uses, and/or an increase in onsite parking would mitigate potentially significant i 18 environmental effects, imposition of such mitigation measures could kill the whole deal or impose 19 severe financial repercussions on the Agency. As the Supreme Court warned in Laurel Heights i 20 Improvement Association v. Regent of University of California(1988)47 Cal.3d 376, 395, "the 21 later the environmental review process begins, the more bureaucratic and financial momentum 22 there is behind a proposed project, thus providing a strong incentive to ignore environmental 23 concerns that could be dealt with more easily at an early stage of the project." There is already 24 considerable momentum behind the CIM Project. Petitioners' fear is that by the time Respondents 25 finally get around to site-specific CEQA review, any such review would "become nothing more 26 than post hoc rationalization to support action already taken." (Id.) 27 28 290/019483-OW1 -6- 53550.01 402/28/00 PETITIONERS'REPLY BRIEF to 1 C. The Cases Cited By Respondents In An Attempt to Justify Delayed CEQA Review 2 Are Distinguishable, 3 Given that the Project is extremely well-defined(even down to precise square footage and 4 uses) and can easily be the subject of detailed site-specific environmental review, Respondents 5 must rely on the unsupportable argument that their promise to examine the site-specific 6 environmental effects at a later date somehow absolves them from performing any such review 7 now. Respondents' brief cites,with scant discussion, three cases purportedly supporting this 8 argument. (See p. 18 of Respondents'brief.) None of these cases is on point. 9 In Stand Tall on Principles v. Shasta Union High School District(1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 10 772, the court held that a school district did not need to perform environmental review before 11 selecting a preferred site for a new high school. However, this holding was based upon a specific 12 exemption provided by CEQA Guidelines § 15004(b)(1)(A), which permits an agency to designate 13 a preferred site fora public facility prior to CEQA review so long as CEQA review is performed 14 prior to a formal decision to use the site. This CEQA Guideline is inapplicable here, as the Project 15 is not a public facility and the DDA constitutes a formal decision to use the site for specific 16 purposes. Stand Tall in no way stands for the proposition that Respondents may shirk their duties 17 to perform timely CEQA analysis on the well-defined Project simply because they promise that 18 they will do it at some vaguely-specified future time. 19 In Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc. v. Board of Harbor Commissioners (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 20 729, the court held that a program EIR prepared for a port master plan was sufficient despite its 21 failure to consider the detailed impacts of six possible public project sites. The court's holding 22 was based upon the finding that the Board had not set a definite course of action with respect to 23 the locations for these anticipated projects, but had merely indicated the preferred locations. As 24 such, site-specific subsequent EIRs could be performed for each of the six projects if and when the 25 public agency decided to pursue them. This decision is distinguishable from the instant case in 26 that the Al Larson court was analyzing the sufficiency of a program EIR,which by definition 27 involves a general environmental review of the large master plan while leaving site-specific 28 analysis to a later date when individual projects within that master plan are approved. Further, the R-t Tw LLD attorneys at law 290/019483-0001 -7 53550.01 a02/28/00 PETITIONERS'REPLY BRIEF I selection of preferred site alternatives fell within the exception provided for public projects by the 2 above-referenced CEQA Guideline § 150O4(b)(1)(A). Here, as Respondents have pointed out, a 3 program EIR relating to the merged redevelopment project area has already been performed. 4 Under the Al Larson holding, that program EIR did not need to discuss in detail each of the site- 5 specific development projects within the redevelopment project area which would be considered in 6 the future. However,we are now at the end of the program, and the Al Larson decision in.no way 7 permits Respondents to defer site-specific CEQA review of the Project. 8 County of Santa Clara v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose (1993) 18 9 Cal.App.4`h 1008 is also not on point. There, the court held that a redevelopment agency's 10 decision to issue bonds "does not independently invoke the'requirements of CEQA." However, 11 that case merely involved a bond issuance in furtherance of an entire redevelopment plan, and did 12 not involve any specific development project. It in no way stands for the proposition that if a 13 specific,well-defined development project is approved,then site-specific CEQA review can be 14 deferred until actual building entitlements are granted. Indeed, Respondents themselves must have 15 believed that the DDA approval "independently invoked the requirements of CEQA" in that they 16 chose to conduct an Initial Study and issue a Negative Declaration. If the present case really fell 17 under the County of Santa Clara holding, Respondents would not have needed to do anything at all 18 in conjunction with the DDA approval. 19 None of Respondents'three cited cases stands for the proposition that a public agency may 20 defer site-specific review of an approved,highly-defined project until the final land use 21 entitlements are granted. Their contentions fly in the face of well-established law that CEQA 22 review must be performed as early in the process as possible,before the generation of significant 23 bureaucratic and financial momentum, notwithstanding that further approvals must be granted. 24 D. The Fact That the Project is a Redevelopment Project Does Not Excuse 25 Respondents'Deferral of Site-Specific Environmental Analysis. 26 Throughout their brief,Respondents attempt to justify their lack of timely CEQA review 27 with the excuse that the Project is a redevelopment project, that under Public Resources Code 28 § 21090 everything is just "one project", and that this somehow magically allows them to defer 290/019483-0001 -g 53550.01 ao2/28/00 PETITIONERS'REPLY BRIEF 1 site-specific CEQA analysis until building entitlements are granted. This argument rings hollow 2 upon consideration of Respondents' repeated admissions,both in their Initial Study and briefing, 3 that site-specific environmental review must and will occur. Section 21090 and CEQA Guidelines 4 § 15180 say nothing about deferring necessary environmental review of a site-specific 5 redevelopment plan component until development entitlements are issued,which is Respondents' 6 stated position. Despite Respondents'attempts at obfuscation, the-salient issue is not whether 7 Respondents must conduct farther site-specific CEQA review, but when such review must be 8 conducted. Section 21090 has absolutely nothing to do with this issue, and Respondents' 9 arguments should be disregarded. 10 The bottom line is that Respondents have, for the purposes of bureaucratic expedience, 11 tried to get away with deferring mandatory site-specific CEQA analysis. Their numerous "no 12 impact" findings in the Initial Study for the DDA and the consequent Negative Declaration are a 13 classic example of an agency conducting the forbidden practice of"chopping up proposed projects 14 into bite-sized pieces which, individually considered,might be found to have no significant effect 15 on the environment or to be only ministerial." (Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. City Council (1974) 42 16 Cal.App.3d 712, 726.) This Court should order that Respondents perform full and timely site- 17 specific CEQA review. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 R_ T_LLP OftomEys at law 290/019483-0001 -9 53550.01 a02/28/00 PETITIONERS'REPLY BRIEF EXHIBIT E Huntington Beach Economic Development/Redevelopment Page 2 of 8 at+.�t •.r s,av �4 rfJ✓:�lfJ./.Y".I?ta/!.l-/!/1'.!`/.JJ'.f`�„Y/' ' 1'�.1.'a.�..."t',:'�?..'4"\.O'\1\'.\'.�1".\1ll't 1,Oit' The Strand - Downtown Huntington Beach The Strand - Downtown Huntington Beach (also known as Blocks 104 & 105) will occupy 3.5 acres extending from 6th Street to Main Street and fronting Pacific Coast Highway, with views of the ocean, and opposite the famous Huntington Beach Pier. Upon completion the project will include a 130-room hotel, approximately 115,000sf of retail shops, 15,000 sf of office space and 40,000 sf of new restaurants. The Redevelopment Agency approved a Disposition and Development Agreement with CIM Group. In the predev this roiect is antici ated to be open in Fall of 2001. For leasing opportunities call t ese CB Richard Ellis contacts: Lynda Boyer at 310.550.2579 or Peter Moersch at 714.939.220 . .g http://www.hbbiz.com/home/mainpier.htm 8/1/2000