Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan - Specific P CI ��� �W Council/Agency Meeting Held: 1 S"40 Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionall Approved ❑ De d CI s Signature ouncil Meeting Date: July 5, 2000 1 Department ID Number: PL00-37 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,':_. ACTION `= SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS; HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; '- MEMBERS i SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator/Executive Director to w ' PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning / ----/ SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 00-01 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-02 (THE CROSSINGS AT HUNTINGTON BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is request by the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to amend the zoning and establish Specific Plan No. 13 on approximately 63 acres formerly known as the Huntington Beach Mall. The Planning Commission approved Specific Plan No. 13 with modifications and is recommending approval (Recommended Action - A) because the Planning Commission's amendments to the Specific Plan establish design and architectural guidelines for future development, includes an amortization schedule for non-conforming uses and structures, and includes Montgomery Wards Tire, Battery, and Accessories and drive-through uses as Regional Commercial uses. Staff recommended approval of Specific Plan No. 13 to the Planning Commission and is recommending the City Council approve the request as amended by Planning Commission with minor modifications (Recommended Action - B) because staff does not believe that Montgomery Ward Tire, Battery, and Accessory or drive-through restaurants are Regional Commercial uses. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. "Ratify the action of the City Administrator as Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency to submit the Specific Plan application on behalf of the City and the Redevelopment Agency, as reflected in the City Administrator's/Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency's memorandum dated June 5, 2000 (Included in Attachment No. 17 — June 13, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report)." _ „ 6), and inelude the following feetprimt- Planning Commission Action on June 13, 2000: On June 13, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to open the public hearing and hear the staff report but'not take any public testimony and continue the item to a Special Meeting on June 20, 2000. THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO CONTINUE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 00-01 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-02 TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON J U N E 20, 2000 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, BIDDLE, CHAPMAN, MANDIC, SPEAKER NOES: KERINS, SHOMAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED PL00-37 -2- 06/27/00 2:53 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 At the June 20, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission took a series of straw votes on certain issues and sections of Specific Plan No. 13. Staff does not agree with all of the amendments made by the Planning Commission. For convenience, staff has provided a matrix of the issues, the Planning Commission recommendations, and the. staff recommendations (Attachment No. 2). The following straw vote actions by the Planning Commission have also been provided in a red-lined version of the Specific Plan for easy review (Attachment No. 19). A summary of the straw vote actions is provided below: ❑ Amortization Schedule - Approved as submitted (Attachment No. 3); (4-Ayes, Mandic-No, Kerins and Speaker absent). The amortization schedule requires all non-conforming uses and structures non-conforming due to design guidelines to be amortized (terminated or remodeled to conform) within three years of adoption of the Specific Plan. The amortization schedule includes an appeal process to the Planning Commission. ❑ Phasing — Approved language as indicated in Specific Plan, which describes one phase of development and amended the estimated length of construction from 24-36 months to 18-24 months (4-Ayes, Mandic-No, Kerins and Speaker absent) ❑ Auto Repair Uses — Approved automotive repair as a permitted use within the Regional Commercial shopping center (3-Ayes, Chapman and Biddle-No, Kerins and Speaker absent) ❑ Parking Stall Size —Approved minimum stall size of eight feet, six inches wide by eighteen feet deep for all stalls on site; no further reduction allowed for compact stalls (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent) ❑ Drive-Through Uses — Approved maximum of two drive-through restaurant uses; one on Edinger Avenue and one on Center Avenue and included design and development standards for screening drive through lanes from view from streets and adjacent parking areas, maximizing queuing space, and requiring architecture to match the Italian Village design theme (3-Ayes, Shomaker and Biddle-No, Kerins and Speaker Absent; Shomaker stated that she was not opposed to drive-throughs but did not want to limit locations to one on Edinger and one on Center because it prevents clustering of drive-through uses at the project site.) ❑ Circulation — Approved adding language to describe requirements for a traffic study to analyze circulation of surrounding streets and on the site itself (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent) ❑ Italian Village Theme — Approved as dictated by Specific Plan (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent) ❑ Introduction: Section One of Specific Plan No. 13 — Approved (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent) ❑ Implementation: Section Two of Specific Plan No. 13 — Approved with minor language amendment on page 18 specifying that an "Appeal may be filed by an applicant submitting a Site Plan Review application (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent) PL00-37 -3- 6127/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 ❑ Development Concept: Section Three of Specific Plan No. 13— 1) Approved with direction to delete Exhibits 3A and 3B (Illustrative Conceptual Master Plans) as well as'Tables 4A and 413 (Project Description [statistical summary]) because they do not accurately depict the existing footprint for Montgomery Wards store and tire and battery service building (4-Ayes, Livengood-No, Kerins and Speaker Absent); 2) Approved adding Montgomery Wards building's footprint in Exhibits 5A and 5B (Conceptual Floor Plans) (4-Ayes, Biddle-No, Kerins and Speaker Absent); 3) Approved revising language under description of Regional Commercial Uses to include automotive repair as a regional serving commercial use (4-Ayes, Biddle-No, Kerins and Speaker Absent); 4) Approved adding Montgomery Wards building's footprint in Exhibits 6A and 6B (Pedestrian Plaza/Walkways Plans) (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent); 5) Approved amending language on Page 39 and 41 to accurately reflect traffic study requirements and to delete reference to civil report bound under separate cover (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent); 6) Approved amending language on Page 62 and 65 from "landlord" to "property owner" to reflect requirement for property owners to approve of their tenants' building design (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent); 7) Approved Section Three with amendments noted above (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent). ❑ Development Regulations: Section Four of Specific Plan No. 13 — 1) Approved amending language to delete wood as an acceptable fence material (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent); 2) Approved amending Permitted Uses chart to include automotive repair and to amend Development Regulations Chart to reflect (8'-6"x 18') parking stall size (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent); 3) Approved Section Four with amendments noted above (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent) ❑ Appendices —Approved as submitted (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent) Planning Commission Action on June 20, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 00-01 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-02 AS AMENDED BY STRAW VOTES WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: CHAPMAN, LIVENGOOD, SHOMAKER, BIDDLE NOES: MANDIC ABSENT: KERINS, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE Commissioner Mandic stated that although she supports the overall Crossings concept and Specific Plan she voted against adoption of the document because she is opposed to the amortization schedule. PL00-37 -4- 6/27/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 The Planning Commission also approved minute action by unanimous vote (5-Ayes, Kerins and Speaker Absent) to urge the City Council to authorize commencement of work on the Edinger Corridor Project/Specific Plan in order to stimulate development beyond the Crossings boundaries along the Edinger corridor. B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: i 1. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 as amended by Planning Commission with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1), adopt Resolution No. 20-66 (ATTACHMENT NO. 6), and include the following minor modifications as recommended by staff: Sfi'---,o Va-Te elN t,�� � R'--fA10A F%NN;&b 2-4-� g'TNft,A 4-7�% 0-k 1 "%144,NA01 a. Do not include automotive repair as a permitted use b. Do not include drive-through uses as a permitted use c. Do not delete Illustrative Conceptual Master Plans d. Delete Conceptual Floor Plans and Project Description (Statistical Summary) e. Revise all exhibits to include Montgomery Wards' store and tire/battery service building footprint 9'x k1l o,0 W1. C.mt,0- oN fmq%mJ eF f. Include one minimum parking stall size-{&L4:4ay-49�►for entire property g. Include other minor language modifications as described in Planning Commission straw vote summary above" C"V1,;,NR,-b 0 6V (:4- 4- 1(GAzA4Fffi,� oT"'J Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 as recomme ed by staff with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1), adopt Resolution No. 2000-6 (ATTACHMENT NO. 6), and include the following modification: a. Include drive-through uses as permitted use with all of the design and development regulations as suggested by staff (Attachment No. 8) 2. "Deny Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 with findings for denial." 3. "Continue Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00- 02 and direct staff accordingly." PL00-37 -5- 6/27/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: The City of Huntington Beach and The City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: 7777 Edinger Avenue (Approximately 63 acres bounded by Beach Boulevard, Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue, and the Southern Pacific Railroad) Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 represents a request to amend Sectional District Map No. 14-5-11 by changing the zoning map designations on the 63 acre site from General Commercial (CG) and General Commercial — Flood Plain (CG-FP2) to Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 pursuant to Chapter 247 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Specific Plan No. 13 is a request to master plan the 63 acre site by establishing the planning concept, design and architectural theme, development regulations, infrastructure needs and administrative procedures necessary to achieve an orderly and compatible Regional Commercial shopping complex. The specific plan shall implement the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. With the adoption of the specific plan, all future development consistent with the specific plan shall require analysis through the Site Plan Review process and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 represents a request to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by adding the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 pursuant to Chapter 247 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The specific plan shall be the zoning for the 63 acre site and includes the development regulations, design and architectural guidelines, and administrative procedures necessary to implement the general plan designation of Regional Commercial. The specific plan will render existing development non-conforming. B. BACKGROUND Huntington Center, the original name of the shopping mail complex, was built in the late 1960s. History indicates that the development was the first enclosed shopping mall to be constructed in Orange County and was very successful for a time. The property thrived through the 1970s and 1980s but became functionally obsolete in the early 1990s. The center began losing tenants in response to competition from newer centers in adjacent communities and began deteriorating soon after. PL00-37 -6- 6/27/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 Redevelopment Agency staff indicates that JC Penney left the Center in August of 1994 and Broadway closed its store in August of 1996. The replacement store for JC Penney (Burlington Coat Factory) only occupies two of three floors in the building and the Broadway building remains vacant. The City has seen its sales tax revenue from the site decline from over $1.5 million in 1990 to less that $850,000 in 1998. One of the existing anchors has seen its sales volume decline by 30% between 1994/95 and 1998/99. The gross assessed value of the site, which has dramatically driven down the Redevelopment Agency revenues, has declined from $94 million in 1993/94 to $45 million in 1999/00. In addition, there are property owner initiated assessed valuation appeals now pending. During the update of the General Plan in 1996, the City designated the property as Commercial Regional with a 0.5 Floor Area Ratio, a Specific Plan overlay, and a Mixed Use Overlay (CR-F2-SP-MU [F9]). The new General Plan Land Use designation required adoption of a specific plan for the property and also described design and development standards particular to the mall property. This specific plan is intended to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan for the subject property. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held a Special Meeting and public hearing on June 20, 2000 for Specific Plan No. 13. During the public hearing two representatives from Montgomery Wards expressed their concerns that Wards' store and tire/battery service center were not depicted in the conceptual plans and therefore must not be included within future development of the property. The Director of Real Estate for Wards explained Wards' new remodel, renovation, and new prototype stores which are being upgraded around the country. Wards distributed newspaper articles describing their store renovations, a booklet explaining the new Wards concept, and an architectural sketch of a fagade remodel for the Huntington Beach store. The Wards representatives concluded by stating their desire to be part of the remodeled center and their willingness to upgrade the exterior of the building to match the Italian Village architecture as dictated by the Specific Plan. An attorney representing Burlington Coat Factory also spoke during the public hearing and expressed his belief that the Specific Plan is not simply a zoning document and that the document excludes Burlington as a future use on the site even though the store �is depicted in the conceptual plans. In response to questioning by the Planning Commission, the Burlington attorney confirmed that Ezralow is only required to negotiate with the tenant if the landlord proposes demolition of the building. The Planning Commission also heard from a concerned citizen who had questions regarding the Italian Village architecture and suggested that the design would not be compatible with Surf City's image. PL00-37 -7- 6/27/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July.5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: , PL00-37 Representatives from the Ezralow Company spoke during the public hearing and stated that the issues raised by Burlington Coat factory are a landlord-tenant dispute. Ezralow also expressed their desire for drive-through restaurants at the site and presented conceptual plans illustrating how a drive-through restaurant could be architecturally compatible with the Italian Village design guidelines. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: A summary of the major issues, the Planning Commission action, and the staff recommendation has been provided in an Issues Matrix (Attachment No. 2). Specific Plan Overview Specific Plan No. 13 is necessary in response to the 1996 General Plan update which designated the mall property with a Specific Plan overlay. The General Plan goals and policies stipulate elimination of large scale boxes, design of highly articulated facades, differentiated building massing, conveyance of a visual relationship to the street, and design of exterior periphery to contain shops, restaurants, display windows, and inclusion of public art. The Specific Plan is organized into four Sections. The first is Introduction, which contains a description of the purpose and intent of the document, the authority and procedure for specific plans, offers an explanation of the scope and format of the plan, identifies the site location and current land use designations, and describes state mandated requirements. Section Two is the Implementation chapter, which discusses permit processing procedures for future development of the property. This chapter includes a discussion on future environmental analysis, requests for deviation from the development standards, and describes the Site Plan Review process. Any future development proposal will be subject to review and approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Director. The Site Plan Review process will ensure compliance with the Specific Plan's architectural,-site planning, design guidelines, and development regulations. Adoption of the Specific Plan does not include- approval for any development, construction, or any particular tenants other than establishing a list of permitted Regional Commercial uses. All future development will be subject to the Site Plan Review process. Section Three describes the Development Concept for the 63 acre property. The Development Concept includes policies for open space and pedestrian walkways, public art, water features, landscaping, public amenities, site planning guidelines, and architectural guidelines to ensure future development of an open-air pedestrian oriented regional- commercial shopping and entertainment complex with an Italian Village architectural theme. PL00-37 -8- 6/27/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 Section Four contains the Development Regulations and includes typical zoning development standards, such as, minimum setbacks, maximum building height, maximum floor area ratios, parking requirements, as well as a list of permitted uses. Staff recommends approval of the Specific Plan format, outline, and content as described above. Specific Plan Exhibits Specific Plan No. 13 includes numerous exhibits intended to demonstrate various option of how future development at the site might be implemented. Two conceptual master plans are included and represent how future development might be proposed in compliance with the design guidelines of the new zoning. No development or definitive site plan will be approved as part of the Specific Plan since all future development will be subject to approval of a Site Plan Review application. As indicated in the straw vote discussion above, the Planning Commission eliminated the illustrative conceptual site plans, conceptual floor plans, and the. square footage summaries of those conceptual plans in response to testimony from Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory. Staff recommends that the City Council retain the Illustrative Conceptual Master Plans because a master plan is required to be included within a Specific Plan. Staff also recommends that the conceptual floor plans and square footage summaries be retained in the document to complete the information depicted in the illustrative master plan. Staff would not be opposed to revising the three exhibits to include Montgomery Wards as it currently exists. Burlington Coat Factory is already shown on one version of the exhibits. Although the Planning Commission voted to delete the exhibits described above, Commissioner Tom Livengood has prepared a memo to the Director of Planning describing his recommendation for revisions to Exhibit 4B. Commissioner Livengood states that his recommended revisions combine both existing and proposed square footages and therefore, represent a more accurate description of the overall site square footage (Attachment No. 16). Drive-Through Uses The Ezralow Company has requested that drive-through restaurants be included as a permitted use within the Specific Plan (Attachment No. 17). The Planning Commission action on June 20, 2000 affirmed Ezralow's request and included one drive-through on Center Avenue and one drive-through on Edinger Avenue. Staff, however, believes that drive-through uses, such as, restaurants, banks, ATM kiosks, drive-up florists, etc. are not appropriate for this particular location and therefore, recommends the prohibition of drive- throughs from the mall property based on the following reasons: PL00-37 -9- 6/27/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 ❑ The subject property is designated as an Entry Node, an Internal Node, a Primary Path/Image Corridor, and is part of the Edinger Commercial Corridor in the General Plan. A Node is defined as a conceptual anchor point for a community and is a significant focal point that acts as a center of movement and activity. The mall property is both an entry node that should function as a point of identity between Westminster and Huntington Beach and an internal node that should function as a focal point of high activity within the community. The General Plan states that Huntington Beach currently has weakly defined points of entry from surrounding communities and the San Diego Freeway. Staff believes that drive-through restaurants are not an appropriate use for the gateway and entry to the City of Huntington Beach. ❑ Drive-through restaurant operators are typically fast food restaurants that do not contribute to the Regional Commercial uses stipulated for this site by the General Plan land use designation. ❑ Drive-through restaurants are typically fast food operations that would detract from the high-quality, high-end uses and premium restaurants that are desired for the entry to the City. ❑ Drive-through restaurant operations are typically chain or franchise businesses which are normally unwilling to deviate from established corporate design, architectural style, color, and building materials and therefore will have difficulty complying with the overall Italian Village design guidelines dictated by the specific plan. ❑ Staff believes that drive-through restaurants and their typical architecture, type of food and beverages offered, and negative aspects of noise, visual aesthetics, and air quality impacts associated with vehicle queuing, will not positively contribute to the desired up-scale atmosphere for the mall property. ❑ The Ezralow Company indicates that a drive-through restaurant use allows acquisition of a long-term ground lease with Southern California Edison (SCE) and thus provides for a parking structure on the north side of the property. However, staff believes an alternative type of revenue generating use should be pursued so that the stated goal of a ground lease with SCE can be obtained. ❑ Although trendy and currently popular drive-through uses may be initially established, there is no guarantee that the actual restaurant will not be converted to a less desirable type restaurant in the future. PL00-37 -10- 06/27/00 2:53 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 Although the Planning staff continues to recommend that drive-through uses are not included within the Specific Plan, staff prepared the following list of suggested development regulations for the Planning Commission to consider if drive-throughs were allowed. At Ezralow's request the Planning Commission approved drive-throughs with modifications as depicted in strike-through and bold type below. If the City Council determines that drive- through uses are an appropriate land use for the mall property and includes them as a permitted use, staff recommends the inclusion of the following suggested development standards as originally submitted (without the strikethrough and bold text as amended by Planning Commission): 1. The building shall be the predominant visual element along street frontages, not parking lots or drive through lanes. 2. Drive through aisles shall be IGGaterr +ewards the rear of the building, away from the: streetfrontage and screened from Streets and from adjacent parking areas. "built3. Buildings with dFive through seNiGes shall be » 4. Drive-through aisles shall provide adequate on-site queuing distance to accommodate five cars (150 feet) before the first stopping stop (e.g. menu board, teller window, and automatic teller machine). No portion of the queuing aisle should serve as a parking aisle. 5. Drive through lanes shall not exit directly to the site's main entrance. Drive-through aisles shall provide at a minimum 25-foot interior radius for any curve. 6. The main structure should be sited so as to maximize the distance for vehicle queuing while screening the drive through operations. 7. All building elevations shall comply with the architectural guidelines as specified herein. 8. Buildings shall incorporate a full roof with built-in roof top wells for mechanical equipment screening. 9. A canopy shall be provided over the drive-through lane at the pick-up window. The canopy shall be architecturally compatible and fully integrated as part of the building design. 10.No individual freestanding or pole signs shall be permitted for drive-through uses. 11.Drive-through uses shall be limited to a maximum of eae two drive-through uses on the 63 acre site..; one on Center Avenue and one on Edinger Avenue. PL00-37 -11- 6/27/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 Amortization Schedule Adoption of Specific Plan No. 13 will render the existing structures and some uses as non- conforming. The existing structures will not comply with the Design and Architectural Guidelines, which stipulate an Italian Village architecture, and the site itself will not comply with numerous landscaping and site design requirements. Staff recommends that some uses, such as the Montgomery Ward Tires, Batteries, and Accessories should no longer be permitted uses within the specific plan boundaries. The intent of the specific plan is to generate revitalization, renovation, and reconstruction of the deteriorated property resulting in a new Regional Commercial shopping center. In order to address these non-conformities, staff drafted an amortization policy to require upgrades and replacement of the non- conforming aspects of the property within three years of adoption of the Specific Plan. The amortization language is anticipated to amend and supplement the current language regarding Existing Major Department Stores and Village Retail in Section 3.5.4C of the Specific Plan No. 13. An amortization schedule is attached for review and incorporation into the Specific Plan (Attachment No. 3) at the Council hearing. The Planning Commission approved the amortization schedule as submitted by staff, however, the Planning Commission later determined that Montgomery Wards tire and battery service qualified as a Regional Commercial business and therefore a permitted use. E. SUMMARY Staff recommends that the City Council approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 as recommend by the Planning Commission with minor modifications for the following reasons: The zoning map and text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which designates the site as Regional Commercial. The Specific Plan will allow for the creation of a development compatible with and sensitive to the existing land uses in the project area. The zoning map and text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan. The Specific Plan will stimulate business opportunities within the City by allowing for and encouraging development consistent with the Specific Plan under an expedited entitlement process. Additionally, the Specific Plan provides for a range of employment opportunities in the professional, retail, service and entertainment fields, thus stimulating business opportunities and strengthening the employee base of the community. The Specific Plan identifies design standards and architectural guidelines consistent with the intent of Subarea 5A for the mall property and the Urban Design Element. PL00-37 -12- 6/27/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 The Specific Plan identifies infrastructure improvements (circulation, water, sewer, storm drainage, and communication facilities) necessary to accommodate future development of the site and in compliance with Circulation, Growth Management, Public Facilities and Public Services, and Utilities Elements of the General Plan. Design and Architectural Guidelines stipulate implementation of an exciting, vibrant, and high-quality architectural style and design theme (Italian Village) for a future regional commercial shopping and entertainment complex. Environmental Status: Adoption or amendment of a Specific Plan constitutes a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Guidelines. In this case, since an EIR has been prepared for the City's adopted General Plan and the Specific Plan is included within the umbrella of the General Plan and associated Certified EIR, the specific plan does not require separate environmental review. The General Plan EIR anticipated approximately 1.4 million square feet of development on the subject property. Specific Plan No. 13 allows up to 1,100,640 square feet of development, which falls below the square footage considered in the General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan, therefore, is considered covered under the previously certified EIR. Subsequent development proposals, however, shall be subject to environmental review as mandated by CEQA Guidelines. Any applicable environmental mitigation measures, as specified in the future environmental analysis, will be included as conditions of approval on individual Site Plan Review applications. Attachments: City Clerk's Page Number No. Description ..................................................................... 1. Findings for Approval for Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 2. Issues Matrix dated July 5, 2000 3. Amortization Schedule to Replace Section 3.5.4C of Specific Plan No. 13 4. Existing General Plan Land Use Ma 5. Existing Zoning Ma .... ... . ......:: ::.... ::::: ! 6. Draft CityCouncil Resolution No. 2oac� - 6Q, ..................................................................... ........... ........ ...... .. 7. Memo from Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning to Planning Commission dated June 16 — J 2000 additional com munications from I , Montgomery Wards attorneys, David Biggs, Economic Development Director, and Planning staff PL00-37 -13- 6/27/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 City Clerk's Page Number No. Description ............................................... ............................... ............. ...................... ......................................... ............................................ ............................... 8. Memo from Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning to Planning ............. Drive Through Uses .............. Commission dated June 20, 2000 ..............................................- .............................. .......... 9. Memo from Paul D'Alessandro, Assistant City Attorney to Planning .......... ...................- ......................... .................11111.1 ................................-.................- ............. ........ Commission dated June 20, 2000 ........... .......... . . . .......... .. 10. Conceptual Montgomery Wards Elevations received June 16, 2000 ............... ­­­­ ........... .............. ....................................................... .......................................... 11. "Wards" Packet describing Wards' new store concept received June ................-..................... ................ .................... ............ ...................... ............ 20, 2000 ..................... ........... ...................... ................................... 12. Collection of Newspaper Articles submitted by Montgomery Wards on ............................................ ............................................ ................................. ...................................... June 20, 2000 .......................................... .. ...................... ................................................. - 13. Letter from Tuchman and Associates received June 16, 2000 ........... .............- 14. Letter from Tuchman and Associates received June 20, 2000 with Burlington Coat Factory's recommended amendments to Specific Plan ........................... .............. document ...................- . ...................... .............................. so—.......................... 15. Letter from Conrad J. Moreno received June 20, 2000 .............. ........... .............. 16. Memo from Tom Livengood to Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning dated June 23, 2000 .......... . ............... . . ................. 17. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 13, 2000 ............ .................................... 18. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 20, 2000 ........... .......... ............. ................................... 19. Red-Lined Specific Plan No. 13 depicting Planning Commission's ............. action on June 20, 2000 PL00-37 -14- 6/27/00 11:09 AM ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 00-01/ ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-02 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 00-01 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-02: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 to change the zoning on an approximate 63 acre parcel from CG (General Commercial) and CG- FP2 (General Commercial — Floodplain) to The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Specific Plan will allow for the creation of a development compatible with and sensitive to the existing land uses in the project area. The Specific Plan provides development regulations which address issues of compatibility by providing unique architectural and design guidelines, adequate setbacks, building heights, parking, landscaping, and signing in order to provide a high quality regional commercial and entertainment complex. The proposed zoning document is consistent with the goals and policies of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan. The Specific Plan will stimulate business opportunities within the City by allowing for and encouraging development consistent with the Specific Plan under an expedited entitlement process. Additionally, the Specific Plan provides for a range of employment opportunities in the professional, retail, service and entertainment fields, thus stimulating business opportunities and strengthening the employee base of the community. The Specific Plan also identifies design/architectural standards, consistent with the intent of the goals and polices of Subarea 5A and the Urban Design Element. The Specific Plan provides design/ architectural guidelines which requires construction of an Italian Village themed development and promotes use of high quality colors, materials, architecture and design concepts. These development policies and standards encourage improving the existing property and carry out the goals and policies established in the Urban Design Element. The Specific Plan addresses future infrastructure needs for the property which complies with the Circulation Element, Growth Management Element, Public Facilities and Public Services Element, and Utilities Element. PL00-37 -15- 6/27/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-37 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning map and text amendments are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The proposed uses identified in the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 allows commercial related uses along with regional commercial land uses consistent with the General Plan. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The proposed Specific Plan provides the standards necessary to develop a high quality regional commercial shopping and entertainment complex. The Design Guidelines and development standards of the specific plan provide standards which exceed the minimum requirements identified in Section 211, Commercial Districts of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, the continued expansion of the regional commercial base of the community provides jobs, an increase in property and payroll taxes, and contributes to the City's jobs-housing balance. 4. The adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. A comprehensive approach in reviewing and establishing a set of development standards, design/architectural guidelines, landscape guidelines, and signing standards provides the necessary zoning provisions for a high quality, successful, and interesting regional commercial shopping and entertainment complex. 5. The Planning Commission finds that establishment of the Specific Plan project will not have any significant effect on the environment because the overall development parameters have previously been evaluated in the EIR certified in conjunction with the General Plan update. In addition, future requests for development projects at the site will require environmental analysis as mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. PL00-37 -16- 6/27/00 11:09 AM ATTACHMENT 2 THE CROSSINGS AT HUNTINGTON BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13 ISSUES MATRIX City Council Public Hearing July 5, 2000 ITEM ISSUE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF CITY COUNCIL NO. {Specific Plan Page No.) RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION NOTES 1. AMORTIZATION (RCA dated 7/5/00 - Approve amortization for non-conforming Staff concurs Attachment No 3) uses and structures within 3 years of SP 13 adoption 2. PHASING (Pg. 15) Approve one phase of development as Staff concurs encouraged in SP 13 and amend estimated length of construction from 24-36 months to 18-24 months 3. AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR(Pg. 78) Include Automotive Repair as a permitted Opposed, Do not include Regional Commercial use automotive repair as a permitted use —does not contribute to Regional Commercial uses as designated by the General Plan 4. PARKING STALL SIZE (Pg. 80) Approved one parking stall size of 8'-6' Staff concurs wide x 18' deep for all stalls;no further reduction allowed for compact 5. DRIVE-THROUGHS (Pg. 78) Include drive-through restaurants as a Opposed; Do not include any type permitted use with unique design standards of drive-through uses within SP 13 as modified on Page 11 of 7/5/00 RCA; —drive-throughs do not contribute specifically one restaurant along Center to Regional Commercial uses as Ave. and one along Edinger Ave. designated by the General Plan and are not high-end,premium restaurants the community desires; If Council includes drive-throughs as permitted use—staff recommends all design criteria listed in Attachment No. 8 1 ,ITEM ISSUE , PLANNING COMMISSION ,fl. 4 STAFF 'CITY COUNCIL NO. °� (Specific P1amPage No. ) RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION << NOTES y 6. CIRCULATION(Pg. 39) Approved adding language to ensure Staff concurs traffic study analyzes circulation on surrounding streets and within site 7. ITALIAN VILLAGE ARCHITECTURE Approved as required by SP 13 (Pg. 48) 8. DELETE EXHIBITS 3A&3B Delete Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan Opposed; Exhibits required per (Illustrative Conceptual Master Plans) because the plans do not include existing State law, should include all (Pg. 21 & 22) Montgomery Ward store and tire/battery exhibits; Would support revising footprint exhibits to include Wards' footprint 9. DELETE EXHIBITS 4A&4B Delete Project Description because the Opposed; Should include all (Project Description [Statistical plans do not include existing Montgomery exhibits; Would support revising Summary]) Ward store and tire/battery footprint exhibits to include Wards' footprint (Pg. 25 & 26) 10. REVISE EXHIBITS 5A& 5B Revise Exhibits 5A and 5B to include Staff concurs (Conceptual Floor Plans) Wards' store and tire/battery building (Pg. 27-3 0) 11. REVISE EXHIBITS 6A& 6B Revise Exhibits 6A and 6B to include Staff concurs (Pedestrian Plaza/Walkways Plan) Wards' store and tire/battery building (Pg. 32 & 33) 12. REVISE REMAINING EXHIBITS Revise Remaining Exhibits to include Staff concurs Wards' store and tire/battery building 13. MINOR LANGUAGE AMENDMENTS Approve minor language amendments re: Staff concurs property owner approval, wood fencing, etc. (g J j\crossings\matrix 1) 2 ATTACHMENT 3 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 Section 3.5.4C - Nonconforming Buildings and Uses 3.5.4C. Purpose It is the intent of these regulations to provide for the termination of nonconforming uses and the remodel/renovation of non-conforming buildings in order to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to bring such buildings and uses into conformity with the goals and policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13. This section is intended to prevent the expansion of nonconforming uses and buildings, establish the circumstances under which they may be continued and provide for the removal, correction, remodel, or change of such uses and buildings. 3.5.4C.1 Regulations Applicable The following regulations shall apply to all nonconforming uses and to all buildings or structures non conforming due to use and/or standards as specified herein: 1. Continuation. A nonconforming use or a building or structure nonconforming due to use and/or standards may be continuously maintained provided there is no alteration, enlargement or addition to any building or structure; no increase in occupant load; nor any enlargement of area, space or volume occupied by or devoted to such use, except as otherwise provided in this Section. 2. Additions to a Nonconforming Use, Building, or Structure. This section does not authorize the extension, expansion, or enlargement of the area of land or the area within a building or structure devoted to a nonconforming use, or the alteration, enlargement of or addition to a building or structure nonconforming due to use and/or standards, or permit the addition of land, buildings or structure used in conjunction with a nonconforming use or a building or structure nonconforming due to use and/or standards, except: a. Exterior building alterations to a building or structure nonconforming due to standards when the exterior alterations comply with the design, architectural, and development policies and standards contained within the Specific Plan. b. To the extent required by a subsequently enacted or subsequently adopted law, ordinance or regulation, and the Director so finds. Such additions as are permitted by the subsection shall not be construed to extend the termination date of the subject nonconforming use, or a building or a structure non-conforming due to use or standards. (gAjm\crossings\amortization (Attachment NO.3.1 3 Natural Act. A nonconforming building or structure that is damaged or destroyed by fire, earthquake, or other calamity, or by act of God, or by act of war, or by the public enemy, may be re-constructed provided that each of the following conditions is met: a. Such re-construction is permitted by the Uniform Building Code. b. Re-construction is commenced within one year of the date of damage, unless otherwise allowed by the Planning Commission, and be pursued diligently to completion. 3.5.4C.2. Termination Conditions and Time Limits The following regulations shall apply to all nonconforming uses and buildings and structures nonconforming due to use, and to buildings and structures nonconforming due to standards as specified in this section. 1. Termination by Discontinuance. Discontinuance of a nonconforming use or of the use of a building or structure nonconforming due to use and/or standards as indicated herein shall immediately terminate the right to operate or use such nonconforming use, building or structure, except when extended as otherwise provided in this Section: a. Changing a nonconforming use to a conforming use; b. Removal of a building or structure nonconforming due to use and/or standards; or C. Discontinuance of a nonconforming use or use of a building or structure nonconforming due to use and/or standards as indicated herein for consecutive period of one or more years. 2. Termination by Operation of Law. Nonconforming uses and buildings or structures nonconforming due to use, shall be discontinued and removed from their sites within the time specified in this section, except when extended or revoked as otherwise provided in this section. Buildings or structures nonconforming due to standards enumerated in this Specific Plan, shall be remodeled and renovated to comply with the standards enumerated in this Specific Plan within the time frame specified in this section, except when extended or revoked as otherwise provided in this section. In the case of nonconforming uses and buildings or structures nonconforming due to use, and those buildings or structures nonconforming due to standards enumerated in this Specific Plan: a. Where a nonconforming use is carried on in a conforming structure—three years from the date of adoption of the Specific Plan. b. Where a nonconforming use is carried on in a nonconforming structure due to standards enumerated in this Specific Plan—three years from the date of adoption of the Specific Plan. C. Where a conforming use is carried on in a nonconforming structure due to standards enumerated in this Specific Plan—three years from the date of adoption of the Specific Plan. (gAjm\crossings\amortization (Attachment No. 3.2) 3.5.4C.3. Review of Amortization Schedule or Substitution of Use 1. Request for Review—An application may be filed with the Planning Commission requesting extension of the time within which a nonconforming use or building or structure nonconforming due to use, or due to standards where applicable, must be discontinued and removed from its site or remodeled and renovated as specified in Section 3.4.5C. The Planning Commission may accept such filing either before or after the date of expiration of such nonconforming use, building or structure. 2. Application and Procedure—Except as specifically provided in this section,the application and all procedures relative to notification, public hearing and appeals shall be the same as for a conditional use permit. 3. Burden of Proof—In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission the following facts: a. That to require cessation of such use,building or structure would impair the property rights of any person to such an extent as to be an unconstitutional taking of property; and/or b. That such use, building or structure does not now and will not during the extension period requested: 1. Adversely affect the health,peace or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area, and, 2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of the property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, and, 3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. 4. Findings and Decision—The Director of Planning shall recommend and the Planning Commission shall approve an application for a nonconforming use, building or structure review, provided the burden of proof set forth above has been met by the applicant. 5. Conditions—The Planning Commission, in approving an application for a nonconforming use and structure review may impose conditions it deems necessary to insure that the approval will be in accord with the findings required. Conditions imposed by the Planning Commission may involve any pertinent factors affecting the establishment, operation, and maintenance of the uses, buildings or structures requested. (gAjm\crossings\amortization (Attachment NO. 3.3) ATTACHMENT 11 �4 SUBJECT ........ ` ILMH 25 PROPERTY i M sP� t;Crft 41. A G- P(RL) P(RL) e tor+ zra �/ Ms►► 'a� 4F2A L %' LEGEND Mixed Use Residential 0 Mixed_Use RL Residential low Density MV Mixed Use Vertical aResidential Medium Density MH Mixed Use Horizontal tMH Residential Medium High Density Industrial 'RH Residential'High Density a Industrial Open Space Commercial OS-C I Weiland/conservation CN Commercial Neighborhood OS-P dark CG I Commercial General Os-S Shore CR Commercial Regional OS-CR Commercial Recreation CO EXISTING GENERAL PLAN Commercial Office Os-W Water Recreati on LAND USE DESIGNATION Commercial Visitor Public Commercial Industrial,Mixed Use SUBJECT PROPERTY = a Public Density schedule oe++�;tr Permitted CR—F2—sp—mu—CF9) P(� School,Hospital,Church code Density E (underlying designation) F1 0.35 Overlay F2A 0.75 (NO CHANGE PROPOSED) -a Auto District Overlay F3 1.0 -d Design Overlay Fs is5 -h Historical Overlay F6 2.0 -mu0 Mixed Use Overlay(=' � F7 3.0 -pd Pedestrian Overlay Fa 1sGmL"35(CV25du/ac -rmp Residential Mobile Home Flo tsimu1}-ts(CMdu/ac Park Overlay F11 2.0(MU)-2.0(W5 du/ac -sp Specific Plan Overlay F12 3.0(Mt1).3.0035du/ac F13' 1 50d1ho.5(ta115 d4hc ATTACHMENT 5 � i o ANNIN MNG DM 15 ' SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 14-5-11 CITY OF .�.,.. ..A•.. _--= HUNTINGTON BEACH © f F ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 'RI RI 7 •1•�) I RI RI lot i i5 'I !1 SUBJECT lot PROPERTY 1 [1 RI 6 ] isnrr.rns en.wrmrle. e<a•F-E o amasa�c nr m.a/tvrti ChINS II � Q a C4 .r # C4 ILL Mt ez ' C4 r• es C2 C2 Rt ` RS R3 no Rs R3 RS RI lot RS R3 no MI MI °' EXISTING ZONING f ... r RI c RI RI RI !; - 1 E- R3 DESIGNATION.. .. Ott .. . Its ' RI no RI RIF R2 SUBJECT PROPERTY = n "t RI R2-6 CG AND CG—FP2 Ra R'[ MI Iz5'1 11 wtM Rf [ IR R Ra R Ra Ra p to M1 Po ea '" •• C4 (CHANGE PROPOSED TO M1 RI a THE CROSSINGS AT i a CiF-E Icy' J C? e� �M1 M1 _ HUNTINGTON BEACH , R2 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13) MI ' [' ie R FM MI R3 C4— C2 .ate 13z9 R2 [a MI R3 L: C4 d 1 b4 [a • c R2 - - . r[ ATTACHMENT 6 Res. No.2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution RESOLUTION!NO. 2000-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON REAL PROPERTY BOUNDED GENERALLY BY BEACH BOULEVARD, EDINGER AVENUE, CENTER AVENUE, AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL(CG)AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL-FLOOD PLAIN(CG-FP2) TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13 (THE CROSSINGS AT HUNTINGTON BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN) WHEREAS,pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law,the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Specific Plan No. 13, wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment is proper and consistent with the General plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby adopted and approved. 2. That the real property generally described as bounded by Beach Boulevard, Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue, and the Southern Pacific Railroad and more particularly described in the legal description and sketch collectively attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby changed from General Commercial (CG) and General Commercial-Flood Plain (CG-FP2) to Specific Plan No. 13 (The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan.) Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: / APPROV D AS TO FORM: C�m��rGG �SZ���iCA�v City Clerk -7-13 City Attorneyp REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Cit Administrator Director lanning 4 s:4-2000 Resolutions:Crossings at H.B. RLS 00-616 6 22/00 Res. No. 2000-68 Huntington Beach Specific Plan included as Attachment 19. . { - ,fY •F e ai .'q irC• r. y��se to - .:+ . � 1-v o+' a 1 . L'..,5 [' .(�} C r_ �1_. '�'•4�` :r'yti,t<'.y• wwv ?,>'r ? ;�t.. trv'at. "t�'.!`'w.��rl�. //i - :�1.+ r,f. � r I 1 ,. t�_ , ii�`t. ''"� `�!•� :.i,ty:. .1. -'. ..1,V'L t .<. .'. •,I* � r +':; aW., ,.i+• r+.� y 'r. r' Y�. r,•y "4 ,,�. .�,!! .6 ,�, r �.'./. _IllV• i,�`c �(js�:� ,•Wv ., t 'a":fpt.4,I + +.j.p.• 4 �` V �. "" • \ '` � M. �r .. S +�"t it,.. \ r:Y �, r yr .^""+ T .0 '+. _( ,(! I�•F t- •+s, ! .•,. •1. ��-�,.. .ti.� « ttty!., r:ft 1 •� c r` Hf +I. T' '/a* :'� •' �[ r 'ti.rt y6 } , ev'ilr r i �',",T��'�� .f.'.i ,y :t a� ,%(�,•/ F .rre'.. .^ a{? ,., `{�.t '•.:Jx..ti,,-, .. � y t �. �}..,^,f':Ml•,"' ..d.ir b �Mt •i �' .�:��rri`i ,r.T.f:l. ,,1. -f �. V �.l,Ynl r� I 1..5 ►r f. a t ol"� r 1 ,f:p f f'°, nJ lr ' J� (y 1' ,y ' i y, •' 1W�M.1j.,✓ r J . )' I , �` „+r ►�' t ::1 ✓ .rT I ..1 4••'I1�'Y y�y�'��!� ,r+,�1:T�' �ywl-1:�f'' ���r��..Trr". Y'��� �•� !r'�, +jT' �••;�'rf w ,`.'� q/�r' ,I�Ij srt'"1�*'�•• `' ii yt .il���lfr /`� ,� in�� �J••�//I�i ,Ci"+ " � tl' •`4 t .i, r,• �, {i' .t^.�L,,.S '"h'�t.rS. i 1::.!•S:t 61 �••+�r't1[7 5�.e l.f! r Q,`.4 ,�I ,lr' p .F f, f•i 1•.... t n" �F'� '•� 1►y.'S�/S} ;s'' N�. .f:r 1�^e��.,,a�lw�` :�.�r:S>a♦4. r , , xo�� -N� +f.�; , � 4N� lr ' I I u'Pb T t `�i �.. 't •n+a'�;'iUsyu' t( ^N{�t� f ,.�w.«:. I i..i.✓ I y' 1 +� 'e V Il I 1 f✓I°`" • • .J� xr� {; y tv ' ;. t} lrr �, u, I ,, it14 i8j! !`IM �Ii.�.� .. �H'S', t �a N J •5rw"idr✓.,r,' •'�- ur`r+� /�F r ,dru.',.�j , I �. ,i .•. p t /Ia �p „+ r f a Y ';i, I. ) I y�i'.t,f➢I I I + ' r+1,l�SR/M V.-`�.' tR'�•���, 1.: _� Stl �U �`�4.:,P3 .'•!�t• "Z,?ry',61 .,+ , .N e►t.i� *i`"I�.i�f +.�'� t +J(,�ii�fr;..�-1:` i.'�j j 1 ,t,., IlL.1 L!'hJ.IJ,J• �7 'J� Al^ _� i 1 i!//l � f 4 •�i� �'.'""'•... „�1,., r t.���{�'{ �.+r�lri'It�15� K l f'�1I�f.r tam � ; f 'r- • Ir. fy a„.M. '�,,,��,1 f r,5 .:.rA uo li� ,i�a�, ^ e�'+;�, p_� .G�'"g�,2 IfF-�}LW®11� �p �� I i �I wrC I :�•, �y^f pit 21 �/ r,r•� '.Q' � Wr �;k ryY..rw�� - .+ ��n ��. � Wj'I ,, tt, ,�1)�I�I�1111MM�. E:� I �.f�•j :.11� L it ,'�1. ��f '�. ,��4 � .,�; rJ ��• 1 �� � '1.a" +�ii�. .�y�1't4 V�k- r Via} �rr .i:r• � 'Y.•i �1:�� t�i• p' I ib a ®. a 1�. � r r � � •� � �' 1 •�"�..E, 1 , r- •{ � y�tjd��' 4' �'�� � :I, P :�:s:it..��i A, •�4 r � �•.�� tr �yr�-�`► �,• „� j rfg,7 j}14r�a.„'-, "'�a�M nJ.s` '>"�!9n?iru 14�r>� y. i I��?,+j ''V /• ` .� j: 1 it�� t t t- �^7��. ti� +4•t (fI '.�t i t ,) j Fr'aYl f^ tj dyd'' I�t V. �' 't ,f � ' t •r � ( � .p T'� { r Jf:..b•�'9q'l. •:;'� ,,{ A. 4�i,: 1 1'� •. I "t u + b �; `pA rbr � , �,'+�ry. k+F'��lor�' �r ,, � `�►i� ` r I�;uT„ `t I jI {. >t .,r.:.'a"L�9"'Y�•. a.+•.,•''yy,YM�•'f1 f�5t��.. �'/ r.li'� �f( I`j•4n�'I�•�yr„�1r •�. I.' �1 4 t.atd� �.tt; flf 1r«rgr"!°tAPv •k ti dc/, c t If r`` ��I�`"" ��1 { � ( f/f �i 1 i,'j p 1 ,�d �,, I I I,t�i,P •F`.•t ,1 ,1/. r,+' 7 t9�w'"!w`-i ' u ,I z ,r, :f� '` I�,,wrt"���-Y _'tnr'*At'F4[ '� � Yr' ���r I y�fl f t,s i � r :M,f � 't 1 •a r: � ,+,•,�.,7�`'i. � ' r, 't� ,.r.,t. ,�,,,>~�,�i�c�<; '"aa.M`'� r 'V''t r + r .[ d�f %h I.L 'ifir.'�a I) t.i r't j t �r11�. M , +..'} � � � ,, .w,� •,;M;w K+t""��t�'` + � '+�� rl ('"��'f :�C1 1, �'Av , :ili; 'r' /:' �,' '�s+. ''1'+► g�y�9" 9 �,�,Sz, p„ -7 ? .:k .fi�•r , ir>••+,�...;� 1 r.;,:...» .•n, ,,.ti. Y-•n-:a.`e�Fv. �+' - 1.:%slryt. tj' s�4» �' .,..�F7�u.:t rt l,Jr,• �F',it.. •^ r i I ^rK_�^1»."•"'"* as•.' i'i I ',y �rs5. ..`"'w'+l•AJi ;a3.' ^ 5? •'?i �1?lC•'Vt t'�','�.;."..d�i•yf4.'Ln:7�IRl �".:M"c i 1,r Qt�j l �c.-' 1 ':! i .t e f �."'..: ` .�,.w• '' },'^�,k 1"4 z:ua4 ::a.,::;..+,,, P,}w.;�r� .�., r '1„i�un o j "M .tzo-,.w'�r'.;�r;.,,_.:..r `-T— p ;r J .✓:1. �,` r ,:I- ,'�"�•�.,.. bi+'s .va�. rW.m,I:�`,'Ij r'._, t .••a"I'+fiYt �. I,t�C 11r ,1 ��,•, Jr�.Z� ^��+?Y; ' ��r,... + .w�.�rt u•f+�.a.1�y'fW�S d, JfT,ilit^s� {., �: ..,a,...k.•.yt.w'x.:r:.,a .+a�c;�+::•:L�.a:..ry.fii,. +;.t .+-a'r ,y:, .� ,�„� .+. ,j _f I r'yt', ''•'1 Qy »..nY•., .�'•, f.. -�'1,t(.. Y`^`^1 tt^� _""..'fr. ..n•;. er 9s r I t 1 ..i.., !`ti .•�T" r �V w � f t r i>Z i 1: +x i� `, ;4 1. ""` •n"fklfi"' s �' rtx N z ,.r�' � �, 1 �MT .. +•� ., « 1. - _r E. i 1 yf�l � r .. '. t5 '' •w«,., sae 1 of '� rdlb;� �irr�'L • Ij 4tjr�°il �,t � 'S1*t41�t��4y1,�`•i r> ` a r 4��'��•�R • • 5 The Crossings at Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach SPECIFIC PLAN NO . 13 Prepared by City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Huntington Associates LLC. with Greenberg Farrow Architects EDAW Richard Sawyer c N 0 0 P ao 0 W a �o y fD 4 Adopted July 5, 2000—Resolution No. 2000-G8 y Z o o c 0 o'b> a co TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 3. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 1.0 Purpose and Intent ;6 3.0 General Development Plan 23 1.1 Authority and Procedures 6 3.1 Regional Commercial Uses 25 1.2 Scope and Format 7 3.2 Pedestrian Plaza and Walkways 28 1.3 Project Area Description 9 3.3 Circulation Plan 33 1.4 General Plan Designation 11 3.4 Public Facilities 35 1.5 Zoning Provisions 12 3.5 Design Guidelines 42 1.6 State Mandated Requirements 12 3.5.1 Project Area Character 42 3.5.2 Site Planning Guidelines 42 2. IMPLEMENTATION 3.5.3 Common Area Guidelines 45 3.5.4 Architectural Guidelines 54 2.0 Administration 15 3.5.5 Landscape Guidelines 65 2.1 Development Phasing Plan 15 3.5.6 Signage Guidelines 70 2.2 Methods and Procedures 15 2.3 Site Plan Review 16 4. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2.4 Parcel Maps 17 2.5 Reuse/Change of Use Review 18 4. Purpose 72 2.6 Environmental Determination 18 4.1 General Provisions 72 2.7 Request for Deviation 18 4.2 Definitions 72 2.8 Specific Plan Amendment 19 4.3 Development Standards 74 2.9 Severability 19 4.3.1 Permitted Uses 74 4.3.2 Intensity 74 4.3.3 Building Height 74 4.3.4 Setbacks 74 c 4.3.5 Landscaping 74 c 4.3.6 Signs 74 p 4.3.7 Lighting 74 c 4.3.8 Parking 78 c 4.3.9 Parking Structures 79 a N .ZI y y Z O O NO O O 17f � Oo APPENDICES (Volume Two) A-Legal Description B—General Plan Consistency C—Sign Standards List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Vicinity Maps 9 Exhibit 2 Aerial Photograph 10 Exhibit 3A Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan 21 Exhibit 313 Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan 22 Exhibit 4A Pedestrian Plaza/Walkways Plan 26 Exhibit 413 Pedestrian Plaza/Walkways Plan 27 Exhibit 5A Circulation Plan 29 Exhibit 5A Circulation Plan 30 Exhibit 513 Circulation Plan 31 Exhibit 513 Circulation Plan 32 Exhibit 6A Common Area Locations 45 Exhibit 613 Common Area Locations 46 Exhibit 7 Color and Materials of Common Areas 50-51 Exhibit 8 Typical Tenant Storefront 58 Exhibit 9A Landscape Concept Plan 63 Exhibit 913 Landscape Concept Plan 64 Exhibit 10 Plant Materials Palette 67 Exhibit I IA Permitted Uses Chart 75 z Exhibit I 1 B Temporary and Seasonal Events Chart 76 ° Exhibit 12 Development Regulations Chart 77 0 Exhibit 13 Parking Standards and Details 78 Exhibit 14 Development Regulations Check List 80 ti a m a fA ;0 a y � Z O O p The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 4 0 6) July 5, 2000 INTRODUCTION / ,� � � �� 1�1 .:.✓..��i�N�J������ r 11 1G`l1 v'`i+=�vp1La��3! Slli*k 1� !y iH. T: =(y�,(.t�Dy� •�� f��'�",,r ,�,r y�a7e, ;� O z I N nf ) r^.iLI� i _. � N"1=ltl�' ,��, I �•k. '.v� j.,. 3p fat �i'4y n O 1 n F., `tffT]t(r• cc O •' - w ef�+;T..;aa,,,i„yMtiri[.II��,,((F"e^t7r'C� [ fi S j 1 i�{ f 1 �«s: V) t �M1 {5�•63< y..L,t1T � .. T1 � C�C•�i/` t1 �I t�l� �1� C f3 T a �` t = �Sv�7 .sn.•+' � l�a -•�"� 1+v4 tit.. t..� Q f ,+ + tT H =t-i.(A.c I Wt. livfti z.ti y�1"P�.�. _ ,E _K��rvy�p.r+-,�.y`:'rP•4�7-�y�`s, �' 1 1v4°2r'� a y � O � N O` O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 5 0 �, July 5, 2000 report, or which substantial new information shows IlvTRODUCTTON will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public 1.0 PURPOSE AND INTENT Resource Code Section 21083.3 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan from preparation of an environmental assessment establishes the planning concept, design theme, until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. development regulations and administrative Therefore, it would be "speculative" to provide an procedures necessary to achieve an orderly and assessment of impacts peculiar to the project. Once a compatible development of the project area, and to site plan is approved, an environmental assessment implement the goals, policies and objectives of the will be performed by the City of Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach General Plan. The intent is to and site plan mitigations will be applied to the project, establish a visitor serving, regional-commercial as necessary. shopping setting and achieve a high quality in retail and entertainment design. 1.1 AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURE The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan The State of California requires that all cities and identifies the location, character and intensities for a counties prepare and adopt a comprehensive General regional commercial complex. The Specific Plan Plan for the physical development of their area of creates a compatible design theme for the project area jurisdiction. and establishes the development regulations necessary to accomplish the identified objectives. Following the adoption of the General Plan, the entity is required to develop and adopt regulating programs The Specific Plan is regulatory in nature and serves as (zoning and subdivision ordinances, building and zoning for The Crossings at Huntington Beach. housing codes, and other regulations), which will A Subsequent development plans, Parcel Maps and other implement the policies described in the General Plan. entitlement requests for the project area must be c consistent with both the Specific Plan and the California State law authorizes cities with complete N Huntington Beach General Plan. According to Public General Plans to prepare and adopt Specific Plans Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development (Government Code Sections 65450 et. seq.). Specific c project is consistent with the general plan of a local Plans are intended to be a bridge between the local c agency and an environmental impact report was General Plan and individual development proposals. 9 certified with respect to that general plan, the Specific Plans contain both planning policies and application of this division [CEQA] to the approval of regulations, and may combine zoning regulations, y. that development project shall be limited to effects on capital improvement programs, detailed development a y the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or standards and other regulatory methods into one y to the project and which were not addressed as o significant effects in the prior environmental impact o 0 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 6 0 �, July 5, 2000 document which can be tailored to meet the needs of a California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, specific area. Chapter 3,Article 8,Sections 65450 through 65457. Local planning agencies or their legislative bodies may The Huntington Beach General Plan was adopted by designate areas within their jurisdictions as ones' for the City Council on May, 13, 1996. The General Plan which a Specific Plan is "necessary or convenient" designates the project area as Regional Commercial. (Government Code Section 65451). The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the A Specific Plan may either be adopted by ordinance or Huntington Beach General Plan. resolution (Government Code Section 65507). Should the legislative body wish to change a proposed Specific 1.2 SCOPE AND FORMAT Plan recommended by the Planning Commission, the change must first be referred back to the Commission The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is for consideration, if not previously . considered divided into four sequential sections. Section One is (Govcrnmcnt Code Section 65504). the Introduction and describes the purpose and intent of the document along with a brief explanation of Adoption or amendment of a Specific Plan constitutes Specific Plan procedures and authorization. a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State's Environmental Impact Section One also presents the Project Area Description Report (EIR) guidelines. If the initial environmental and is intended to establish the reasons why the review shows that the proposed or amended plan Specific. Plan process is logical and necessary for this could. significantly affect the environment, the portion of the City. This section presents a general jurisdiction must prepare an EIR and submit it in draft description of the Specific Plan area; special form for public review. The need for an EIR in a characteristics and existing conditions which make particular case is determined by the local government. this area unique have been identified. In this case, since an EIR has been prepared for the !" City's adopted General Plan and the Specific Plan is Section Two presents the Implementation process and o included within the umbrella of the General Plan and discusses how individual projects and tenant o associated Certified EIR, the environmental assessment improvements will be reviewed and approved. This o (to be completed at the site plan review/approval section outlines the project approval procedures and c stage) for The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific describes the process for project appeals and the c Plan will be limited to the effects peculiar to the methods by which the Specific Plan can be modified or project (Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b)). amended. a The preparation, adoption and implementation of The Section Three describes the Development Concept. The H Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan by the design concept evolves from the objectives identified y City of Huntington Beach is authorized by the and existing conditions discussed in Section One. This o c The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 7 co July 5, 2000 section also presents the circulation, public facilities, infrastructure and landscaping which will support the e development concept and reinforce the design theme. Section Three also includes the Design Guidelines.,This section identifies and describes the intended character ' for the area and provides a framework for project implementation. Section Four establishes the Development Regulations for the Specific Plan area and for individual project development. Section Four presents a detailed, ' description of the Development Standards which are necessary to guide and control new projects and carry out the goals and policies of the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. ViewofRomano'sfromEdingerAvenue An Appendix (printed under separate cover) contains all the special studies and reports which have contributed to the formation of the Specific Plan. The Appendix (Volume Two) includes the Legal Description of the site, a General Plan Consistency Analysis, identifies the Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval desired in the Environmental Analysis and includes the proposed Sign Standards. $n aff i� CO 0 l � ro rxs.«e rsy �nhs�'n'Lw"mod w7'a�SMhe+ i t" R � (D W Me view of The Crossings at Huntington Beach from CenterA venue y z � o 0 0 � o The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 8 06 July 5, 2000 o 1.3 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION PA8ADENA n The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan cos ANGE Es covers 63 acres located in the northern portion of the City of Huntington Beach. The area is generally MON n to bounded on the north by Center Avenue, on the east by Beach Boulevard, on the south by Edinger Avenue, L.OS LES and on the west by Southern Pacific railroad right-of- INTERM4 ONAL way. AIRPORT \1 LONGBEACH o, A legal description of properties in the Specific Plan TORRANCE AIRPORT GARDEN A 0liE1M GROVE project area has been included in the Appendix. LONG • „ BEAC SANTA• LONG BEACH/ ANA LOSANGELES } HARBOR SITE-. ,� I VIN HUNTINGTON BEACH i�y a.} Regional Location Bolsa Ave. J� The project area is surrounded by a variety of land m uses and activities. The San Diego Freeway (405) and McFadden Ave. an office retail complex create the northern boundary. Gorden To the south, office and retail uses are located acrossWes y Coll Ce��a,��o Edinger Avenue. To the east, commercial uses are Z College � located across Beach Boulevard. To the west, is the o Southern Pacific Railroad Line. The property across Q Edinger from the . rail line is designated commercial. °' 9 y 0� m The Crossings C o at Huntington 'O 0 Beach Vicinity Maps N Exhibit 1 Site Location c of The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 9 July 5, 2000 } ••J , v - ', t L `S r ` CNN. :1.fi}J��� rr r� r}15,x"�',ti..+rrar a� a+Yres�tn,"+ai(,,t•nw 1�tw%� r tYU, �'• .� �-. r. i i •tiS ' � ..sue.-.2...,,.. :i .s+,. .:-r J� .. • -F.r iJ--� a3:n., • ,r Y �y /�� i r ;F�FS �•i1„p�F '' ,ty t 1 '�. �. � •� ;;'t �:ii `. �• 4' �� ,,:., -•; r vi w =L er` f.,..v, 1 ;�t` -'�l«..sFra*�irPr e ^ r+ 4a..`' t,..,. '_ �' , k'+rrw an',w �ww,♦.n'��811A11i<iY"—'.T. yy � ;�ji ,Jib 1 .} i '#'. }i1� ....t/ .r4LAr ..tfLfr ..far/ ,"•2 Y'��,� ,w.'"�`,�, � '\. ti�'�` 14 .� �r•• ��' ` . E . ! r F �u , .. rl P ` '�f'' '1 f1S� 23 f ♦ /r �' s� y `�� }f .L , 1, ,r. 41:• ��µ �: t s 11 � �"�7ti •. , !� �1� �� 9' �j4!rw.o / {a' + t,.t' `* '\,,��7. �� 9h�� n t".f�:,�,t� 1•,.�'1•YgC1 r',r4 '} � l :, 1� . ��''I� ri tt. b r 7. 1 /a i� .. t. it 7 s��; !1 h� t � �, ,� `• ,�Ifj ,t'�b •�',+5�r'kI{b�f�irtt •.}:�.' !H mrS' t; '', �'i 1'� � y � �i � �.C, -j �!, 1y� t � '.e.•jy �'/�' ���r1j�'t7,�1�`>}J,�i�c,.,�'Jyd . y Ate � -f9 A t0 '�',. 9 m', r '1 �'��rS��rll�• ray t� � �1«�,(�� ��•`�.� .�, '1��•S+1'tt}r�Ni���int�lt?i t�,�'C ��,._. � r.i,•,1_ /t•. , ...,,�.•. �',ti ,, fib....�♦ .'^i�f/ ' , mil•+. _•.. � ;!ir ^,-�\! ''':.'1�•�� ;_l�, . 1;�a;,^'i 1ty,�'a� yt tl�t n$t!'t� Kv .,«r,r....�if . ' '-,` tlt'°�Ik✓ ,�►',�f4 s} �; A �7 yS�e�'it�1..'.�C, { ..-.' S ti { ...i� /:. v r t • �„y- ��f� � t 6 I�i:l i. y;. ti ,• s If 4• ".4 ,� �,,.: a , "•i fi ,, 4, ,� ! s �� _, �^}''�I"ti'",'r,'r':'IdS'r►�l�-�s�� r f '!a .f° �? 'i :'� 4;i� }}i .1� f/ ,q� At1:e.G ,? r }`i!: �\, fi..+s:ro �,, `�' ,t"1 �{ j:�;;}}��]j11 ,� r t '2�'�t �J'.��..iY'tl;? + 1 + S. ♦ •/ab ,;I r ,H.2 'r '`v. }` � 'ul�-y .Lti r :° -'' �'<<''+�%.' �`'•�'ii!..s r 7,� � �J !� �f,��'S11'�}4 2 r � i ' 12�e � 1 t'�{ ,:• ;ti. «� '� 9D t� �� �t j"i'�Y,'` �.ti1, �<:, �, i r Yk„$ t 4vi fi.° �e!{'��'� rj :l l ! 2 �C°i� �. ►y ..�., pp5� r ,•r K .i; «, � �N-`-r � r ! rri � .r��.H�i3e S. ( n 4' ���isS�`:t;�av��,: ,+- �' tt� k.�, S. •Ir.'. it '� '� �L :,S.:�y 1` i� Y ,..... „. ;�r tT ..Ti. . ♦ 2!. - n. ,y'Y6" Yi'�Y.�; �+_ `, t �c 4�' RS. ��� - ���• ra i ,' ir' �:. 1 4: .4� � li�.,, a ! pi � '♦yS. �� ..,.r,'. �,.i' `�.;t,r.i,-rx,t,.t.. ,�,.r :ir•ti,ay..� •�.��+r xt�i y. ,t./ �. 4ti...,- 7y,q.igy,. .... [$ „i,wriiRj�y'fe �."�bw33'. fl•'.+r.M '�-•c''9'+y�w•wh�n�. ;l L+. ,�..�.I.,'Y• �1 �f�t� s,s v...•t1rd���� •. t r r�`,�r � �.. ► � ',•Y� 1 Vim .,� . .....r ZF�M.«^,1 u �i •"�,. ,� p ii.2�J ' .i. ,1•': * f�iMll,• a:ar •+"r`lt:.v��'>y.+, .� . �41 4�rvr. ^t 1A .d1�I I Q �:1�..^` :� F�l��{s4?tr�,.'6:.. ...,v ,,,;; ,m® ,fA ,� I�+(,�`1 , � F'' it •w.Rr t tfilr i{`/� i�r(� ' �� a �y},M�lv.'+4� �' a. y , t!M r �'� �} N 0 N 0 0 Lj If Mello 0 iu 0 En Aerial Photograph y 1997 Aerial Photograph M Exhibit 2 N to Z O tan o The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 10cc 3 July 5, 2000 1.4 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The entire Crossings at Huntington Beach is currently c. Siting of a portion of the buildings in designated as CR-F2-SP-MU(F9)-Commercial Regional proximity to their primary street frontage - 0.5 FAR-Specific Plan Overlay-Mixed Use Overlay- to convey a visual relationship to the street 1.5 (MU-0.5 (C)/25du/acre in the City's General and.sidewalks; Plan. The site has been designated for commercial land uses since the mid 1960s. The commercial regional c. Design of the exterior periphery of the designation anticipates anchor department stores, structures to contain shops, restaurants, promotional retail, restaurants, entertainment, and display windows, and other elements that similar region-serving uses. The site has been provide visual interest to parking area and designated within General Plan Subarea 5A requiring the street elevation; that a Specific Plan with special regulations and standards be established for "Huntington Center." The d. Inclusion of a "public square" as a following Design and Development policies are gathering place of public activity in multi described in the General Plan for the mall property: tenant regional centers; Design and Development e. Clear identification of building entrances; LU 10.1.15 f. Use of landscaping that provides a three- Require that regional commercial developments be dimensional character; designed to convey the visual sense of an integrated center by consideration of the following principles: g. Encourage the provision of public art; a. Use of multiple building volumes and h. Inclusion of consistent and well-designed A masses and highly articulated facades to signage integrated with the building's reduce the visual sense of . large scale architectural character, including o "boxes"; pedestrian-oriented signage;and o 0 b. Use of roofline of height variations to i. Design of parking structures to be visually o visually differentiate the building massing integrated with the commercial buildings. and incorporation of recesses and setbacks (I-LU 1, 1-LU 4, I-LU 5, 1-LU 7, I-LU10 and on any elevation above the second floor 1-LU 13) Q above grade; y am H y Z O y O N �O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 11 co, July 5, 2000 _ I 1.5 ZONING PROVISIONS The Crossings at Huntington Beach is presently zoned fq.'`-- � z General Commercial ("CG") to accommodate a full range of retail and service businesses. The site is also tr', luIlia r , k, within a sub-area of the merged Redevelopment g p Project Areas. The adoption of this Specific Plan will supersede the existing zoning and establish a new set of development regulations. The Crossings at Huntington Beach site currently ' consists of a number of activities. The site contains ,r approximately 960,000 square feet of retail „ commercial space, some of which is currently unoccupied. This site has been developed in numerous 4 phases over the past 30 years. Current market pressures and extent of adjacent competing retail View of Starbucks and rttes Noble from Center Avenue activities are driving the need to develop a new exciting commercial center for the City. 1.6 STATE MANDATED REQUIREMENTS To comply with the State of California legislated mandates, the City of Huntington Beach has adopted several plans to deal with regional issues including Air uality, Congestion Management, Growth Management and Transportation Demand a _Management Plans. All development within the 1p ` t= Specific Plan area shall comply with the applicable e ' provisions of the following plans: a .1•�c •'��'��''�`''�` to �4 m a m View of Mervyn'vfroin Center Avenue y ° � N O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 12 0 �, July 5, 2000 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan The South Coast Air Quality Management Plan program, and a capital improvements program for (AQMP) requires measures to reduce traffic traffic and transit. congestion, improve air quality, and requires that cities develop Air Quality components within their Growth Management Plan General Plans. These measures include Regulation XV, a program which requires employers of more than one A Growth Management Plan (GMP) is required to hundred (100) persons to. prepare trip reduction implement the passage of Orange County Measure M plans, and a requirement for jurisdictions to prepare approved in the 1990 election. Its purpose is to ensure an air quality component in the General Plan. that the planning, management, and implementation of traffic improvements and public facilities are The City of Huntington Beach is subject to all local adequate to meet current and projected needs. The jurisdiction requirements set forth by the AQMP. The City has an approved Growth Management Element, City has adopted an Air Quality Element and which meets the requirements for Measure M Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, funding, and an adopted Transportation Demand which incorporates AQMP measures. Management Ordinance. Congestion Management Plan Transportation Demand Management The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is required Transportation Demand Management (TDM) by Assembly Bill 471 (Proposition 111), subsequently measures are generally directed at increasing auto modified by Assembly Bill 1791. This Bill requires occupancy, decreasing peak hour usage, and y every urbanized county to adopt a CMP; the County of managing demand for transportation facilities. The Orange has prepared a CMP which includes the City City's TDM Ordinance is part of its compliance with o of Huntington Beach. The CMP requires mitigation of the Growth Management Plan. Development owners, o traffic impacts of development, as well as trip operators and tenants will be required to implement p reduction programs. The City of Huntington Beach has the City's TDM Ordinance. Go completed the mandated components of the CMP v including level of service standards, trip reduction M a a y y Z O O p The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 13 0 � co July 5, 2000 .............. pal • ULM! U 5.1 WIN, Kiwi IMPLEMENTATION 2.0 ADMINISTRATION The City's Planning Director shall administer the Text Amendment and action by the Planning provisions of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Commission and City Council. Specific Plan in accordance with the State of California Government Code, Subdivision Map Act, the 2.1 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PHASING Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and the City's PLAN General Plan. The Specific Plan development procedures, The proposed Specific Plan project is anticipated to regulations, standards and specifications shall occur in one (1) phase. The existing Village Retail supersede the relevant provisions of the City's Zoning (Barnes & Noble Staples, and Circuit City) and any remaining Department Stores (such as, Burlington Code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Coat Factory, Montgomery Wards, or Mervyns) will Ordinance) as they currently exist or may be amended receive major exterior renovation, new enhanced in the future. Any development regulation and paving, and landscaping. The demolition, building requirement not addressed in the Specific infrastructure and utility work of the new Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations construction, will be scheduled and built such that the in place at the time of an individual request. remaining center remains in operation with minimum inconvenience to the remaining tenants. Construction The Specific Plan may be amended. The Planning is anticipated to take I8-24 months from start of Director shall have the discretion to determine if demolition. requests for modification to the Specific Plan are minor or major. 2.2 METHODS AND PROCEDURES Minor modification is a simple amendment to the N The methods and procedures for implementation of o exhibits and /or text which does not change the o the Specific Plan shall be on a project by project basis. P meaning or intent of the Specific Plan. Minor co modifications may be accomplished administratively The adoption of the Specific Plan alone will not y by the Director with a report to the Planning require infrastructure improvements to the project Commission. Major modifications are amendments to area. Physical improvements will only coincide with the exhibits and/or text which are intended to change the commencement of the first project and approval of C the meaning or intent of the Development Concept, a Site Plan Review. The Specific Plan is a regulatory y � Design Guidelines,or Development Regulations. Major document and is not intended to be a Development y y modifications require a Zoning Agreement. o 00 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 15 0 �, July 5 2000 2.3 SITE PLAN REVIEW All new projects within the Crossings at Huntington this service shall be established by a separate Beach Specific Plan project area shall e implemented resolution of the City Council. alb ml emented p p J p {�' through a Site Plan Review process. A Site Plan Review shall be required for all new development activity, The Planning Director has the authority to approve, with the exception of interior improvements, general conditionally approve, or deny a Site Plan Review. A maintenance and repair or other minor construction Site Plan Review application may also require analysis activities that do not result in an intensification of the and comments from various departments of the City. use. 'I'Iicsc exceptions may be subject to other Ituildin,4 In order to approve it Site flan Review application, the and Public Works permits and approvals prior to Planning Director shall make the following findings: commencement. • The request is consistent with the City's Application to the City for a Site Plan Review shall General Plan and all applicable requirements include a narrative of the proposed activity along with of the Municipal Code;and preliminary development plans and drawings. The narrative shall consist of a project description 0The requested activity will not be detrimental identifying the intended services offered with square to the general welfare of persons working or feet, hours and days of operation, number of residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the employees, and other information as appropriate. value of the property and improvements in the Supplemental to the application submission, project neighborhood;and plans shall be prepared including the following preliminary plans: site plan, floor plans, elevations, The requested activity will not adversely affect landscaping,grading, fencing and signage plans;other the Circulation Plan;and plans may be required depending on the complexity of the project. The entire parcel shrill be plotted with 0The requested activity will comply with the � dimensions and all pertinent data and include provisions of the Crossings at Huntington o dimensions to the nearest intersecting public street Beach Specific Plan and other applicable o and identify all street names. In addition, all existing regulations or special conditions required of ca and proposed physical features and structures on the the project. o subject property and abutting properties shall be c plotted. The action of the Planning Director shall be final unless appealed to the Planning Commission by the The application shall also include a legal description of applicant submitting a Site Plan Review application y. the property, identification of the uses for each room within ten calendar days of action. Such Appeals for a a on the floor plans and a list of all the building Site Plan Review shall be subject to the procedures y'Z materials and exterior colors. An application fee for outlined in the City's Zoning and Subdivision y N Ordinance. 00 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 16 July 5, 2000 • � . A Site Plan Review approval shall be valid for a period The proposed Tentative Map isconsistent with the General Plan, of one year. Additional one year extensions may be Specific Plan, and all other applicable requested for a maximum of two years. Such an provisions of the City's adopted codes extension request must be made in writing by the and regulations;and original applicant, property owners, and/or authorized designee,a minimum of thirty days prior to • The site is physically suitable for the the expiration of the current approval. If construction type and density of development activity does not commence within the approval or proposed;and extension period, the entitlement shall be terminated. All final decisions on site plan review proposals shall • The design of the subdivision or the be the responsibility of the Planning Director. proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial 2.4 PARCEL MAPS environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or 'file project area may be subdivided through a Parcel their habitat;and Map process. Parcel Maps shall be prepared • The design of the subdivision or the consistent with the Mater Plan Concept to facilitate type of improvement will not conflict development. These maps shall identify the with easements acquired by the public infrastructure and improvements necessary to at large, for access through or use of, support the anticipated projects,subject to review by property within the proposed the City's Public Works and Fire Departments. subdivision unless alternative Upon recordation, Parcel Maps may be further easements, for access or for use, will be divided and/or adjusted by filing a subsequent provided. Parcel Map or a Lot Line Adjustment, pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. A o Tentative and Parcel Map may be approved, or conditionally approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer providing the proposal is found to CO be in compliance with the Specific Plan y a In order to approve the Tentative Map the Planning Director shall make the following findings: ? y y Z O y N 00 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 17 July 5, 2000 2.5 REUSE/CHANGE OF USE REVIEW 2.7 REQUEST FOR DEVIATION Any proposal to reuse and/or change the use of a The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan previously approved and constructed development, Development Regulations are intended to encourage within the project area, will be subject to additional projects which create an aesthetically pleasing review by the Planning, Department. The additional appearance, enhance the environment, and facilitate review will follow the same procedures outlined in the innovative quality architectural design with an Site Plan Review process. A "like for like" change of adaptation to the surrounding environment. use shall only be subject to the requirements for a new certificate . of occupancy; however any new Deviations . pertain only to the Development construction beyond that shall require a new Site Plan Regulations of the Specific Plan and may be granted at Review. In addition any proposed physical the time of Site Plan Review for special circumstances modifications to the existing structure and/or site and/or unique architectural features. shall be subject to additional review and approval of the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building Requests for Deviation may include but are not limited permits. The Planning Director may refer individual to building height, setbacks, open.space, parking, and projects to Design Review Board for review and as landscaping. Deviation requests, up to ten (10) final arbiter of compliance with the Specific Plan. Any percent of any single standard, may be considered by decision by the Planning Department may be appealed the Planning Director. Deviations greater than ten within ten calendar days to the Planning Commission. (10) percent must be approved by a Variance application before the Zoning Administrator, subject 2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION to the procedures outlined in the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Development and construction The 'vollin;{ and Developillcal Slrtnd►urds of all phasing of selected provisions rind fcatures piny be anticipated development activity I,or the Crossings tit approved by the Director concurrent with it Site flan Huntington Beach area have been identified in the Review and shall not require a Request for Deviation Specific Plan. Development project requests shall be or Variance to the Specific Plan. o subject to environmental review as mandated by the o California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Deviations shall be allowed when, in the opinion of Q Planning Director shall impose any applicable the Planning Director, significantly greater benefits o environmental mitigation measures, as specified in the from the project can be provided than would occur if c environmental analysis, as conditions of approval on all the minimum requirements were met. Some individual Site Plan Reviews. Such conditions of additional benefits which may make a project eligible approval shall describe the time period and manner in for consideration include: greater open space, greater CX which the mitigation measure must be satisfied. setbacks, unique or innovative designs, public open a y space, and the use of energy conservation or y Z innovative technology. The Planning Director may o 0 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 18 z co July 5, 2000 approve the Request for Deviation in whole of in part 2.9 SEVERABILITY upon making the following findings. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or • Promotes better design, environmental and land portion of this title, or any future amendments or planning techniques and contribute to• the additions hereto, is for any reason held to be invalid or economic viability of the community, through unconstitutional by the. decision of any court of aesthetically pleasing architecture, landscaping competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect and site layout; and the validity of the remaining portions of this title, or any future amendments or additions hereto. The City Will not be detrimental to the general health, hereby declares that it would have adopted these titles welfare, safety and convenience of the and each sentence, subsection, clause, phrase, or neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental portion or any future amendments or additions or injurious to the value of property or thereto, irrespective of the fact that any one or more improvements of the neighborhood or of the City sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, portions or any in general;and future amendments or additions thereto may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. • Is consistent with objectives of.the Specific Plan in achieving a project adapted to the area and compatible with the surrounding environment; and • Is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, and comply with State and Federal Law. 2.8 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS 0 Specific Plan Amendments, other than a Minor o Modification as previously described (Section 2.0), p shall be made through the Zoning Text Amendment o process; subject to consideration and approval of the o Planning Commission and City Council in accordance ; with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning Q and Subdivision Ordinance. Such Amendments may y include changes to the Development Concept, Design NO Guidelines policies and the introduction of alternative y z Development Regulations. ° 0 0 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 19 0�, July 5, 2000 K1, 7 , � 4s I 1571Yr..ye„ ti MNr 'A4! w.b7 ttwr as .r... .. � �'vAWv'i7j �l'A l �a"1 ►.+'�`''r i . r•c f .ri�"i« . .�r t, !M L. +-w�'�5�-�+l t�. ��� i �.1Nw�UN �W�4�+ 1.� �' ✓. �:q�r ��^�{ �� Mom! f y .1FC)�� i��ry •1.1. � wn.. V � i I "'!Y. �q�• !:� � ��ll,•��•� ���`�� 1 +e itY�"�� {'!I .. r v' '�•�Yi Y�M �tiy•�i��rr• 41 � � ��; I ^i'r;:. ,` ;/1?fi:` �•..�Illa"74"�.��j :�N'�A ��` S � �,��� �f,��,;,,_„fi;2t�,,.k .,/' �a f. frl. ,.�ry:a S. • � �� 1 � lYr 4'i] a` ��v•l�sn /l - '� i � i:.:in`s.ri-:7 �t� 'yat.W.+jr;, yr,""vW&w �' Y f •. !.lit �h•'�/ + tti n'I. ,:� � I, iln'"F - • mot �''7 P`�JI 'r' `1.�4f�!1r� w�Q ��'r��. wo .�4. 1� 'rr� Y�1TrX �' � r •+1��++i�t.`��w i *~� a�331; ����a7 »��„ Nil lEa ��} V�/�a fC4?i•1�1{ .a +�fa+� �$pE�r.y�•.�, ►Y 3"1''"1"� �n �A ��"11•{�yl ...,.�..�`{1 � �■ L�Q�. fk*,I... w d i.7i �, t. �+� I 5 J i + �.1 'w '" �•/« i �4"-^ '4i 4. ^i 76 Jj�1 7R ,�■ 4`1 `�i a ' f �' �Mr� :'.+t I?_.� J j►;'A� h ,°A 4 ILL°... �.,. -.r - ±.-- 1.'1,. i�, ,AI. F 'r r ?� �wr.y' r+'p. �� I' 7}tyf+ ���j... oil _Jlr�• .:'7""T'� r }11:4)...:` LI'l� •�.- _ t tt 4, 72' ul 11 IIIII1111111., Uul:. !I .I .,,II. , ..-_`K!'2�"7r '•►.:.�._ ,' irY Y `7 "� ♦. i "° �rn;rm rll,ril mrrmrrrn;rrlrmrrrn nl I I u trylr \�,\ I I,,,.fir n,t l.r., 1 1 4r�114ll�.JIIIJ4l�?,p jJ ,.�• �nl, f. .'--• 9M �I; .�Il. •'� li;nlrI'I n' 1LLL'l_ 'P. I .r':1' .'r ~u % ,�. C:Ir ""'' ,,'�- ' ,�:�:�'`• ,�\� l) i ( •1- _ ,s<I,Ilrr.l I.,al _ — '�,:J.>,eJJ!',1,�`� .,,7 , � ^�% � ;� ,l. ( `♦ ',\ . \I .t�. '� �GfjJ ZI J. G. _ _ � U nrl : • w V � .. •Via__--�'_'_51!1(u1:11wki1Z...:L:;;.: r ., r - - I I : - + i,:..wueo i � a i;ait� v •�: ran i e�' �','r�ry' 'L'..�y_ �.� a S��ou%x�t' \ \ !f - I ( 'f vk ''�'��Y(('r t��-(i�(Y``. �1r� i' �> {qi��r'' rti +� d�% I I .II. ���1yyI((,� I C�I. •+• I I 'W 7�'Wky.+d++ �u, �r,�'✓�+� F 7.y".; �, ,t GIs 4�s.r ,..wtvF� ''';'r�� �� �3�10 d ,j�iil�lKeMi-l.Ulj 'Ff1� r`�',? �� } > ♦;3',,,;A al F. 1 M ul: w.. Y rdr yr+.� s�' 4�$ L � f_ IT .!I��'f� !7 r7 If.?. XS.l:[:�I li`{ri II •fY� t p k•j.l•�tH� !r 7 I .. .- �f 1 { 7`�" ..µ ,r,� � - 1 I4�: "� pr S rl f! e�s��b�1 c i .r- ¢lil. .III Y.11 l� •' ;�t.. f _ -U(Y}4�:'f.t in rP^^w a x if rlj+ ?.a" `?� +G l+i�ry.` u ��i�`s,F t f• } pa"n.i '�`! t11'.�..1��2a '11�j f / 1 I _ �r�' ii:; Y r'!:a .c;' z n I+� it li' «a.1;�� I "emu,�, '. p - 1 n..wn.rc � \,` •.-Y . 1 n' .r ' y � _ � to.y,1 l J m "'„,y ��aj' j�i�'f�I " a, i ♦ / r '� kY (� ,.r V � .;-: ° ... 7,7 f 4k XXt� I gfµrtfl�f h��tl »�Y , YV,i rb�.i/ ;�1� In.Ir..' �_..� •, ��- I .. 1r, ...�:. ..� '• ,� s��/ T N.p e!*, r 'z5�` �.�t3 i I I � ,are.- �.` ",;, •�\ • II ((.I,I,n. ...a '.I ?d ,-.: r.l, . . :.:' I �i ,?3r�y,S'iif�'�'.I�t�is.('IKiI �s'y��l•,t i•i aq s irk I �iY� �e»ar.l' �` ` c •,`` I .7> ... a, 'S.r Kam) ` 3""(r )' E7' _ �... .�•it :� Y t N, > I(Ii.• Cl I a , ' �' (!I bT: G Ir, I II -, ,11 ¢ � `�. -'�'�.-. � � J-.- � 1/. e- 1 , III I I - � �14..� �- � � � - I - __ � T�SIS_� � � ''�3�• � �z� _ Clll 4',!`.; _-� _ n i *'f,.. may,, ,,,,m.n,,,, .r-'� :i• t � ..',.�1 { ,.;ir:� i:`... I(91..'�:Irl --%:. r�,r r...f� ♦ 'k l �;yr k�.,3F,.;% I III_ - _•Il I II lyl •..11v1 .. }F. � ..�....., I_III•'1 r 11((I IIII III !III_. dy't:l:'S,�1,4 ` I, , 1 3,41!:.; ttSl: 1 �r: 1 .„ ; — VAN' kt f„{,flr4•,r}} ° �,',rl t r Ilk°.l ;i eife slit, ",r o I Ilt C ` � .... Ix 7,,----�•e-��"-Ir�lanf l9.�`_i .'.' ,�ASi �.�L �i lar , ,!'r IFE Nrr� 3r� .�IE sP ��! 1+1 t r�- a.i' L.t i _} •Loh,'.ma>n.w»I•»,uu.vr,'.evll iV„dun»I,n...lKr w,u,a' ' pi""` .-LI:_.r.rit ,a�f if T- O I.Iw.fi C Illustrative Conceptual Master plan W � Exhibit 3A y y Z Note: This illustrative shows a hypothetical development scenario on thePIVject site. ° The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 21 0 CO July 5, 2000 ,IHH D { , r 4.+} 4}N�II�} "limThn�14111119ffl t� 1eW1 I •''tom y0�,• IV AVLPI�dL. Q ; II'� � � 1,11 tti�(Y!1rJt111111(I�li�l,II H❑�I I�1 r �� h ' � - {y� � ll 1: llll VIJ t ,e r°1, '7jy�;�ij III'}1f(11'flfEiT7RI,R' yt ? /{v{. �r�t' I�j �I ri r riff it'ri tyr ' 1 'P v✓„a.._5� '•I IIII1��If4 ��;II il't{ �- � L -t J�r!'e.�r,^� �.-1"/\ {.♦:f,� k}. ���,�^r 1.S � i�� i r�w�'ef�, �.�I. � �'/r{t x\ '/I�w' 4y7`s.,,, I ' I III { ' .. w ., �t i:-• _. { I' -trr r , a�r/�. �' -.f r. liil. _ Y�? In 411I -— _---� 4 � FnIN ER AYENU ' ,wtw.Ymr.iane v+.rLwre�n:nnuw,taw�ua,-r.ew r.u�aws --1 I7�— Via.=.--G'—�1 _, N ` O O Q O O Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan a Exhibit 3B a y Note.' Tlus illustrative shows a hypothetical development scenario on the project site. c O N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 22 0�, July 5, 2000 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 3.0 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan The Crossings at Huntington Beach provides for a development concept provides for a planned retail, range of employment opportunities in professional, dining, and entertainment complex in the northern retail, service, food service, and entertainment; and portion of the City of Huntington Beach. The Specific will broaden the employment base of the community. Plan establishes the general type, location, The Specific Plan establishes a clear development architectural style and character of all development concept to assure the facilitation of a cohesive regional within the site's boundaries, while allowing for shopping center. Design measures encompassing site creative design ideas on individual projects consistent planning, area landscaping, building architecture, with an overall concept. streetscapes, pedestrian linkages, setbacks and signage have been established. Adherence to these details and The Crossings at Huntington Beach will be a 63 acre to the established Design Guidelines will create a master planned regional commercial retail, dining, unique and integrated development. and entertainment facility with supporting services. The Specific Plan is designed to allow for development The illustrative conceptual master plans (Exhibit 3A & In a manner that is compatible with the surrounding 313) depict scenarios utilizing the various guidelines conununily and City of Ilunlillglon Beach. The described in the Specific min. 'fhc plans provide Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific flan provides potential layouts identifying building orientation and an opportunity for a variety of quality regional serving placement, parking design and access, roadway commercial uses, consistent with the City's General configuration, entryways and landscaping. The plans Plan. are not intended to reflect an ultimate design situation ; because a large variety of other development patterns The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan and activities may evolve which are also consistent o provides the framework and guidelines necessary to with the Specific Plan policies, guidelines and o create a unique, high quality, visitor serving, regulations. Q retail/dining/entertainment complex. The site's o proximity to regional transportation systems makes The Specific Plan recognizes that although the main the area ideal for a variety of compatible uses and construction of the project will occur at one time, the activities. The development concept is designed in ultimate buildout of the property may not occur a concert with the area's history of commercial activities immediately. In fact, building pads may be established y. and the community's need for a strong self-sufficient without associated building construction but shall be "y economy. landscaped in a park-like setting until such time as Z development is osed. Therefore this zoning proposed. document anticipates future expansions of the o The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 23 July 5, 2000 development site. In order to address this concern, flexibility has been incorporated into the Specific Plan Development Regulations (Section Four). This flexibility in development guidelines is intended to accommodate future market trends and tenant needs, without sacrificing the intended high-quality character of the project area. The objective of the Specific Plan is to implement the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan by defining the physical development of the Crossings at Huntington Beach site. Included in this approach are the establishment of land use, circulation, infrastructure, landscape and architectural design characteristics for the project area. The Specific Plan consists of a number of major components which will guide the development process including the Circulation Plan, Design Guidelines, and Development Regulations. Any reuse, subdivision, or new development shall be subject to the provisions of the Specific Plan. Refer to Section 2.3 Site Plan Review. The Specific Plan identifies and requires sufficient z infrastructure and public facilities to adequately and efficiently support any and all anticipated uses and o activities. These improvements will coincide with any c upcoming development project. This upfront effort CO will allow for buildout of the Specific Plan in an a expedited manner, subject to compliance with the a Specific Plan and the Environmental Analysis. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan y identifies effective land planning and design a y regulations techniques in a flexible format which can o take advantage of ideas and opportunities presented by y N future tenants and users. o The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 24 6 6 July 5, 2000 3.1 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USES financial institutions, and similar regional-serving uses. However, regional commercial uses do not The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan include some commercial businesses, such as auto recognizes unique developmcnt opportunities within repair, which is typically a local serving commercial the project area. The purpose of the Specific Plan•is to use. Future activities for the area will depend on create a distinct cluster of activities and allow for market conditions and may include a variety of individual project development and tenant occupancy activities consistent with the City's General Plan. These to occur in a timely manner, within an overall Master development activities may be either an expansion of Plan Concept. This approach recognizes development existing facilities and/or independent new projects. patterns, market conditions and establishes sufficient The project area can accommodate a total flexibility to provide for the opportunity of a variety of development of 1,100,640 square feet of regional activities within the Specific Plan area. commercial uses. The City of Huntington Beach General Plan identifies typical permitted uses under the Commercial Regional land use category. These uses include, but are not limited, to, anchor department stores, outlet stores, promotional ("big box") retail, retail commercial, restaurants, entertainment, professional offices, 0 N 0 0 Q 0 0 N a y <p 4 ay y'Z O 0 0 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 25 06 July 5, 2000 `- �� t�kPHHt AVENp � Aminrl{�rntilirlllni��rtl�l`Iltl1,10l'ilflil�tlTlitnlrl,'r,ilraRi�'* ,7T �TiT�,���i�� '1Ri���I��R� — ~-•�. ';`=� •. a;.;;. mrmrrmmm{rmmmrmmmtim,mriz' I:pIIIII11IIHIIHffn t{ "�p•1 hNNI!IIIIIIII 11111!IHIIHI !uul,{ i1111111111111H11h19 I� l �� '� �. Olt i..H E to �t '._ , {: •! llllllili� rn„„ l t l:. a.�: I. (:`.. ••L. K, {J \ \ "Os n: I ' rI�►�••><f jIJ r , :1 F- 1 L- r \ �. ERAVEENuE 11!1t141!111111!!Il 11 ftllttt,ttll lllj•Wjjj t: y.. .. {{ - I TT- b*4 hIL" Go 66666"Gelbe tTsTt�I}I1W............. a 1 1 I_ _ ° �"`;° t, - -- ---ttt-. ';', - rl�y�: � •',::I H+HIIH{+IHRIH� �: .\� �'�-\ 1 � •..I}'S. F_I�.i 7 5 =ty 5 1�' i3 1 1 r. �,i,I�,r,�r w,r �t�. �^ u j 'i j _. _ • nr.w.a - `( ,�;�� ' t, ¢..... ........ —�_-t, ;_ ;r y: .a ,_� 1 ` n �` i �\�!I!IH►IIIHII!w _ �:.�. _ .�` , � i .,! il.j �I II4 ..� }IIIIHI' 'k 1l li}li4 F, , _- { qq _t •.N•ttiN ..Naa.�•. J� •• N..I�..'.NN•N ii•n,>' �1111f'1(��1'•� iuwii> \\ / 1 j j'11'r'! r, 1 _—.. -.� 1--� lo:., ram• p I� ;„ Y N:�. 1 '.: 1 1 1. i 1 11 r w,.,• �r.i, �,! Y I : 1 1 ! s . Grnnnnril.. G� xln r� 4 rj�V j m C:5 E5 C.:7 C'7 _1 r7 ., Il..�ullllf� :: I dt - - • �,, a S T.Wm!tlutllll.IW11 `II,IIIIIRItlllllllllllllllltllil!I11111111111!1111'I IIIUIIIItII—'"—"� - 4��'�y ,11� I ..N.Nw• •••.•N r••• •NM.+LN.+rN•• 1'�!{I'i�!Iil i I n 'n I I I. I '�IYIl1l'J{K'�lYK'YVil�. nuu°I1u11�'u�j�j I rl I I a _...- �yS '►T • � N! NRR. � "•N l Il Eu vr:Nue. -,.,uua::uv ..r .._._.-�-� cu.•arn,mumuwm.u.wS S..Z=_'.'-"•_. _ -'_' •�r.MtpM,rl IRvn,/v.•A W(N9.Mi YB.,,NMwrNM%,.V4 MCMI fn O N O O Q O O C Pedestrian Plaza I Walkways Plan Exhibit 4A _a y y Z O y � O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 26 0 40 July 5, 2000 � ---'r ...; •EF•NTf.N/�y(Jr7(76c�__ � „� h .� `�. s<nunn�untnnnl 111 IIIJ u w I Ifl I I I I 1 Ili III I �w I ��' �'\'i� ••\ t,r/ n I r.»il����r111 I►i���ifUl�Il i I�f ♦NS -�►T:._. ! \ �` J rTfiffiiTi}iT11T1i1T ?((� i5' I i �5� rorq lm I {�I�}I�hfif}fllfll(T'L} sr s >7 `4 � � '`'• NilIIINllfll}IIIEIH HillIII�Nil��4.ulu�- I - •_r - � - �^I I III, �.q � `aY 4 c�. 'i '�. ' Y �•�\� \��\� t}�S �11 I� I 1 1 I I { .� RxFl St. L._.� I..-1 l:».I f_.1 _� - - - _ \ i 1\•1.y� �ilr , II il,((.- - n n..4..1 ::: I.I I ••• NN►► CI .-. .ri _. - �_ � ZZ, 9 � _ �\���\ !/l (i G��• 1_ lilll llLlilil]ll1 liLllJLL iIL Lil11W1 I ►►► �� r - 71 �O �y r r II� I i _ .�l .; •►N•NN•u••NN �"'►a.,�_a '�- �'/•Jr�;� � � - � � _ Jlllltl i� �• - ��F l I I I '•'D'�'' k -�'"`a %/r.� r r i }I :} } rnr.t ''�' r •� F i M a f ;/y3 n i <�� / b i' w�lk�ll11N4�N ♦•►N•►/� 1 'I� l 11 I- •enu v � .t✓ {.-F . I( � � � � S II.ri`i r T ��h r {� 1 I I ( •�� �;.II� Il I .. wv,:r /r 1j�j/� �^ ,.`..• i 4a i' F"J i/ I� N��}}}}ii}}I}Ir}}I���.I} � :�,r�r'._�� . I v �f Iy14 ilk ._I '7 T'!>+'r1j!r Y�` l+,a.•'' """` r 2.17 1i l� i.� II •�-�..____r—' ri {SiIrx .� Y ;_ y ..s...N.*s.+»'-;�•,y.,N r�+-. Y" r:a�i;� ''�1}�{}I1T1}i11tII i�}IU = �`/f�/•�»,,,nj �t -- jIli •_ _ J r/, , ', '`,�''. ; I�� r ` irk r r, �--i-���H1IIIt}i+ilt}I'� - sry�.y�rr��J�,�•. �� � ..,. .I I �_� .,i, L_' 1 _- i r '4"h�:t rl j/ � .J. } `,2J w / 4><. �rrY Y tt°r;I = r��' T' \ �```'°�•.•„ � -. J � IA, a;f. [� �`��✓/,� I„•.� • �; t�7`��" I L;I l 11 '} r_o cNNN•••NN•q•N••�••N•��lr•N•►•••N•►•►•NN•} •NNE `llJ�,( � •.!.•. ioi�cl �� �� � '"'.�.\ ��., il� Dill' Sr ' :' •-.' \ c 4.1 i -- 4- ti'' i '-Ui11L t` r a /✓% l�t.�, 1`.� D I ELT I I � [�7iifli(i?ii4.� i � '` t � � J7Ri c _ ( ✓�, !!�r. Ir. ...'I U J 1 {= 1 unu! I rr !.' r ,"KIIULW _ {al # ��•f�� I - Illliltl nnl n,non u I ni n ni our 'II"I _ 111 y l ►N••�► _ I� `+N `�',Y•►,{l•I►•r��iilYr•�ris�►ul�l�.l•il►•�s a=�►•*Ni ��i►��..i'fiYl+iY y+�W�r�i1*k+1��the:.) 'ii���r✓14 'iiY�tll'iH I -- � !..:�)� ll�� Z EQINGER AICENUE vr.Iwurrr�naunnwrttnalu.wu�t✓ne v:vyunr+MM�.lwk ,— .I -, O O CO O Pedestrian Plaza / Walkways Plan y Q Exhibit 4B y S y to O 00 y N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 27 o 0 � o'b, Z Cal July 5, 2000 I REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USE POLICIES: Strada, the Plaza and the Colonnade. A pedestrian 3.1.1 Any expansion beyond the initial site plan walkway system is also used to connect the Crossings approval, shall be through the site plan review process at Huntington Beach with public transportation (see section 2.5). facilities and surrounding network of public streets (see Exhibit 4A and 4B). 3.1.2 Retail, dining, entertainment, and related uses PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AND WALKWAYS POLICIES: drawing from a regional commercial/market area shall be the primary intended activity within the project area. 3.2.1 Individual developments and activity areas within the specific plan area shall be linked through a 3.2 PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AND WALKWAYS series of pedestrian walkways which culminate in an interconnected system of pedestrian plazas creating a The Crossings at Huntington Beach Master Plan variety of open spaces. identifies open space areas which can accommodate outdoor commercial activities, seasonal recreation and 3.2.2 A pedestrian walkway system will link or entertainment activities, and casual pedestrian connect all future development pads to the central meeting places. These pedestrian plazas become the portion of the Crossings at Huntington Beach. central focus of a number of commercial nodes within the project area. In addition to the major plaza areas, 3.2.3 All pedestrian walkways shall be designed and there are a number of entry nodes which serve as the landscaped consistent with the overall theme of the interfacing links between the vehicular and the Crossings at Huntington Beach. pedestrian areas. 3.2.4 Pedestrian walkways as shown on Exhibit 4A and The clustering of open space plazas are connected 4B shall be incorporated on the Landscape and through pedestrian walkways. These walkways also Technical Site Plans and shall comply with American o serve as a link between the variety of Village Disabilities Act requirements. The walkways shall N commercial facilities and the Entry Plaza, the Village include shade trees, seating every 200 feet, decorative Q pavers,and lighting (see cross section on page 34). co 0 4 fn';a I' y I y'Z O U1 �O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 28 July 5, 2000 _Firl(rr(IfTllllllllilllht�GirlrllflL,llllllllllrll,lll„lillllr'f1111r,lIII,IIL 1 p/uflrllrlflrtllllill fllilr 11rllr,lil(11�TIIRI `` �` �� \ 1 FTTriTriTlITTrTiTTmTIOIlrrir'irlTTiHTTITrr[ 114 toot a I 1 •� r >t --1 d .` �\• ��°.. Ii lllui� 7.= . �,\` Y i� f i � �� a Nh(II111111�I1J-II I. , � _ l t � �1.�\• "II 7. f ? �'•` ER AVCNl1> L ', }ty ii..•.., 1 }trr v III{ ��'' I u su`eitretl `, Ln`/I NTTi1TfTiliTtirrirT,TT1 I.. �� �MMT l'I1J' W� � pt;p , , ,� • c � L�{� i( , -..I �_�--y� s '� �IIII!kfl�ll!fflfk!fp -i . I. '�� -. .,l ! I { �.... -., Rw's' Rw^;c' Rw 9r '.kiR � „ri:}" Ilk!1 R� •,,, �I - 'i •1 yl.. '. Irw Y aM Sn ,aP1!) aJ,i w1T' 1A1!1." /7.hi ( IN N71) IJIq{IY t1'11Q11f� \ Llll�+!k!k! �(,,� •�L `'+W �� ., .. �.,,... ,. ���r •�Illl( �!�/n � fdBitr� n. �`',,� � ?�Iq'rp � I Ii ti '_' x._ 4 tr.. it I - ,Yii tr• 1 } ( ifr Garrnl,irm I 7I' ( ,I y r U Lai`'r "t , ,.F;j I,,, - - _ _ �..t3F YI `t,- 'tU ll__ . f :.I L:_1 (� l_I CJ l_, CJ L_l I pry(♦r.:I 1 _ !-- .:��.. .: t-'. C l...7 L..J _ligll�.u101tlllllr' '>♦IllllllllllllllllllllLllll1111Wlllllllllllllllllllplilllull� 1 ,•- UIIIlUIIIWIIIplllllllf 11111111J1IlW1llllWUlT�� ♦ llllllUI1II1111111�Illlllllyllll�Ill111yJJll �,-• ,.,_EQINGE _JAVCNUE '.. -rrn..,ra.n..�..n.o.r,rwc..r,.ro.noMl�..eorw,wo..o-n ___....:..: I �,• ,,,•:-•^__ .._, ,., ___..... ._.+.-- — _,.. ...� , ..__ .__. _ --- --- ...._ .p_ _.,, -.-., u O O O Co • full Mn.v,nrM Un.ly,ullvuJ lnwv.,'vn � al.jur fMrw.y Y.mnncy . 11yi�.IIW InIu.ta,M, © MMv lxlru.uy aMlnlll'. 1 0.1y1.1./0.yh,M Pn rdllu.Tw.ry GiNMx 0.ixb lnl xlrb,(M,M,..ura�.a,.+l O PwiMv AMumxu.v dirw.y Lcxww.5iywliml • a.l.l•I*" „"�-�' Circulation Plan ofr.�,.w.J llr pn, n Proposed New Center Ave. Driveway Existing Off-Ramp y z Exhibit 5A y '° 00 0 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 29ZI co L July 5, 2000 t: , �;, -:' =mac; � 1--- _•_�� � �\ \` puttiiimiunrrrl n� �lmulrrmmuumrnnnnnnillIll rmm�rJ/u nnnmrnn-- mrnrnmril�ifrfi,>� r ()1fIIRiHI{fllilfrrn� ;. / , C_ I( '= = f1111HINkNliilf�ill hlilllllllill�1 Ili I �I1 �i; +; �`�''.,\ ��\~.,.� � rl � I,II 11111111111111111i111� I � I r« � •,\ { L�� YU � _ E. - 1 I i rt +I I�� 'tt " I �.' .' jr ,� ' r -�-s k e. ? �� '"..•,,',C,_\,,���\ s'f .......1 ...............--.. -.. 1 MIT IT �'I{ �.: 4 I I �• 1 1JS4 . _. _ _ ,. � 4 't wta h I ,a a^u tia>P en vv•,p _ nlae �ti, .`` 1� ..., i :;�e - ,.r t i y• ya I w•yl? ,Iriv °,,,Y sr E uNti'7 IKb+li. _ r .;I ^.ti Ty "'r. X 1 n dr ilr 5�A y:i Ywvl NI atulu, wu 1111 }Milli 1 ...,I I .. :.' t M4+N li•:�� � !/� �I��w L•r '�..r ���{..I N 1/IJ y� ti, � .a I ..._ _.• .._A ... ...,�..� .. Jll� �., t�W tpt 113 <� rn. !/'r �- ,�J ii,. t...� i r !i.' F � L.. S. q t� _. F L-' r}i.. rt F- +._ 'r_' 4�_ •1T11�.,, 1 f V`yi�,ylff�.rf +�i�Yf Ill.1, I� ^•�pr i��' } I I yp - - _ .:{_ _} `rr*1YL`+ �Lr'' { w1_ :•1- - _ = I^-I !?.� _ , � 4 f�'�{4' •�3 �Y_,�f.ij;r,� ),:. J I I .I - p, M '--' _ IFIIIIT(IIIII T " Ili• r t - u aim I EE � m L:7 4� L _I I IigllLll101 hull 1NJJIM11I1111„IILIIlllll,IT!!tIIJIIIl111111U111Ullllilll .:._.._ . i�ulpjlt���u�uuug «uiuwiytuuww> __ },lluuJllUlllLluulullllW111lNulplul „�(f '�l ti —•�— x y - wnr.ur.n�nr u,.ouwllauuroraa n[rinmwm Awo..a.r r--xe-..:__._., v--.---•.•••• N 0 Cb Cn a i ` � "• ° "" lN ....T�- Circulation Plan • M/My.Ir �nTure .✓f, uY.l.,µr r.rW,wn...w..+...:,.., � nrW Alam+n,glv.v,/IawLn.SISWI,N y, • .•�:,�.w•I..� Proposed New Center Ave. Driveway a y Proposed Off-Ramp o Exhibit 5A o N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 30 co July 5, 2000 J El • �'�,' . (:3linrnmm�unimrrr>�film inmrmmlRrrl milli m Tim munnn lw" �� I 3'•_fa3`r'•gt '�I �'. y`§.�i� �1q—i�L.'Y>� 111� -1� i- _/ ���\�\\�..�m�\�\°` J•S'Y _. ��'\ +\,�,f\\ ti 4t. •'i I I,I e -,'C i,_ 1 Y�`a ' '1''1'„a. , ;_ 1' �. )"•7e I - rR AW e`j •.- ;�I III II '.iJjl j.l:1�I[lt kts. hLJ'�11}'.I„�,..I -. h t ` \��,�•` '\`• �, OF to 41I �ISllil(1111)11111111111111IlISllLIIIlI1I11W1 L I 7 I .� II }, ,II •II�� � ��.Il h�',t � �/ r I �.I.ld lllll)lI ' if FE 7 1 - t I I �9II II _,:I {;i t 'I , r r jT'` � .. ��,.,1 f�" !r/r,,,r�rri/ I� r�e n�!y � ��F1y�,•> I '`� � m •��`,' if Wr11LIi711i11T11111?rI I'. } - I I uLr.r: rft�/ , f'.+r� :.•%/'�`�/� ).+i:G"f I I r � ;� III ��' ��� J,..! r/� �,. C% r/�.Jr r•4ar�p YC. J��Q r I _ rl i.I. I � � rf/ , t}� ( 3 ;� Nlif{)IflflflltllNlN \ ,II , li", %;✓r+,�'' ..Wr ;r•f � %'// "' .� ll 1,v r(�} pr+ 1 � I II II ,: , , � ��!�%/ ! �r , � /,�� + ✓, .%,� �I � UL1W11llLllalillfl_ ��'!L' 1 � ``, : ')��I II ' `� �I'w I �/it� � +r! ii,/✓ , .{�^ r�rrI�` + 7>, .+ r Lr � � i '. ttl'rrlill'ilfllillilrlll'— �. I �'C \ '\i : IItI ,I • ..��( ��� 1't ��� I�LL� a �{ I I �� ^rl L �I M iIMI 141111}IIII 1i , I //li�,✓.•/{41. I I( , � .- I_Ll_-.._I� I .::I 1' l; � 1 f��Ja•'.''r j,'lr���f�l ���..�1' + �? 'LI11i•�'+n F^`;� llJ()I h/! •rlFi`�) A11,ti;in r/�'�bl.�� r�;l,w rrr ••�,`rA p 7{ MIr ,.14 fY _I^a>lt il'r/ q WA -I 't f cam.L I _ _ - .}..-.. r .,.: ' ✓ / r 1 l Q. r _I C�rr1r111111I1 ` .){y III f.�r! 11111.111� 11 f lllllj{ll+ ` I - - V� L, LJ u L_.I u L� _J t (t� �y _ _ a•,,, C" iJ 1!lWIUIIWllW111Ill1111(twu W"WLWlllkllllO - ----I _ - IUlllrlll l lllllllllllllll r IIWOWi1ll1111UWllC L lllWllllii (� ...::-.—._—.. .� —��}=1: r.>• II III ..... �____�� L^J �—�� ERAVENUE t — EQING t I _.. 4l ._..._ I. .... 1.-._ O 'MIRAr(M;rtrNNlgwVLIIA'AIp.Np rE�I N.r.WRln�101�(rl�r ... .._.-. 4" . .....................,....... ......_�--_� .— ... r» •�_. r 1 Ir Q y a• l.r rlM...,.11rL,.Y..I.u..,Y� � 44+0;,�91...r. ♦ 1 [..L,[�NNIr�NIMs•Nnr.r,rLwx O R+riAli..r.wIMw9l.vb•NrsIIM Circulation Plan 2•� . [.ul yryy„Nrry p M1�pr:IW.L. y (D Existing Off--Ramp zily Z Exhibit 5B 2' ao The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 31 0 Q ao July 5, 2000 T—II I - L( - • �un7irnrmnnriiiurr��`�nnnmre-famnnTlnamnnlrtlnurrrnti,� r+uTI11111i41IgIP1lI111i���111111fffll11111�11f111L nj It {f� Hkll I l a�� A� lfffltl,H{IffNktnn� �' �� `�ti� k`' �.'�-s�.jJ i�,el.•> ,� �, -ihIIIIIIIIII1flkNl�' � ._ -`_ � _ � -� �� ��� �����', li! + {f x j1 >� (<{Illllll!lllll;lll:' CI 2_' __ J}?J !R III _ xl t I .• 'r ` �tlt vti+ Yjj_ e- F=' F i��" , 'J :;;\�\r.�.•.r.� ��:: � .S„/� a =�Lz: CR AVE A 'lil I i �..�. s �.(1 2 4 a.. J c_ �..� 1_._. a .. �,- - - =_ :'{c ••' .,\• T' �; r (�/� c, !, !I e. ir`h 1 q. .l rr;$w.rr ,V r-. Jjj �''••� -� : �II I � r �1 =f 6,r41:)'IOwf Y-{...` y •(''f ,r11q, __ ____. _ ^J - .. T '� ,( � �' I' i(: I1i111111111'llllllllllllllEllfllFljllllll r "!hr r,n4lr�`e�F�r I•_ _ - J _ _ �' � � S ,,:�rY�'i i 5 1, xf 1r ( I / r - U. tll E lr r /.�� :J .l_ Ci 1 t wiry t'• e i Vf�.III t 1 �� r`" 'IT!�•} ,r'" r�. �*,r�Y �"`i r,'Yf..'rd'�!•� „(' � I � �u � t{u'�r{/`' �.�•, �" Ile, YTTIT1RR1rF1111 tIiiITI r:irC f ,I ,e Yr �F �15b ,'r .,'ll vt/r t. f�. rl�`• W,w( •.. `49✓l%ti�jJ �'�,"'' .f \';'t, �. \ . F •r rt' ��}�. .1T1 klk�lklll Ilklllllkllr} - I II!lil I; '.. 'y ''`�'r 5}' '/;S�'( ���� •rt-� „"`.+ •-acG�r ^^x'� f f;-,,� `7(illiTiil111ffT(illr "F� _� `� I I,ii � �` •J°"�,��'� <����- I� `� T � •+ �{,^�„ ( {ws�r:'1 `�HIIIIkI�kIINI;IIIU EII I, III �' { .ra �. i�-T � I"� ���- � � � 1 klr� J;.�/l�rr'lil /�l� � "n.. •a ` � t awr.� C. �` ... - .. I 'P•J, r,W, , ✓ f q- Fnw n iay.cdp t .i }r �{ I J r� \. ` •.��.`'�,. ��/�r'�.>tJ .�� ' .•.r•� ',�YI 4 r'{axuu r.nv; y.. s��u'i\,.`JIII�lllllkllkllkU. r;. et- � `- ��'/� `'� ` .. !� '/1 {!��•Sr�d. ��, / a t� � � T.r 1VMIY It��llr:i.•:t{� . r w. \ i T � - I I� !i)i�i4 -,.- '; .�, I .�: � � :• �_ t �����••"� �:1�� ��� y�r•r v°a✓� -T�x �w 11UNIIIIk f'j arkla�i?., r/rQ,� �,"''a �I ,III tip_ _ ,. . � r .. �: f •''aT , .,._ U;i.f,,f�' r�•`.e.� , �ll.' I r r.:y'y,,k N ;r�'u' `��' _ 1 ti_ -■ •Sa 4 it fl- r rlp.•�;r J"r� �� Frr'�+..� '119..'a+.�ti e{ m i I - :F,� -�:�I . _ t- ,. I. _ :E ti�U;; nx� - _ _ 1' -�:� .':..y, � .r� \ ,;rr�.t7. , �,r�:/ 4',x `�I Y i•. 1 1 _ _ 7 J _ - _ 'C�1 _ �_ i % .✓,+ri { :I OQ I!, I . I � r :3; . ' ': _.:. :' .Y_. __ 11ll1,111iI1 l� ��,'�J� - -_ _-dtt-_. � a f-•.,• ,,y�},/�I f// 'r-' r l i f r �l.•t, .I �• LJ '- � �- � -'- I1 'RTpI L - I _ 1. Ill 7 - � .. : r•l ''� 1 � '� I' iv Y I I L�J {_.J L._{ L:1 1_J l:_J i � I(( II �•l�{ I - �I•I I1,!,,Q llllllllll�` l r II�►!`A.VJ �'. �l r�;. r � � � � �. _ ,�._.,y I ! r ^r{ I, h11 I f I1lUI1tIII1111U1111111111111!IIIIWIIIIIIIAIIIIIIIIiIIIO"` " r 7 r�a , +MR - � ��""�:�� ? I!'t?'wa111JU1111I1t111W1111111I111I111Lr IllI1ll11LLllllllllllllf� ''' glflllll�llfl IIIIIUIIIIII IIW111111111f1111 y ���� —WINGER.—AVENUE•.. �I —• — MtNN'Wf4�e.'MM..WI:rA'IIr11NtXIV 1N V',MIpYUf�µ,rL{Ine1 _ T — r7r— 00 ,0w • fi»,....u.b+�.�."...r:. 0- - Y/�Fn.lra,ur 1(y1 N.r YwwrlF�w, • 1 •Wr.wr:.,�,rr,,._....,,.., O �.{,.....,.�..,�.{.-=,,.�r., Cir'Cu,lation Plan Q Q nwr.� 0. Proposed Off-Ramp a y Exhibit 5B �o ON The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 32 0 � o0 July 5, 2000 3.3 CIRCULATION PLAN The Circulation Plan illustrates the major and minor enhanced by a number of signalized entry drives and driveway entrances to the site, signalized intersections, public transportation facilities (Exhibit 5A and 513). bus stops and bus pads supporting the development and surrounding areas, and the public street system The circulation plan relies on a hierarchy of within the Specific Plan boundaries. The Circulation circulation features ranging from major arterials to Plan is consistent with the Huntington Beach General local streets. The system is designed to accommodate Plan's Circulation Element and the Edinger Avenue customer, employee, and delivery traffic to and Precise Plan of Street Alignment. around the project area while discouraging through traffic from bisecting the project site. Primary access to the City of Huntington Beach and the Crossings at Huntington Beach is provided by A traffic study shall be required to analyze on-site and Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway). The City's General off-site circulation patterns and necessary Plan designates the intersection of Beach Boulevard improvements. and Edinger Avenue as an internal node and a primary entry node to the City. Access to the project site is Alternative forms of transportation should also receive provided by a syslem of arlcrial liigliways includin:{: careful consideration. The current OCI'A bus route passes the project area on Edinger Avenue and Center • Beach Boulevard, a north-south principal arterial Avenue. The project Circulation Plan identifies street (120 foot right-of-way), designated as a state existing and proposed bus turnout locations along highway, a primary path/image corridor, major Edinger Avenue and Center Avenue. As a supplement urban scenic corridor,and transit service route. to vehicular access to the project area, potential future access such as a light rail system and stop shall be • Edinger Avenue, an east-west major arterial street pursued if available, from the existing rail line on the ;To 0 20 foot right-of-way), designated as a truck route, western boundary of the site. primary path/image corridor, and minor urban o scenic corridor and transit service route. In addition, the Development Concept encourages the c creation of a pedestrian walkway system. As a means Q • Center Avenue,an east-west secondary arterial street of achieving a strong landscape image, pedestrian o (80 foot right-of-way), designated as a transit walkways are required and shall be provided c service route. throughout the development to facilitate pedestrian access from adjacent developments to the project site. Internal circulation is currently provided by a network The pedestrian walkway system shall include . of private drives/streets serving as access to individual walkways around the perimeter of the site in the street a N portions of the project area. Circulation is further right-of-way. to. c y 00 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 33 0 9' 9 P , CO July 5, 2000 CIRCULATION PLAN POLICIES: Transportation Authority and pursued by the Crossings at Huntington Beach should a light rail 3.3.1 Primary access to the project area shall be from urban transit system be developed in the future. the existing signalized intersections along Edinger Existing bus stops shall be relocated as needed to Avenue and Center Avenue. New access location's into conform to pedestrian patterns. New bus turnouts are the project area shall occur only where traffic patterns planned along Edinger Avenue and a new bus stop and median openings allow, subject to review and along Center Avenue. approval of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and the Fire Chief. Parking Area I 3.3.2 A new primary access into the project shall be 5'Planter Island V pursued where the San Diego Freeway on and off ramps intersect with Center Avenue, subject to Cal- . Y' Trans, Department of Highways approval and approval of the Directors of Public Works and ,.. Planning and the Fire Chief. Y 3.3.3 Additional new driveway access points from the f street system adjacent to the project area shall be limited and allowed only when the project size, location or type of use warrants such access, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works .;y. and Fire Chief. No new driveways along Edinger Avenue or Beach Boulevard will be permitted. 3.3.4 Deceleration and acceleration lanes for s'Crosswalk ZO driveway access points may be required, depending on o the location of the proposed access point. Q Pedestrian Walkway Section o 3.3.5 Shared access facilities and reciprocal vehicular access to and between individual on-site activities may be requested and/or required- by the Director of q Planning for adjacent uses and parcels. y ay 3.3.6 Alternative transportation forms such as a light o rail stop shall be coordinated with Orange County o 0 e o The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 34co July 5, 2000 3.3.7 Pedestrian sidewalks shall be incorporated into the 3.4 PUBLIC FACILdTIES project as a component of the landscape plan. Sidewalks shall be - installed throughout the The Public Facilities section discusses infrastructure; development to facilitate pedestrian access from storm drain, sewer, and water facility improvements adjacent developments to the project site.- The necessary to serve development within the Specific pedestrian walkway. system shall include walkways Plan area. around the perimeter of the site in the street right-of- way and through the parking lot to the project area. PUBLIC FACILITIES POLICY' 3.3.8 Public landscape areas .within the right-of-ways All public facilities infrastructure necessary to serve shall require a separate Parkway Landscape development within the specific plan area shall be Agreement for continued maintenance of.the area. completed concurrent with initial project development, subject to review and approval of the 3.3.9 A traffic impact analysis/traffic signal warrant Director of Public Works. analysis shall be requircd, in association with a development proposal for the site. Future traffic impact analyses may be required due to unanticipated project developments not previously anaylzed. All traffic studies shall be subject to review and approval by the Directors of Planning and Public Works. 3.3.10 Circulation system improvements will be master planned to accommodate ultimate buildout of the Specific Plan. However, since the majority of the project is anticipated to be constructed during the initial development stage, all on-site and off-site o circulation improvements shall be completed prior to 0 the first occupancy request. Future expansions p permitted under the Specific Plan may generate o additional circulation improvements as determined by C future traffic impact analyses. N cD 3.3.11 A Delivery and Fire Truck circulation plan, In depicting on site access routes and manuverability, shall be subject to review and approval by the Director y h of Public Works and the Fire Chief, in association with ° a development proposal for the site. o 0 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 35 6, 6 July 5, 2000 3.4.1 WATER SYSTEM Domestic water for the property will be provided Proposed architectural site changes will be reviewed by the Public Works Water Division of the City of by the Fire Department for code compliance and may Huntington Beach. require additional fire hydrant installation. These hydrants (if any) will be connected to the existing or The Water Division has use of both underground and proposed water line loop. The number of hydrants on imported water sources to service the area. The the system is not relevant to the flow delivered and, underground supply comes from nine existing wells, therefore, does not affect the system. The required fire and imported water is delivered to the City of suppression sprinkler flow rate is approximately Huntington Beach by the Metropolitan Water District 2,500 gpm. The existing and proposed fire sprinkler (MWD) at three locations. The Specific Plan area is systems will be required to meet this standard. It is not part of the City's Master Plan for Water Service and anticipated that the proposed modifications to the the ultimate development anticipated will be Crossings at Huntington Beach will require water flow adequately served by the City's existing systems. for fire protection above that which the existing system can deliver. MWD is the major wholesale water purveyor to the City of Huntington Beach which, in turn, is the retail All on-site water improvements will be designed to the provider to all water users in the City, including the City of Huntington Beach water standards. Water subject property. system improvements from the public right-of-way to the on-site meter shall be designed for future City The existing center has a looped water system. Water acceptance and maintenance. Locations of fire is delivered to the site by the City of Huntington hydrants and apparatuses will be reviewed by the Fire Beach's 12-inch line located in Edinger Avenue and a Department and Water Division of the City of 12-inch water main on Beach Boulevard. Huntington Beach to ensure adequate fire flow and pressure. A final design analysis will be performed The proposed modifications to the center will require during the site engineering stage to properly size the o that a portion of the looped system be reconstructed. system, determine final alignments, and determine if c The required hydrant flow for fire sprinklers is 4,000 additional water improvements are necessary. gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square Construction of the redesigned water system shall be o inch (psi). The existing and proposed upgraded fire completed prior to first occupancy. hydrant systems will be required to comply with this y standard. N Z O CD O p The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 36 July 5, 2000 3.4.2 SEWER SYSTEM The City of Huntington Beach is responsible for The existing 10-inch sanitary sewer line exiting the the review and approval of the collection of site is adequately sized to carry the anticipated flows wastewater within the project area. The Orange from the reconstructed center. However, final design County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for analysis will be performed during the site engineering the treatment of wastewater. The City system stage to properly size the system, determine final ultimately is collected by the Sanitation District via alignments, and determine if additional sewer their trunk and distribution lines to convey sewage to improvements are necessary. Construction of new District Plant #5, located .in Fountain Valley, and sewer lines shall be completed prior to first District Plant#2 in Huntington Beach. occupancy. Sewage from the subject property is collected via a private on-site collection system with a singular outfall point at the southwest corner of the site. A 69 inch sanitation district trunk line runs beneath the concrete channel located along the west property line. No . changes to this existing connection are anticipated. An existing on-site private system consists of a series of 4, 6, 8, and 10-inch lines collecting into one 10- inch line which is proposed to connect with the county system referenced above. Due to the reconfiguration of the development, it will be necessary to remove or abandon-in-place several c sanitary sewer lines and replace them. o Q 0 y a y y. ,Z7 a N ' � O y � O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 37 0 Q July 5, 2000 3.4.3 STORM DRAINAGE The City of Huntington Beach and the Orange and may include water storage in underground pipes. County Flood Control District are the agencies As a result, no ponding will occur at any point on site responsible for the flood control system in the project during a 100 year event. vicinity. A regional flood control channel exists along the western boundary of the site. The existing detention pond will be removed and be regraded as an additional parking area. The existing drainage system consists of two main lines, "A" and "B". Secondary line "C" drains a small There will be a need to add various new lines to drain area westerly of the existing Montgomery Ward store the open air section of.the Crossings at Huntington in addition to secondary line "D", and numerous Beach. However, final design analysis will be ,connecting laterals. All lines drain westerly into a City performed during the site engineering stage to of Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel properly size the system, determine final alignments, (Huntington Beach Storm Channel C5-5C2). Drainage and determine if additional storm drain improvements area boundaries have been identified based on existing are necessary. inlets and catch basins. Construction of storm drainage improvements shall be There.is a small drainage area located at the northerly completed prior to first occupancy. perimeter of the Crossings at Huntington Beach which drains i1do it snuill hnsin locnicd in the norlliwesl corner of the site. Hydraulic calculations performed on the existing storm drain system revealed that ponding in a 100 year event will be its follows: average depths of 1 foot and a maximum depth of 2.8 feet were determined for o the ponding over line "A." Average depths of 9 inches o and a maximum depth of 1.4 feet were determined for p the ponding over line"B." co The storm drainage discharge rates from the remodeled Crossings at Huntington Beach will remain Q similar with the exception of the discharge from the y enclosed shopping area. This area will now become an y open air shopping complex. Drainage areas will be y'Z redistributed to reduce ponding throughout the site O N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 38 0 9 9 P o b, _ � co July 5, 2000 3.4.4 WATER QUAM Y Water qualify in California is regulated by the use of oil and grease traps, detention basins,vegetation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National filter strips,and other common techniques in order to Pollution Discharge Elimination .System (NPDES), preclude discharge of pollutants into local storm which controls the discharge of pollutants to water drains and channels. bodies from point and non-point sources. A NPDES permit or other EPA review will be required for 3.4.5 LrFH TIES individual construction projects. There are several public utility service providers Prior to issmince of any grading permit or demolition in the Specific Plan area. Adequate facilities exist for permit (including removal of any hazardous materials the current service needs of the area, however, such as, asbestos) the developer shall submit a "Notice additional facilities may be required as additional of Intent" (NOI), a Storm Water Pollution Prevention development occurs. Plan (SWPPP), and any required fees to the State. Water Resources Control Board. These documents 3.4.6 ELECTRICITY shall be filed under the terms covered by the State NPDES General Construction permit. The SWPPP shall Electrical service to the area is provided by the be on file.with the Public Works Department prior to Southern California Edison Company. Existing any demolition or removal of hazardous materials. transmission and distribution lines are adequate to Through the NPDES Permit process, the City currently service current and potential future needs. Any new requires contributors to non-point runoff pollution to or existing overhead utilities (excluding 66kv) shall be undergrounded per the City s under grounding . establish Best Management Practices (BMP's) to ordinance (Chapter 17.64 HBMC). minimize the potential for pollution. Under this program, the developer is responsible for identification and implementation of a program of 3.4.7 NATURAL GAS c BMP's which can include special scheduling of project c Natural gas service in the Specific activities, prohibitions of. certain practices, fic Plan area is Q provided by the Southern California Gas Company. CO establishment of certain maintenance procedures, and. o other management practices to prevent or reduce the Adequate facilities exist for current and projected CO pollution of downstream waters. Typical elements of future needs. Relocation of existing facilities shall be such a BMP program would include addressing the concurrent with project development. y X _? y y Z � O y O p The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 39 0 & July 5, 2000 3.4.8 COMMUNICATIONS Telephone service in the Specific Plan area is provided by General Telephone (GTE). Relocation of existing facilities and new installation shall be concurrent with project development. Provisions for fiber optic communications shall also be included in the overall site planning for the project area and shall be provided prior to the first occupancy request. Cable television service within Huntington Beach is . provided by Time Warner Communications. Installation of new services shall be concurrent with project development. 3.4.8 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Rainbow Disposal Company currently provides solid waste disposal services for the area. Based on service projections and anticipated demand increase, an adequate level of service will be maintained. No solid waste disposal facilities.are planned to be located in the Specific Plan area. a 0 N 0 0 P o, 0 y fD to fp 4 W. H � ?_ y N Z O O Co The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 40 C, July 5, 2000 L .ui/.YID A/A����IU��IUP1��\�►r�. --- - =-- _ Design Guidelines y opo 0 a j � o m y N O p 41 0 � The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan July 5, 2000 3.5 DESIGN GUIDELINES Huntington Beach as part of the Site Plan Review process. The Design Guidelines are general and may 3.5.1 PROJECT AREA CHARACTER be interpreted with some flexibility in their application to specific projects. Variations may be considered for The project character and theme for the projects with special design characteristics that still Crossings at Huntington Beach is that of the Italian meet the objectives of the Guidelines. Village. Italian Villages derive their character and The Design Guidelines shall be used to promote a high classic charm from the ancient Roman and Greek level of design quality while at the same time provide ` architecture that was infused during the initial some flexibility, necessary to encourage creativity on construction of these villages. As the years and the part of individual/tenant designers. The Design centuries passed on, additional construction and Guidelines have been prepared to articulate the reconstruction occurred in these villages, adding even intended development standards of the Specific Plan. a more layered architectural identity. The styles of The Guidelines establish a framework for Classical, Neo-Classical, Baroque Rococo and even developers/designers of individual projects and design Modern and Post Modern Designs influenced these criteria, which the City will use to evaluate proposed villages over time. It is the intent to utilize this developments. montage of designs to tastefully develop a specific vernacular of architecture that best represents that of 3.5.2 SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES an Italian Village. The Design Guidelines establish the character and The positive shopping experience begins at style for the development of this retail, dining and landscaped entrances to the site, which lead to entertainment complex with buildings and convenient and ample parking. The center's open-air streetscapes that have a distinctive visual identity. The spaces of plazas, courtyards and passageways will be Guidelines accommodate individual project identities arranged in a non-linear pattern. Attention to lighting and promote interrelationships between and low level landscaping shall be given along non- c linear passageways and pedestrian walkways to allow complementary building storefronts and exterior N spaces. The major elements of the Design Guidelines pedestrians to see ahead and around the walkways a include: site planning, overall project/tenant clearly. Additionally, the main plazas will be accented ? architecture, exterior pedestrian amenities, by water features. A pedestrian walkway will connect y landscaping, and signage. All development projects east to the existing adjacent Village Retail center. within the Specific Plan area shall conform to the Italianate themed graphics add to the continuity of all Design Guidelines and shall incorporate appropriate the linked spaces. To facilitate the development of The Q theme elements. Crossings at Huntington Beach into a unique resource y for the community the following site planning policies a H y. . The Design Guidelines shall be used by the Crossings shall apply: o at Huntington Beach owner and the City of 00 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 42 6 July 5, 2000 SITE PLANNING POLICIES 3.5.2.1 Site layout for the project shall be designed to route people and vehicles through the site in a clear, , ;y r , •: identifiable, efficient and effective manner by incorporating unique pedestrian walkways and ;Rc,, highlighting main drive aisles with landscaping and specially treated paving. 3.5.2.2 A minimum of six. public open space �: ;. - amenities shall be provided on site. Of the six total public amenities to be provided, at least two water features and two public art elements are required and shall be incorporated into the common project area. The remaining two public amenities may be - =�- - located anywhere on site. Potential EntrySignrtge 3.5.2.3 Loading and storage areas facing public streets shall be designed to resemble a facade. The facade 3.5.2.5 Parking shall be provided onsite in a.manner that shall include architectural details and design is convenient and compatible with the layout and elements to ensure integration into the project design of the overall project and consistent with the environment and shall appear as a typical tenant standards in Exhibit 13. Satellite pad buildings are storefront. Loading areas at the rear of the Village encouraged to provide a minimum setback without Retail center shall be updated with facade parking between the building and the street (see improvements and shall be screened from view from General Plan Policy 10.1.15.0 the surrounding street system. c 3.5.2.6 Security provisions, including lighting, building o 3.5.2.4 Entry drives shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet entrance visibility, and drive locations, shall be Q wide, not including landscaped medians. carefully considered. o Landscaped medians, a minimum of four (4) feet wide,shall be incorporated into three (3) main entry drives along Edinger for a depth of 100 feet. a N y a Z � O W O p The Crossings of Huntington Beach Specific Plan 43 0 a o July 5, 2000 3.5.2.7 Public Restroom Facilities shall be designed to minimize the corridor distance leading to public restrooms. The length'of the corridor from the mall exterior to the door of the restroom shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. Restrooms shall be designed utilizing a single door to enter into the facility. Stall 'doors. shall have purse hooks installed in both men's and women's restrooms. All hallways leading to the restrooms shall have surveillance cameras installed that shall be tape recorded 24 hours a day. y O N O O Q CO O h a y M M y Z �O fD y N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 44 0 � CO July 5, 2000 3.5.3 COMMON AREA GUIDELINES The Crossings at Huntington Beach is divided into several unique spaces. The Italian Village setting will be carried out through distinctive architectural design elements including towers, domes and arches, cobblestone streets and walks, water features and site amenities that reflect the quaint and harmonious lifestyle of an Italian Village. Amide color palette with contrasting accent elements will create a lively exciting experience for visitors to the Crossings at Huntington Beach. (See section 4.5.3). ,I= I 1'r rif,Iff}rfiII'nfI1r-{'fIt'.i.a'f-f�}y.i}7F{m}1��f�a},In om�rIum_I�I,Im—m}.f.fm mlm{fnN�mmtmr,um,—tur.iL..n n-r�mI�rV—m in'—rm kr } {m�trcl../ � r,-♦rI Im-.min'rnm1rr�mrr�rmnit ni-t i_.l.i-R1} m1 Willi I w .�•���Tr, 0rrltitill 1}I }fltlfl, s \. i t EAVE NYF.-,N IV f'I,I� _. .�.JI�a.,.,nr w..l .`_, .�.., Y'dk�rjf�Y7 t } �. _: \� `\ ��• (a�� Y •'\ fI11�I I �lliililiiill�il�iiliil, y �iiJ,l SEr�f'j�: I it gj a 4a i I` LPu Connection ✓ ,�...,U yi ( I,....rYI`�`..... ,. � ' Ord}-ril—1�I :..: I� u,'l 'YaW4 � s lair �' ; r,•. I I 'uI:{o � u 1"ft r �,\ 7 � t :ir IN1V Iitl 7N. '•W`�If4 %1.ti n0!' }� r, YY` .��� .I �'' •� 1� � aNtl' •M if t. ll.Mf/ a. I 4W�1,\ ��11 �/ ... I I �I r � ti � �tr da. Illa80' ,� tl,Is i u III fla S Rc a Y l r� r N I tl lltl l{�i t f r ' � OO ti .X tNllttlWtlllllil11111�IU1!IUIIIT It1000U1UtU UtlilM, -' i_ •: - - } ____._���,,. -.:y.'_- �•-.., �.711,1U11:U1. 11Utlll!UUIIIIJl•I J1tU1JIlIIIti1511tI11llIJ1LLW111UU11Q �'-f �`` }''A4 1 O +�, U i. _. s' .� •�kllllflllltll11llflWllJJlll.II11LL11111111L.I" III _t_!._. JJ �t< •.� �. I EC)INGCRrAVCNU (f L - ..�__ _zz •n.n.aa.cnrw++.srrl.ow.,.wl.•a n�w.wrew.ae aawx ` i—'1 rl�'-.-" __—. .--- - _3__.. c�-�,\:-- y Common Area Locations Exhibit 6A o The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 45 0 � o July 5, 2000 �'•��k(Illrtnl4tnn�il,R( T(r(IRn�I(r,;11>nnlnl(mTn((nrffnrt)nuitl��.�""T�-- •ado \. 1'7JililrlllTi(T(I1ItI111TiIIM�Jjj1(((Illillll 11(j (�I �I � t- �' ' #1 � r d t>. y�•+�`, llllfl�l�lIIIIIIIIIfIIIU. � �r :r>? -, � >; �' `��. \\� � II il rillFE t���i��f���l4�u�uY �llillilllllilllllll9 �[ =� I. � t" \`� II t t S a i5B IItLIO,Cit t J. -� _ �•, 1 y- YO IL(I1 111.11Sul 1 !►' ,, ,,t , �� r f I tl il, L�..� 7 �y I i.:.'a'i� tt�; r}It kr9"•1?,,-lr'' f { , �}� 1 .-:a 41 _ 4 , CRAVEN�f6..`�'?� ;i 114' {.A .� t I, '1 t r( cnlst tr•1 - 1'.� ,. _.:. c� � j �' I- � ! .1'iub�r,'{pyy�7� � �'�•,��\tiny (�'`4 - � .., ' 1,1(lll,,llllllllllllil11J1)Jllu3lll, e I 1, T, f ; , , 9ti I ' A( `'' t,Plazaf /fj I 1 `Exit P(a2a IIII I• ; + ' t I�(. 11 � ��:.�.'+ �.",., /%•ir:/1irr� �1 .. f. 7. j, � � � (;, H.. �}�, � � i.(1 _ 1 ( ��!•, V l i 'Mivk»' t t' j!Jf,'' /. � � �' (;� ,/!�N lr a /: .;7y !,>"'"' yr rk �y, '�F',1 M q,,.Yt::.6 .1 .._.. \ r•:t� � ' a .Piz If s . .� .r r.. ` 1 / j r/ l J`1 r S}r. L eii he�.t t I C'rJ r' t('Y r�/' /J � ;. / T�' lP.l I 1 ! .� .. ''�` a ,4,. +a w <r yr+-n- ,r*s•• ��,. ,�'\ "/ ' I I I •, �,., u �'. :✓+'• l , �I I �• ../I +t.r' �nit �1.� �v.' "I {�r,�''� .- ''. , I��, � : :/ / � '�✓ :lit UJ�:�'i: I "i"11�t/�/f x M,�.. +.�h rhl' .�ii'�.*+\�. 111.11 '�'� li���+,• .:rr t III yll � c c.�� I I 1 _:I_, I S.t.�.. �/���. � ��/ ��i � �- ��� I,IL(II'I ,,srr<�7tNRi� t,�"� � ., ,• L 'I y .i.' 1 � 1 G , .. - _ �,`.• {>/v�.i f,}b��,a+ r%Ifr�� 'r �� - G- I I r L IL; r 51..' 1 �r' ,I.. ._' r. 1t'(L•.� : `w �'�' x.�', p..,�`11 +'+ c'' '!' n VIIIageF$trada — { R, ,� C l ` k I imnrnll 4 r I r 1 fi _. !° S r r-i-.,•n,�: it - + 1 f_1(III_� C C.�I��t�".+,.tt�lti��� 1 �1 •' rl i i(7 �7 t'UU� Es _ ( hlltllll�lllllzlllllllllf" �t L-1 L_s LJ C_..t h " "---�i � w 1,,a - ,�I - 1 O �.:� -�-.,;__ li(LLlll!(ll(11ll1W1ll1llllll111lli HOW llL11llDU1111111111( _ ------ ---max-= --t' kklllllLt11j�11,)<IIJ�11111t1ll111LLI1J1111U1(llf t11111WtlllLlllJllll111 �� 1M1ll111tll111lIy�U�lU11JllUll1111lltlillllull r 'I�, —_ DI GERM A�LENUE 'w<IVwgK,l l,r✓.•I.YwRl t'w+r/Iti.tt 1.M WJII"YN WU� .G I .._ I- —,x •— _. a y O Q Common Area Locations y Exhibit 6B o The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 46 0 CD July 5, 2000 • I • • I • 1 1" • • 1 I -I • 1• I • • • n •�11. .(�11 N, •t '45'd' f1b' ...a9�\ tt +� � 1 * .f _.` I 1 \, ,� ;i f Ap , I +t 41 at 1 8 t n F 77 Y. .......... r •.�. i r,sJ I '2 I t '• ♦ I rl. .1. '�V t» �11; I�t ::.t:�(`"t :�>:Ss����� �y '`tom = r+'rw'.ma�.,xr",.c,rx,.w: »+-o�r•1+��;.P"s"' ,I 1••a'� J?'t rQ�Iti yy'���;, ly�V� �r �t ,r: t'� y'� ...� � t �i cl ���:::t ,+'C�� T. ��� { _,��,,� �'i�"�',C tk�,r`7' •,k J11, `F; t f .r. , 2r.r �;)itr�.�rM':� ! r� t �4 i V ii .r{ f� f�i'.� :/,� ..4� 4 •y.. r+ r.t. '•RAC p'�„�:. t�,ml..,.s ';t "� .I 1�.: y !r�... �it t. tr.,��ii.. } I � I I ! � ..,.. .'#"- "`° „^t'�?a 'I''�;11�=�tY� �;,.t�rrl ry !�!t ts'a �a �R• f,r ;y _, :.'•- .:.. I �:.. �.� : -• y n ; ,Yt�kc�.. 1 i .y�� � �� txs" :�.r� L �j �'r:.a ryi.� „•.—.-.-v..ems.+n•n•.�+rr�.....r»wr{)art'rV'i !` t 11 y. .I rl � ,�� ' _ ���!*I�"t C, --+t ti 8P �t,�hyr�al ,��F� .•.#,. i, ::'X` % :;JLt- -�' S ��M9�-t,n ;tc r r, � � �tir" <drt�,'S t ,;•• � c�{�,'�7r' 'r pc""r,.V'C.i��.r1�,r.. �5 3... � T S`r'•<��� -'✓:rty l,l,�-' 6 .' �>,:p r tom...:. ti r:: t, •P r.ly..,:r 'li" d°'�I,' i -K.p. P` I G`rtm':a.r. ;1 f�� ~' i.•:.`,':.: "'4 ...��tdt f;rih I ti1 w...•. c' t%,.•.d,�,, .r �I' � f:u!"t ajr '1 6 �y �k�i...� `:Y„�yq� E: ,ir. -io,.. !'ter. � It1 :•q;. ,•W„S'A..1;r � ��tIF Y.r �..I ,..����»-j I�p./ v��, a. � 1 t, e � �:�' h'►.i1i" ;�^y lSyS" i'�"•{' �w fit. '1`"�l •�lt, ,�. :r, �I�- t�,�� � � , a ! !�7:61-r �;:.!wy:%�iti� ,^r .t'M ++�.R"�':•a 4 ;+,y.:tw,,%.. .Gww+'�<I��V Wr'} !�'.'I.�� � ti,: �;�%�P :"''c�.,7�ty �P" •.T31. .._� 1 n p ���.' N'',Fjfi� ..r" 'r� •{I.�;i�f'�l t p 4..:ny,(. < y✓::,* Y1'�`5l ° IC��y,^�Tr^ WuSij''J'L•,{��g�S'hy t,J h'ii rat'.,;Me M: '�.,^.'�, �.'r^'Q't•'.p7. nr e M �yl " ��� � • ,t !.'7).chi '�' l.,�i. �r �-t',r ,}",id D;e it yt1rF,, t, % ". f� - )i ;,7,.�r.+-�_ .'r'+" „<t �y,Lf�.,1•y_r, -,�,` c!��� c.. .y �h':. f•S� ti. Y,' �.}' % fA�. } N1 �i 'j�.Z :�`/r -?1r i ''IX- ' Ay,p,S �•�7p,. 1.�i.lri:• ' a.A"n .•.,,e n �% N11,.,r t ,'N 1�". ' ri,' �. ; (� �.S�r y'3j �1�•r/1:,�I ),;� err ( ,ti �N�' �a�e+uri'rrr!.,M:1 iA�� '`N .�`` �4;�I�• R! �q.....1 �'. t ft"'.+fiJ t.'rK)• •� r {,�., 1,t 1'+1} � .,T' ,5t_.�:•i"" U�''?,. :W'!' ,, �' I�.r� � �,; � �" ;�'�',�': �,:�.�'a��'�� :l :y=z. �, •1•i if' �r'��Z.j. Cam• "t�,�,c_.r,.�rl !.�:�r�E'1��v :`:� �• � 1� (Il�v �114�: ` 5�,�`i t j�., �I, i II i' q�h �yft�:!i f,r, .,1�b�ti�gl/, ,`\, r i {�f ti I• �. <.(:-:u� 'B I Y. ,,,.�:;..s "aila.w� �. Y ' t �• I ` tYPr t (f1Y 'q"�"+ �1}rpy, „ �h�{. Olh 1�l�'"'��pl xrfh.a ttT J"T:'�d'<?�7 3i1 t ... ,ems r:.t f I J J .f !1.t ,.. 1 '.{k'N1'a t: , �)'4� /. .Q::'•' 514, 7. '� "•t"'. I v .! il., CI., ;{•.�'i'`.. )(i� ,� .� �! t� i•E ,l 4 yl !I rin� i. �,�. ;- M'. !f , �'.it '`Y 11 ', V:,1 °., (1;{!.P'� `1 4,i 1. .1,, ar �• I. ( 'i % (� Rr 1;: ,,�i V'1 :� r.' P .:Y•1f 1 i In( i, t�' ia '�b, •.t,!•; I,� f %�( „H.'i, t , rr „DVS % I l ,�1 f i..�l py� ,yr. It>Jf n,,�,, •�' t/l ,!:,rKLrno, C"PR Rr f• ' ✓'e, '- 116,w I � •1,' "'."h:.! i'! ,<rf.y,••Ilw• �r.,.�h� '� t� tii r � J• •v' :II `Aa'►r.r n>+' � 7.� i�rr��r• 14;ar ��A il,t� �ls.ihr 1• r,} ..., "'� a �`- , � b!� ;.�� �{�,1 !`*�lQ+ ���%r•��• r: ... r ��{��1 �'J a'. A'.i.. 'I. "q► ` ':.7 r L....•f.":':I r.�ii t L \4'1' •'IAA4«ir V✓- M1:.'��14� � �,�,J:.J+t t�;, I�' .1I��.'`' '�i����^`i'�ID':•;'�r1:°"':?�'., hI�I,:r.:',Nu+r�;^.t rr.r fl%.�!.,� ,.+ ,{( •; �I' .'�:� (•"!'yJ w'"�rjtu 4t11 �1;-,.t .d��.M`++r- •r, z+,.Y,,; R tJ \.. •��+t1.' �•.. +* •.� .,� � S.+f..�1 •�y�}� r. 104 .',l% r I: ..t... 'I 1' !+.N•:/d'1,, fl,t w ' ,r �� � t...r'+•+'' q � tt tY �•J'. � a.,j l'I' jjfdl;�f"t}d.� -.n'.ry.• ,Q`rl� i,.",...y �`r l� �'.''V I,�j '_ ��"�l({. •. T ., t1 S ., ;..'RC r � �!.1 � � �r �1. L,r �','f< t• 1 .•i;. q 77 MIA IN,�,yrX j ;., � _,•ir: f�l .•u.ts :`� 3 t'i .rr. {1G� �� Y'^nwa•:.v.� ih' "'M rt1rA^""` 'I M. n ., ]]• �"�'..-�.; J`stt 1.`1r r,t•;, ,: a�,ht��� •,..,.•..:. �. ,,;;'i, l ..`I•Y,% . '�ryt c)i i-., f• r ,FS..r� ,F i..l. �.:�.�.. .Y. 7 At.�. S{ \, `,4ti)aar I,In.,,......; '1 , ,: a� l 4 {,� a'( r a `,.' tt+ r r -(,.'rh�,l 1w.✓�.r 1 ffr r �r j 1 �\"�3 � t :�'t i 'I,.v .y �t1. �'/ 1 7'.I , •�/n.- j I.xlr y, ,,,;n r y�Ctl)<.1 f. PE.i r,<r �d t1 w�.• '1 i '1'^. �r , �rri,:.Y„ 1 l( 1'.\ 1 ,Q �I�' 4 11t..Yik'•%1,�+w'i"MHi,/f\I N \" 1 � I�.r „�. 'I.. I �1 �1. '<,,�YY! ,j t .j�/'.�� �r ;.1t�r:l�t,.7t,•"� '��. ��Y.r/.N v� PT„n,,`4t (}{I�l: •!r a/��r'pF�'�"' ��� �r'.�f,• I. r A07j�,:)'i,r:Jl d �. ! •i l"..!'s^ VI i'��� ffJ -� �- I'-' 'c-d ri.t. r' r• �, tf' r e:. r ,•t ;,f .- b r - - ! t,.� 1 ��C t , t '.ib= <� r :. �, �! � t Aa :.. 1�` ', c;'a•w••••..r c )t,1"yrJ'ii r 1 f!�,,C.,� '4kv .. Tit Yam`. ! A' Y l�'I ,V�'� Y:� f�t%f'ti l 11% ) "1•at �}..f �l ,k",�� r� 7 1 t .,I �., � Il .\li I { r � lr, 't � ..I: f ?� l ,,� it •i.t rpl . J l� '?'� {� I � i) •tl€ ! -WIDOW1 M 0 � • I THE VILLAGE STRADA Acting as the. 'Main Street" of The Crossings at Huntington Beach, the Village Strada will have pockets of landscaping, outdoor dining tables, children's play areas, and seating for a respite from a long day of shopping. The buildings will have varying architectural style, while still complementing and not contrasting with each other. The intent of the Village Strada is to insert modern uses in old buildings as is done in an authentic Italian Village. mRAk at � :r�� nti3`ti13i 'l��{ i}x�4 foE 3 r {� titw� � r �SF rI rc .,l f `J aye -:.:: ! .!t.A�( .r.' ;1),4 j•j' ��a7�' yy air q f b!� r,, L r• + f i OIL. 4>•+._ a �14iV 'I�'I 71 ,a t. "r� d r '.�...'..+. .� r q.' 4p 1 '.n. \ «•.hlrw�`,+p.,... ��:frfM Y�iL A r...L.7.T�.t. +"li' ..f''.:iYkn'a�C :'�.. '....�«+�....._-�C`«:"...�._ f.•. I s ..,r:yt' :�i,' s' -+6t1y�� �W4 >� � �"•"y'ra��iwt h.rrl+(' JtF v 6"�..,� .��'.` t ,.,.'".... i � � •1 4 _�. _,_... —ter .r:� r„ :70 IRumd I �' � �' Y • kl� 1 � � �� � �` !. 5A. I "I ' i ��ti ti���l I� y LL Z �' a l a s L � "d � �� �•.� O � - i .4��Q3 Y{- ae 1 ajf>3: i a s "t a 7a ,zr�-s -r t >r .rr�•.- ,ct p 1 1x '5,.. P 1 { , 17! :.r r a ♦. 2 t '..{x2.la Z x«tixl '1 1-r'. { [.. b v.\ 1 .•f,�] CO .�:.:1.i.ia.7....n.ur..o.,.:.a1..-.:....._,....mow:..,-:...A..:v.r'..b,a.n....;a.iLae.. ;.1 I•. y '1 � �j➢:� .I S `l^a , ..`.i..:..r�.1t..Gx:•�._....a,....:s tb:..i�.:u_..,7J.,w 3 -.. r r.,,f .r•� •cfi '��1r I,y r C7 r� t � �t�t7.! -_..... .ux......:15.,.n7 C�i� :.�Si1�',°�1...,�' 't •.�fiw�}1'ai[�IG1�:i1Ylf lLaa.u4d:oiGi.�J2:�.L��.lih,l:J.uya•�i.�.1..'..cuL.'."� y v y 4 N � S � N y Z O N N O p The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 48 July 5, 2000 THE PLAZA The Plaza (or Town Square) is the center of the Italian Village. It creates the foreground for the theater entry and is the central pedestrian access from the Strada, and the South and North passages into the Villages. Accented by cobble streets, water features and the arched entry and dome of the theater, the Plaza is the hub of the Village. Major design eoncepts were developed by great Italian Architects such as Brunelleschi, Bramante, and Alberti that are.evident in the Crossings at Huntington Beach. The theater dome, arched windows,doorways, and passageways, and decorative stone windows, corner and eave moldings are prime examples of traditional Italian Architecture. :r - a ' Ut`}�+ i ��t'tf2°r. :r,yr'`` !� � ��•�5 i ,�3 3. ,: ,��r v Gyp t71 Ar Q N .ASr lmn- •'a. 0 co r0rw V! a m THE COURTYARD AND COLONNADE Once past the arched entry to the theater, the Courtyard expands to provide smaller shops and merchants along with kiosks and the a y queuing area for the theater. Beyond the domed theater entry is the entrance to the Colonnade, which continues the retail y' Z experience for the visitor. The continuation of the Italian Village theme will follow throughout the Courtyard and Colonnade with N alleys of trees, intimate dining and seating areas,and an architectural flare reminiscent of old Florence. o The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 49 06 July 5, 2000 t- ,77, MOO 164z,)1 m4 =VAIN 1A I H11, Ir DWAL r�"M .............. wwT I.-S, j; •.•��lr ra r � Gut;.�4 �- �Itr f'�.,y�c:f.^��."' ! �a}� .+YY4 l,�� r'11 .� �yt- . :,.'a ��{i, �,(. HIT I ! � dr i. ,~ WIN 1CflTii^�f'�y:$r t NORM.^'�M.. , "f'iTl a{ f.,�'` � '�n3iS`ft�..;x� 5 t 1 [�ANY{ r ti�� r yr "} TA �71"+Aht� 4 fr1'{y4 •rz r � � jz .z- F. vY, wy��MRL �tPRA( : tt• I � i'14S.� P 1 'aj•�,�I.ti k y"�1 ! 1r p.y�+ +vt��� �r", tr. i3. t 1' 1 i S 4j i:'e,.As.:A��4.�:., t � I Ldd q r•;! 5t i fd ..r P`� '. Z O 7 '. 1, ',. o�r,tn'�4,..,,'•.tl� � :F1Al u y . ID Q Color and Materials of Common Areas y Exhibit 7 o The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specirrc Plan 51 July 5, 2000 COMMON AREA POLICIES: 3.5.3.1 Common Area Lighting will create a strong p attractive night identity for the project. Selected elements will be highlighted with illumination. "W f} These elements are selected for their ability to 'E enhance the dimension and add character to the building architecture,. to promote the appropriate degree of prestige to the project,as well as to provide a safe and secure environment for visitors and ^' ` merchants. wSJ)T 7 1 1 P�rrlung lot!ixtulv 3.5.3.3 Exterior lighting shall be located and designed to * 0 P evenly illuminate the parking areas, including the t8,, } zr ,fir ' '' parking structure. Particular attention shall be paid to { the illumination of all sidewalks, connecting walkways _ r Mtl t"i '' and alcoves. All light standards shall be consistent a Y with respect to design materials color and color of aao I` i `p light, and with the overall architectural style of the project. All lighting shall be confined within the project and shall not project beyond the project boundaries. Lighting at passagew ty t O 3.5.3.2 Illumination of buildings and landscaping ,Stair fixture j (q will be indirect to create a strong positive image. a Concealing light fixtures within buildings and landscaping can highlight attractive features. Use of a variety of lighting levels at entries, plazas, parking lots, and other areas where evening a 2 activity is expected, will create an exciting night �' time environment. Walkway fixture Accent fixture o y 0 O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 52 0�, a co July 5, 2000 3.5.3A Hardseape in the common areas will consist of 3.5.3.6 Landscaping in the common area will consist of non grid-like patterns, which recall the historical espaliered vines on columns and trellis elements, cobble stone walks and streets of an Italian Village. potted planters to add detail near storefronts, and Water elements shall be creatively incorporated to large and small planting beds throughout the plazas provide visual delight and interest. and passageways. Landscaping may consist of groundcover, grasses, shrubs, vines and trees and shall constitute a minimum of 10% of the common area (excluding Village Retail). i rxr,ry4re v Ytz' 9,�r Y`Q * " '}hyflp. r ' �•,, , S = ? ;. 7 4<<.:�M%�t��,�{�(�j 1�.t�i.�.;.� �.-" �r � �1��,4 i" dS�•1'•y� �. �•tj"i��r C�raj"#7i �� �" v� 4`�t. rti Cr M'J J:iMil,�,.rY! �1�v7 �.id`'�..,•;ti�` rl:t ? ,, r1 yi 4ka..Nt hticP,�;.u`�''4 -+f�% '' �:�A�.f4� 'A. 4 ��7f' f r -`� �^.la `" iiw �r�r ts�.,,,�� d':� A"�Y•iTl �� -+'{ t �4 t}.��� "d�4t+��Jt `"_ ��{fp+xtti•�,��,.a'a�ss,�,,,trr+a�s S .,,..r Y � ,. � �43.1.7' � '.s rlye�f�°�`��'r��,�3d'`f�, �,yt ti = 1 ''Y. •��•A'�� ,yH T4��� �H r Y - F, .. .. .:,� '�i-'� l-:i�'���rf t f'?`r ,�{ :/Yl'.•,,7�. '� ,r4�: l,. +�'e�,_,wr= ;tis�, ,• J..a N ,t.ti 1, t eta"�:.a�:�:; � !'�•� ,"'1 # � ��! �}C .��y ���Y7F��iy1'ibf.lT�f!F• \ 4; 1't... , 1. pp[[ f :eidl.'. j]f t.'7 t•.1 V... .f Y�.�•'.a..—_ 3.5.3.5 Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the surrounding public streets and shall not be exposed on the wall surface of a , .. •' ` ftiy`Y +4.:y= s „-r: �v�h rri ry •qi T fl ay LSI.« Lz,'rSr! ti j� building. Screening material and color shall be `{`j .v� uYs, 'kR r 1 kr,tlnrt compatible with the overall building design and `�ati.`7i..y,..K It 't8 a �If. � Y. i'ii7�7rL1 SA/(Yl�f', y l:C. �J•'?tF Y��>�:I 0 colors. Backflow devices, electrical transformers Ila rN-�s��-Ll•7•i`d"L=YF2titea{{iJ"i^i M 1+•ry tt,.fir.'h:t:'i..'Y.7. "N.Yfs.LIUJµ�yuiL �.:S�.'GiF.F..v.rrkYle4. :Y atld OthCl' t11CChanlCal CC1U1pn1Cllt, lOCatCCI on �� "" ""'� ��--• a ; ' " ! "'"`��'' «" O grade, shall not be located within the front or 3.5.3.7 Trash enclosures shall be concealed with screen cc o streetside setbacks, and shall be screened from walls and ornamental gates. Loading docks shall be CO public view or undergrounded. screened from view from the surrounding public streets through the use of architecturally detailed c fagade building walls. The facades shall be integrated into the overall architecture of the N y y project. Landscaping screening shall be provided 'z where possible. ;a� o 0 c The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 53 0CD � CO July 5, 2000 3.5.4A New Stores and Theaters 3.5.4 ARCHITECTURAL GUIDEUNES Implementation of the Specific Plan will Many of the elements of the Crossings at Huntington generate construction of numerous new in-line retail Beach architecture reflect that of an Italian Village and anchor stores and will likely include a multi- living environment. The Architectural Guidelines are screen movie theater. Design and site layout of any intended to establish a character, style and quality for.. newly proposed structures shall comply with the each architectural category. The categories are: following policies. New Anchor Stores and Theaters NEW ANCHOR STORES AND THEATERS General Tenant Storefronts POLICIES: Nonconforming Buildings and Uses The description of these guidelines is not intended to 3.5.4A.1 Building massing and articulation shall discourage individual innovation and creativity, but to possess a balance in form and composition; large simply provide a framework within which an overall flat unarticulated building elevations shall not be sense of place will be reinforced. Building design shall permitted. The large planes of the theater and comply with the following architectural policies. major tenant walls should be enhanced with patterns and graphics consistent with the overall design theme of the center. x f '�i l a 1�3�523137r 11 k i 00 f C _TT I • ' .LwT' ,�„ law- , r,ors �y m 1. 1 fr m O � N O p The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 54 0 6 fo July 5, 2000 pp View of North elevation 3.5.4A.2 Building entries shall have a clearly defined There are two basic types of General Tenant primary pedestrian entry. Storefronts: Storefronts facing the 'exterior' toward Edinger Avenue and Center Avenue, and storefronts 3.5.4A.3 Building materials and colors shall be guided facing the 'interior' toward the Common Areas. Both by, 'but not restricted by, the approved Common storefront types may be one or two levels. Area palette. To achieve this Italian Village concept, general 3.5.4A.4 Architecture of all structures on the property tenants in relation to each other shall have varying shall be reflective of the quality of building colors, parapet heights, window openings, heights andrhythms,canopies and signage. materials, design, and presence as depicted in the sample artist's renderings throughout this The basic objectives of tenant storefront guidelines document. are to ensure high quality design and use of materials consistent with that of the project and to 3.5.413 General Tenant Storefronts will conceptually be produce a variety of three-dimensional storefront c treated as an Italian Village. Tenant storefronts may designs, each uniquely different from its neighbors o be designed choosing from a design vernacular of but tied together with common theme materials. Q various architectural elements. Then, linking each c individual tenant storefront to another creates a cn shopping experience of boutiques and shops similar to a walking street in an Italian Village. Arches, columns, tower elements, domes and canopies shall be mixed in with display bays, balconies and y balustrades for a distinctly up-scale look garnered y z from many European styles and themes. :70 C o c The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 55 z co July 5, 2000 GENERAL TENANT STOREFRONT POLICIES: 3.5.4B.3 Tenant storefront materials may include but are not restricted to: 3.5.4B.1 All storefront designs and plans shall be subject to the approval of the property owner and the City O a ue: Translucent: of Huntington Beach. Polished metals Glass block 3.5.4B.2 Storefronts are encouraged to have multiple Smooth brick Etched glass planes to create a variety of volumes and spaces Smooth and Rough plaster Clear glass and to maximize each store's visibility. Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete Crackle glass Porcelain and Clay tile Metal grillwork Painted or Stained wood Glazed ceramic tile Smooth,Rough or polished stone Powder coated or anodized metal Cast concrete or plaster (i.e.columns,cornices) tr N7f41fo1_.1 ��.:, � a` � � k t�N.yf `1�t.�i /�tA �t � ''S y y 1 �':i�+�� l S' Y+•:.,.. N O O O Elevation of typical storefronts showing varying heights, co window rhythms and heights and canopies. a M y �7 y y,Z � O N O p O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 56co July 5, 2000 + � �}yfi; � i�4'+ 4A f � t t a f� {t ��t tiT��,{L E•f cgri'�j jr7 ;i"d"r ryllyt rq vG�il i`'�f�+�r�x `• 'd ` 1 f A 1E r JI} M�—It'll ' �6.h �< �+t > Sr r 1 f F:f4:'rt Uf t.1Z1t� f E t lr i / jia t Jy J TO s,5iv }{ i (.�5 f�Y�•'it?►4 N 4i� e 1a��t1 iit t171I��� ? -..7711M +1�"rr�•?.}IhYr l�'��Cl� 1 )lt�.� .Lu.... 1 �� %rt��4� ��Ir`+iE����l,J1 Examples ofstreetfront collection concepts 3.5.413.4 Tenants' storefront may project from the face of the building as long as this does not extend beyond the face of the upper level overhang and maintains the required mall clearances. r' ' 3.5.4B.5 Storefront designs shall comply with the design 4 �1H1 cJy_yy` ti� guidelines and may require modification in the f � � , � r► u�; •;' event that they are too similar to a neighboring `'-�, "� ^�` � 1 ' �`��► store. Themes evident in the Italian Village shall be used to base all storefront designs N 3.5.413.6 Tenants are encouraged to vertically extend ,°,; ' . °; ► t Q their facade design from leaseline to leaseline and c from slab to top of parapet or bottom of upper floor .� above. y tD C 3.5.413.7 Tenants are encouraged to have awnings or Examples ofawning use a canopies at their storefronts. H M o rn c o The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 57 0 July 5, 2000 Ix ��rt� ,pd� RAW1 . 1'� •' r,�� s.J 1 r Ri! r�4 •�� � 11 EJ tit ..1 k 1 �.Y'1�'1 _ _.L 17.. ) G J.� N, •t �7�- 11'.. '� �• 'YY .I + I Typical Tenant Storefronts 0 Exhibit S o 0 CO Q 0 CO a y !D 4 ay y'Z O N N O p The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 58 0 zCO July 5, 2000 3.5.4C Nonconforming Buildings and Uses land, buildings or structures used in conjunction with it nonconforming use or it Purpose — It is the intent of these regulations to building or structure nonconforming due to provide for the termination of nonconforming uses use and/or standards,except: and the remodel/ renovation of nonconforming a. Exterior building alterations to a building buildings in order to promote the public health, g g or structure nonconforming due to safety , and general welfare and to bring••such buildings and uses into conformity with the goals standards when the exterior alterations comply with the design, architectural, and and,policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific development policies and standards Plan No. 13. This section is intended to prevent the contained within the Specific Plan.' expansion of nonconforming uses and buildings, b. To the extent required by a subsequently establish the circumstances under which they may be enacted or subsequently adopted law, . continued and provide for the removal, correction, ordinance or regulation, and the Director remodel,or change of such uses and buildings. so finds. Such additions as are permitted by 3.5.4C.1 Regulations Applicable. The following the subsection shall not be construed to regulations shall apply to all nonconforming uses extend the termination date of the'subject and to all buildings or structures nonconforming nonconforming use, or a building or a structure nonconforming due to use or due to use and/or standards as specified herein: standards. 1. Continuation. A nonconforming use or a b 3. Natural Act. A nonconforming building or building or structure nonconforming due to use and/or standards may be continuously structure that is damage or destroyed by fire, maintained provided there is no alteration, earthquake,or other calamity, or by act of God,' or by act of war, or by the public enemy, may enlargement, or addition to any building or be re-constructed provided that each of the structure; no increase in occupant load; nor � any enlargement of area, space or volume following conditions is met: o occupied by or devoted to such use, except as a. Such re-construction is permitted by the o otherwise provided in this Section. o Uniform Building Code. Q CO 2. Additions to a Nonconforming Use, Building, b. Re-construction is commenced within one CO or Structure. This section does not authorize year of the date of damage, unless the extension,expansion,or enlargement of the otherwise allowed by the Planning a area of land or the area within a building or Commission, and be pursued diligently to structure devoted to a nonconforming use, or completion. a H the alteration, enlargement of or addition to a y Z building or structure nonconforming due to. o use and/or standards, or permit the addition ofCD o 0 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 59 0& � CO July 5, 2000 3.5.4C.2 Termination Conditions and Time .Limits standards enumerated in this Specific Plan TT}Ie following regulations shall apply -to all within the time frame specified in this section, ►lo►►col►fo►mills uses 1►nCl buildings tlud s1rucll►res CXCCpt WIICIl CXICIICICCI or revoked ns olllerwise nonconforming due to use, and to buildings and provided in this section. structures nonconforming due to standards as specified in this section. In the case of nonconforming uses and buildings or structures nonconforming due to 1. Termination by Discontinuance, use, and those buildings or structures Discontinuance of a uol►co► foriniug use or of II011conforming due 10 Standards enumerated the use of a building or structure in this Specific Plan: nonconforming due to use and/or standards as indicated herein shall immediately terminate a. Where a nonconforming use is carried on the right to operate or use such nonconforming in a conforming structure — three years use, building or structure, except when from the date of adoption of the Specific extended as otherwise provided in this Section: Plan. a. Changing a nonconforming use to a b. Where a nonconforming use is carried on conforming use; in a nonconforming structure due to standards enumerated in this Specific Plan b. Removal of a building or structure — three years from the date of adoption of nonconforming due to use and/or the Specific Plan. standards;or c. Where a conforming use is carried on in a c. Discontinuance of a nonconforming use or nonconforming structure due to standards use of a building or structure enumerated in this Specific Plan — three nonconforming due to use and/or years from the date of adoption of the standards as indicated herein for a Specific Plan. N consecutive period of one or more years. 3.5.4C.3 Review of Amortization Schedule or o 2. Termination by Operation of Law. Substitution of Use o Nonconforming uses and buildings or ca structures nonconforming due to use, shall be 1. Request for Review—An application may be discontinued and removed from their sites filed with the Planning Commission requesting a within the time specified in this section, except extension of the time within which a y when extended or revoked as otherwise nonconforming use or building or structure o. provided in this section. Buildings or nonconforming due to use, or due to standards H M structures nonconforming due to standards where applicable, must be dicontinued and a y enumerated in this Specific Plan, shall be removed from its site or remodeled and z remodeled and renovated to comply with the renovated as specified in Section 3.4.5C. o c The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 60 0 �, w July 5, 2000 3. jeopardize,endanger or otherwise The Planning Commission may accept such constitute a menace to.the public filing either before or after the date of health,safety or general welfare. expiration of such nonconforming use, building or structure. 4. Findings and Decision—The Director of Planning shall recommend and the Planning 2. Application and Procedure—Except d$ Commission shall approve an application for a specifically provided in this section, the nonconforming use,building or structure application and all procedures relative to review,provided the burden of proof set forth notification,public hearing and appeals shall above has been met by the applicant. be the same as for a conditional use permit. 5. Conditions—The Planning Commission, in 3. Burden Of Proof—In addition to the approving an application for a nonconforming information required in the application, the use and structure review may impose applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction conditions it deems necessary to insure that the of the Planning Commission the following approval will be in accord with the findings facts: required. Conditions imposed by the Planning Commission may involve any pertinent factors a. That to require cessation of such use, affecting the establishment,operation,and building or structure would impair the maintenance of the uses,buildings or property rights of any person to such an structures requested. extent as to be an unconstitutional taking of property;and/or b. That such use,building or structure does not now and will not during the extension period requested: 1. Adversely affect the health,peace or o welfare of persons residing or working o in the surrounding area,and, CO 0 y 2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of the property y of other persons located in the vicinity CD of the site,and, M _ay N Z � O N �O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 61 0 6) July 5, 2000 F: + 4 '1 v. � •1I e. . �� y+l i •��� � ��i y_Mf J� il. �: LA �� � f � � ,p �r1 �t� �J u a � ���i � . �� i' .,_.. l� '�:� ih� I� �, �( , k � i�i'i it a ��j 1 yPd�� �k: ^4�` �,14-` �,?d •� �n Z im FFF O Conceptual Facade Improvement for Village Retail o 0 P CO 0 4 afD N y Z � O O N O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 62 July 5, 2000 lTimrmi Slilim!'mirmTL111TiP1--fi1TTMU 4 t tt 1 �a vnI a lev l DII UJ l{t�t jJY is •s \ ni �tl , 459 6,61 IevA •'V.-fl.�g./JIIti "-_ � � Lh !1 '!_!::L:L" 1 LL1l ll:R U:_L'L� J r J „1 {� �J. 1�. '0 ' '"J \��\s �^F!+✓. 'n` +ufiiluacuu:".;r"i L�R ,. —r � �� � Yca. j `'• I � -'. � � , / 7 ,". .„'. 1•. .Y �It,� �°" � r �.,.t� .�.,VF llairu, 11 `�r'.�t ..�.` I f�,�61:w ,,.. � ... ............i r r'•itUlrl•N�iY f' �i.u1 e,.,y �� [ � • ` \ Jpry .}'��] {{7 `` \�.. � a i' � 3 �-w 11 r i '•fF +? 2,2 II ��!,�n'a v'V;r'�f� ��'' _ r'� f, . , 1 ,of � ;'�`�'s �> ' � - �% , , fit,�,;� i �r;e�/ ,,!• 0I:1L'Y� 'j1iS !1 'ri st�i'Y [[ i�'sE lljl •;1 J t 1u1,1 1 �1(� �: III u..l�'�r,7[f� ,w.J;t r ,.. •X.IsI'ry[Yli� 'L :[��[ !i fits s II � T �� ,•�',.K !K in '�J }1'� h;- is �+�rr!y.}I.n��t.7,�,5�'Y'''��^t � 'IYi/.a.�- fCY •I"91 _ � ''�.` \ Ilf_ ,r '.4{:i 1V/ llut4M71 rl 'ZII _'aYV;._, „t rr I till 1" �`St:Wr`rk y, r4+., + � I u+,... ,I r •!-... '�•t' r I IY I I I� 1 ' ��1���II 1 � ,'•, w• If ( �wlr,I l I if Icl, I 1 I�:lyr}.!.+ � hl7 hIII - .r--____.. .._ • 1 1 I 1 f; ��� VP %J 4} K? � r� ,—. . 1 . giTC� � "Ql _ .0 � M•Iw n'. ` In7 � [[t t♦j P' S8 `�`ij r �: ` t (y, ��, � ,� f.�re„�+ 1 �I ''r • 7 I I TTII r', f 1 W ._ , { v d �.. W: - 4 r �,� -( - w" }M�I' �: il► � w r^ :� � I�st � _U. � I � ��= I� J. Y' Y Y" � V 4 bi 'f 1 ' . .. ��. - - 1 I I I II III •,II II!IPu11 III I I IIII 11 I ' 11 I I 11[1 l I 1[-II — I GE -- a -1T1± _.ij,r..1. %11k•sSll�f✓Llr tl'. 5:,••, 11.. 1,1�' —Y � I, •nr•h..l„..I•II�ulbww.11 lr..l•..,.U,N.Y hll rl�l/IIu1M.vwNUh•,IM.n , � - Landscape Concept Plan m y. . Exhibit 9A Z � o 00 EF CD The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 63 6) July 5, 2000 % riitiiftt iThirll ",;...nfl iftImSOt � T '�, ' fxlitltfr� 4► . . .>;w'S» �� rl� �C * �-, 7P 1 Or s P (I 3�: ,.•. _ _ 'i .. — y�� :N CR AV[NaE ^�!Q 0 fi s r !It y I III I =`s}r � �1 � r � �:� �t tr✓k a+7 ,. 1�1 y�, l.� _ � � \ `1�, Cf.) � 11 n 1�ta 9a(nJ l l CI z � � � II �.1 .r,inu 11 hllh ru ih nliin nlli rl:I�iurr. 1 �V IlMv I I t Rtliv ' If ,RI �, I 1 9 1�� r q v",..� II I ,� r' �•'r � I n �, � `�' '� `�' �`r 1'. ! to' + .n,r t I. ,l � > `�.Il�• � i I `� '�► �,� /i� 4r ,rr �tr r P , I. J r I � { F.u_,� ' 1r`r �I`^, �Ir �.,�yt rr/rr. .�/ F rat , 1d� Tn,, Y i I, �(� r'�' •5r r 'I .. // �.� ,,!- II i�(,s�Y{r?�Ir � I' rr .J}�.�.t'�trl`� lr• 1Ct/I.;'Y� W II�..I..I. n � V 4 �: i• 1�r; _-f t r,� .,J/�l,rl /,W r� ,y� _ III 03 3'� W ;13 •.:•S4t _..1' , i ,. i, llUll t ; t 71s W I'�I I fD �tlrl 011Wz — N N fD Landscape Concept Plan afD N N Z Exhibit 9B o y C� The Crossings at Huntington Beach.Specific Plan 64' o �, July 5, 2000 3.5.5 LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES The landscape for The Crossings at Huntington Beach 3.5.5.2 Existing healthy trees, where feasible, shall be is an integral component of the overall project design. preserved or relocated on site. If healthy trees are This design concept is urban in nature and has strong removed, replacement shall be as follows: Each elements of an Italian Village. These elements include existing Rhaphiolepis "Majestic Beauty" removed the use of strong vertical elements such as Italian shall be replaced with one (1) thirty-six (36) inch cypress and Palms at the main entrances in strategic box tree or palm equivalent. All other healthy tree areas for emphasis and continuity. Some of the other species with a ten (10) inch diameter trunk at elements that fit well with an Italian Village breast hieght or larger shall be replaced with two environment include the following which are (2) thirty-six (36) inch box trees or the palm indigenous to the California coast. i.c.: Bougainvillea, equivalent for each tree removed. Should the Ivy Geraniums, Hibiscus, Lupine, Azalea, Indian foregoing substitution of two (2) 36" box trees be Hawthorn and tree varieties such as Silk tree, Alder, impractical, the ratio may be modified to one (1) Strawberry tree, Deodar Cedar, Carob, Carrotwood, 36" box tree with the approval of the Directior of Crepe Myrtle and the like. The Landscape Concept is Public Works. Palms may be substituted for trees at composed of these elements as well as other elements, the ratio of half (1/2) foot of brown trunk height such as decorative paving, water features, public art, for each one (1) inch of box size. If the situation and lighting which are complementary to and assist in occurs where there is not enough planting area for the implementation of an integral landscape design. the trees required, the accumulative box inches of These Landscape Guidelines establish the design trees may be utilized, For example, two (2) thirty character and visual qualities for development within six (36) inch boxed trees could be combined into the Specific Plan. one seventy two (72).inch box tree. For palms, the requirement of eighteen feet of brown trunk for LANDSCAPE GUIDELINE POLICIES: each thirty six (36) inch tree would work as follows: two (2) thirty six (36) inch box trees could 3.5.5.1 Site layout shall respect and preserve as much of be combined into one (1) thirty six (36) foot the existing site features, including trees where (brown trunk) palm. All tree replacement shall be y possible. A professional consulting arborist shall subject to review and approval and may be o determine whether existing trees can be saved modified by the Director of Public Works. o during construction. co ti N N 4J'Z �O y N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 65 0�, July 5, 2000 3.5.5.3 Landscape design. shall provide formal or 3.5.5.5 Street tree planting in the parkway areas shall informal groupings of deciduous and evergreen include a minimum of one (1) thirty six (36) inch trees, flowering shrubs, and groundcover. Trees box tree for each forty five (45) feet of lineal shall be of even size and shape at the time of frontage. At the discretion of the Director of Public installation. Replacement trees shall be compatible Works, this planting may be modified to one (1) with the new landscape plan. A minimum of eight twenty four (24) inch box every thirty (30) feet. (8) percent of the net site area shall be landscape Tree planting shall be grouped in informal drifts and shall be provided on the perimeter of the site and tree quantities shall be determined by the and the parking lot. Additional landscaping is length of the property adjacent to the street divided requred in the Common Area (see policy 3.5.3.6). by the recommended spacing of each tree variety. Shrubs shall be planted flush to the walls, when All parkway planting shall be subject to review and feasible, thus not allowing a hiding place for an approval of the Director of Public Works. offender or privacy .for transients between the shrub and wall. 3.5.5.4 Plant materials shall be selected to create an informal pattern of landscaping to reinforce the character of the tree plantings. A formal pattern of landscaping shall be created on-site at the project entries. Trees shall be selected based upon the size of the planting area to allow for mature growth without causing future damage to the improvements. A consulting, certified ISA arborist shall review and approve final tree planting plans . for compliance. All trees shall be a minimum twenty-four (24) inch box size. Shrubbery c (evergreen and flowering) shall be low to medium ^g' in height; minimum size shall be five (5) gallon. All grass selections shall be made from the City's c approved water efficient materials list. aX N y Z O O ^' The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 66 0 aw July 5, 2000 PLANT PALETTE - SITE DF,SCPJMON :-", F ROTA ICA4NAME. FRONTAGE TREE PYRUS KAWAKAMII EVERGREEN PEAR LAGERSTROEMIA FAUREI CRAPE MYRTLE METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE FRONTAGE HEDGE LIGUSTRUM J.TEXANUM' TEXAS PRIVET JUNIPERUS CHINENIS `PARSONII'JUNIPER FRONTAGE ACCENT SHRUB BOUGAINVILLEA SP. BOUGAINVILLEA HIBISCUS ROSA-SINENSIS HIBISCUS FRONTAGE GROUNDCOVER GAZANIA SP. GAZANIA ZOYSIA TENUIFOCIA KOREAN GRASS ENTRY DRIVE THEME TREE OI.EA EUROPAEA OLIVE ENTRY DRIVE TREE JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDA PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE PYRUS CALLERYANA'BRADI'ORD' BRADFORD FEAR ENTRY DRIVE ACCENT SHRUB AZALEA SP. AZALEA ENTRY DRIVE EDGE SHRUB PHORMIUM TENAX FLAX ENTRY DRIVE LOW SHRUB TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE END ISLAND TREE LAGERSTROEMIA FAUREI CRAPE MYRTLE RHAPIOLEPIS'M/\JES'I'IC BEAUTY' INDIA HAWTHORN TREE FORM END ISLAND LOW SHRUB ASPIDISTRA ELATIOR CAST-IRON PLANT TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS SPREADING ROSEMARY END ISLAND ACCENT SHRUB ROSA SP. SHRUB ROSE PARKING LOT TREE FLATANUS ACERIFOLIA TLOODGOOD' LONDON PLANE TREE ULMUS PARVIFOLIA TRUE GREEN TRUE GREEN ELM ZELKOVA SERRATTA SAWLEAF ZELKOVA ULMUS PARVIFOLIA CHINESE ELM SCREEN TREES EUCALPTUS SP. EUCALYPTUS PINUS SP. PINES AGONIS FLEXUOSA PEPPERMINT TREE PARKING GARAGE SCREEN TREE TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX Z PARKING GARAGE PLANTING BOUGAINVILLEA SP. BOUGAINVILLEA ° TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE c PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA `MINT JULIP' p SCREEN TREES MELALEUCA QUINQUENERUTA CAJEPUT TREE o TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX cn FICUS RUBIGNOSA RUSTYLEAF FIG Plant Materials Palette a Exhibit 10 _a y y Z � O 00 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 67 0 6C3 July 5, 2000 3.5.5.E Pedestrian walkway systems shall be designed Perimeter parking lots adjacent to arterial streets to unify the entire project area and provide shall be provided with additional landscape pedestrian site access to buildings, parking and site treatment to ensure that the parking areas are activity areas from the perimeter project area and adequately screened from adjacent street views, from within the site. Pedestrian walkways shall be a ' however, not hidden from the view of passersby minimum of five (5) feet clear in width with no and police on the adjacent streets. Berming in these vehicular overhang. areas is encouraged and shall be a maximum of three (3) feet high and have a natural appearance 3.5.5.7 Perimeter,landscaping around the project areas in form. However, the fact that a successful retail shall provide a consistent edge treatment using a shopping center must be seen from the adjacent limited variety of plant materials. streets will be the determining factor in the selection and placement of all perimeter 3.5.5.8 Parking lots shall be planted at the rate of one (1) landscaping. tree for every ten (10) parking stalls. Parking lot Shrubbery shall be planted in areas where berms trees shall be twenty-four (24) inch box trees. All are not practical. Shrub planting shall be provided tree planting areas shall be a minimum net width of in a minimum five (5) gallon size and spaced a four (4) feet in one direction and a net width of six maximum of three (3) feet apart. Shrubbery shall (6) feet in the other direction. Small trees (at not exceed three (3) feet in height. Hedges shall be maturity) shall be utilized in these planting areas. trimmed from the ground and maintain an eight Parking lot treatments shall be consistent and (8) inch clearance from the ground. contribute to the project landscaping unity. Parking Where cars overhang the curbs, ground cover lots shall be planted with trees in such a manner as planting shall be required;a maximum overhang of to provide maximum shade. An alternative which two (2). feet shall be permitted. The overhang area clusters or groups parking lot trees may be considered. Larger trees may also be considered as shall not be considered as part of the required minimum percentage of on-site landscaping or z substitutes for a number of smaller trees, subject to minimum planter width. ° review and approval of the Director of Public o Works. 00 0 y 'O M to M Q. In � N Z O O p The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 68 0 10 � CO July 5, 2000 3.5.5.9 Perimeter landscaping shall preserve or Exhibit 5, shall incorporate enhanced materials construct a minimuni.ten (10) foot wide landscape from the property line to the back of the adjacent buffer between the arterial highway and private landscape planter or a minimum of 15 feet. Minor project improvements, including buildings, walls, driveway entrances shall provide a minimum of ten parking areas, etc. Landscape improvements within (10) feet of enhanced treatment. the public right-of-way, adjacent to private improvements, shall be constructed by the project Pedestrian connections consisting of enhanced developer and maintained by the property owner paving materials shall be provided along the front consistent with the overall landscape theme. The of the satellite buildings (Barnes and Noble, Circuit design shall be consistent with the approved City, and Staples) and within the pedestrian Edinger Corridor concept.. walkway connecting these outlying buildings to the main mall. Enhanced paving materials shall also be 3.5.5.10 Entry drives shall be constructed in conformance provided throughout the public plazas and from with the Specific Plan (Policy 3.5.2.4) and City Edinger Avenue at the main project entrance design standards (Public Works Standard Plans) (across from Sher Lane) along a pedestrian path to subject to the review by the Directors of Public the main plaza.. Works and Planning. Project access points shall be designed to provide entering and exiting drives 3.5.5.11 Interior plaza areas and courtyards shall be with adequate views of approaching pedestrians provided as focal points. These areas shall be an and vehicles. integral part of the building architecture and be connected by a walkway system to the public Entry drives shall provide convenient access to pedestrian walkways. parking lots at various locations approved by the Director of Public Works. In addition to street trees 3.5.5.12 Irrigation systems shall comply with the City's and on-site landscaping, each entry shall be "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements." designated by ground cover-planting, shrubs, and (Ordinance #1452). Z large specimen trees on each side of the entry. o These trees shall be located a minimum of ten (10) 3.5.5.13 All landscaping shall conform with the o feet back from the intersection of driveways and requirements of the Landscape Improvement co property lines to avoid line-of-sight conflicts. chapter of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the City Arboricultural and Enhanced paving (pavers, interlocking bricks, Landscape Standards and Specifications, and City y stamped concrete, or other similar material) shall Standard Plans, in addition to the Specific Plan a be provided at all driveway entrances from the policies. N public right-of-way to the project. Major driveway entrances,as identified on the Circulation Plan, Z o y O ^'p The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 69 6Q July 5, 2000 3.5.5.15 Landscape screening is intended to soften and 3.5.6 SIGNAGE GUIDELINES blend the connection-of the building areas with the landscape of the parking. lots. 'frees shall be The Signage Guidelines identify it framework to provided to soften,and visually relieve,parking and advertise a place of business and provide directions or utility areas and to provide summer shade. information specific to that business. Attractive and effective signage can be designed without detracting Trash enclosure areas, where appropriate, shall be from the overall design quality of the project area. The provided with tree and shrub planting screens to Signage Guidelines also contribute to the overall soften the enclosure. Mechanical equipment and project area urban retail design theme. Design, color, transformer areas shall have landscape screening materials and placement are all important in creating and/or low-level screen walls. Valves, meters, back signs that are architecturally attractive and integrated flow preventers, etc., shall be screened by shrub into the overall project area design. The intent is to plantings and/or low level screen walls. create and promote a quality visual environment by allowing only signs which are compatible with their 3.5.5.16 Landscape lighting shall be provided in selected surroundings and which effectively communicate areas to aesthetically enhance the site. Pedestrian their message. walkways shall include adequate night lighting for public safety and crime prevention purposes. Signs shall be designed to be architecturally Courtyard lighting shall be a minimum maintained compatible with the colors and materials of the level of one foot-candle. adjacent building. All signing shall be consistent with the Crossings at Huntington Beach's sign standards 3.5.5.17 Conservation water measures shall be (Appendix Q. incorporated in the landscape design. A minimum of seventy-five (75) percent of the required landscape area shall be planted with ground cover and the balance (a maximum of 25 percent) with z turf. The use of shrubs, hedges, and berming shall ° be provided to screen cars in the parking lots from o Q street view. CO 0 'o m y fD y•� _a y y' Z � O � O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 70 July 5, 2000 DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONS ��. .. ski IaLal Yf A raml Al ® a a; ,ram- ri' �p 7i, Yi wSqv N Secfion Four o N � O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 71 July 5, 2000 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4.1.0 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS POLICIES: 4.1.1 Not withstanding provisions to the contrary, all 4.0 PURPOSE grading shall be approved -by both .the Planning Director and Director of Public Works,or designee. The purpose of this section is to provide specific 4.1.2 Construction may commence only after the development regulations and standards that will be Planning Director finds that the project is consistent applied to development projects in the Specific Plan. with the regulations and applicable policies and Upon adoption by the City of Huntington Beach, the guidelines of the Specific Plan. Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan will be the zoning document for the project area. 4.1.3 All structures in existence at the time of Specific 4.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Plan adoption shall be deemed legal, non-conforming. All policies regarding Site Plan Review process and The provisions contained herein shall govern the facade improvements shall apply. design and development of the Crossings at . 4.2 DEFT fl'IONS Huntington Beach Specific Plan area. Standards and/or criteria for development and activities not specifically addressed in this Specific Plan shall For the purposes of the Specific Plan, words, phrases require referral to the current provisions of the and terms shall have the meanings as defined below. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Terms not specifically defined in the Specific Plan shall and Municipal Code. have the same definition as used in the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Whenever a use has not been specifically listed as in.effect at the time of any individual request. being a permitted use, the Planning Director shall determine if the use is consistent with the intent of this When not inconsistent with the context, words used in Specific Plan and compatible with other permitted the present tense include the future tense; words used uses. In addition, all projects must comply with the in the singular number include the plural number; o following policies: and words of the masculine gender include the o feminine and neutral gender. The word "shall" is Q always mandatory and the word "may".is permissive. o The word "encouraged" shall mean every effort shall be made to conform to the policy but alternatives may be acceptable. H' 4.2.1 Architectural Features. Architectural features y include elements that compliment the building �'Z architecture such as, but not limited to, walls, o 0 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 72 0 Q, � cc July 5, 2000 architectural towers and domes (with The Crossings at 4.2.9 Renovation. Any request to remodel, improve, Huntington Beach logo), spires, and 'arches. renovate, upgrade,or refurbish the interior or exterior Architectural features may include signage as depicted of an existing building, including minor in the attached signagc guidelines. improvements to accommodate new tenants or an upgraded look for an existing tenant. 4.2.2 Communication Antenna. All types of receiving and transmitting antenna,except satellite dish antenna 4.2.10 Site plan. A plan prepared to scale, showing accurate and wireless communication facilities. and complete dimensions of all buildings, structures, landscaping, parking, drive aisles, uses, etc. and the 4.2.3 Deviations. An adjustment in one or more exact manner of development proposed for a specific Development Regulations in order to accommodate parcel of land. special circumstances and/or unique architectural .features. Deviation shall be limited to ten 0 0) percent 4.2.11 Street. A public or approved private thoroughfare or of any single development regulation. road easement which affords the principal means of access to abutting property. 4.2.4 Entryway. The point of ingress and egress from a public. or private street to the individual project. 4.2.12 Structural alteration. Any change in, or alterations to, the structure of a building involving: the bearing 4.2.5 Final Approval. Ten (10) days after approval by'the wall, column, beam or ceiling joints, roof rafters, roof discretionary body and no appeal of that decision has diaphragms, foundations, retaining walls or similar been filed. components. 4.2.6 Modification (Minor). An amendment to the 4.2.13 Ultimate Right-Of-Way. The adopted maximum exhibits and/or text which does not change the width for any street, alley or thoroughfare as meaning or intent of the Specific Plan. established by: the general plan, a precise plan of street, alley or private street alignment, a recorded �O 4.2.7 Modification (Major). An amendment to the parcel map, or a standard plan of the Department of !^ exhibits and/or text which is intended to change the Public Works. Such thoroughfares shall include any c meaning or intent of either the Development Concept, adjacent public easement used as a walkway and/or o Design Guidelines,or Development Regulations. Major utility easement. CO modifications require a Zoning Text Amendment and action by the Planning Commission and City Council. 4.2.14 Use. The purpose for which land or building is c arranged, designed, or intended, or for which it is 4.2.8 Private drive. A privately owned and maintained occupied or maintained. o. roadway used to provide vehicle access through the N property. 4.2.15 Wall or Fence. Any structure or devise forming a a N physical barrier. This definition shall include: c o c The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 73 0�, July 5, 2000 concrete, concrete block, brick, stone or other 4.3.2 Intensity. The maximum intensity shall be consistent masonry material, metal, and wrought iron, etc. with the City's General Plan. 4.2.16 Zone. A district as defined in the State Conservation 4.3.3 Building height. The maximum allowable building and Planning Act, shown on the official zoning maps. height shall be seventy-five (75) feet And a maximum and to which uniform regulations apply. of 4 stories. Rooftop mechanical equipment and parapet walls may exceed the maximum permitted 4.2.17 Zoning Maps.The official zoning maps of the City of building height by fifteen (15) feet, however Huntington Beach which are a part of the mechanincal equipment shall be screened from view. comprehensive zoning ordinance. Special themed architectural.structures or elements such as towers or domes may be allowed up to one hundred-twenty (120) feet. 4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4.3.4 Setbacks. Refer to Exhibit 12. The Development Standards shall serve as the mechanism for the implementation of the Crossings at 4.3.5 Landscaping. Landscaping shall be permanently Huntington Beach land uses. The standards set forth in maintained in an attractive manner in all setback and this section will assure that future development within parking lot areas fronting on, or visible from, adjacent The Crossings at Huntington Beach is implemented in public streets. a manner consistent with the intent of the project area Master Plan. The standards contained herein provide 4.3.6 Signs. All signs in'the project area shall conform to flexible mechanisms to anticipate future needs and the provisions of the sign standards in Appendix C. achieve compatibility between land uses and the surrounding community. Standards and guidelines are 4.3.7 Lighting. All illumination of interior circulation designed to be compatible with the existing land use g' categories of the City. The primary land uses in the streets, parking areas, and project sites, shall be coordinated to provide consistent illumination Crossings at Huntington Beach shall be regional intensity. Emphasis shall be placed on areas of high commercial, retail,dining,and entertainment. vehicular and pedestrian activity. Light fixtures and o standards shall be consistent with building o 4.3.1 Permitted Uses. Permitted uses shall be required to 0 architectural style. Public streetlights shall comply p meet all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach with the City of Huntington Beach guidelines for street o Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. A list of lighting. c permitted uses is provided in Exhibit 11A. n _ay y'Z O O C> The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 74 0�, a w July 5, 2000 New building cot istruction of the following uses and fagade improvements to existing buildings shall be permitted within the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan subject to review and approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Director. Other changes in occupancy, such as, like for like tenant changes, new tenants established within existing buildings, and/or intensification of tenant uses shall be subject to building permit plan check review to verify compliance with parking and the Specific flan review. +.WNl�h,y� tiCf Od��Jl liifi� f.!'t h ?'qr. , IR Aquarium Day Care Facilities Banks and other financial institutions Government Offices * Commercial recreation and live entertainment Public Safety Facilities Food Markets (Specialty Markets-max. 10,000 s . ft.) Utilities and Communication Facilities General Retail Parking Day Spa -surface Hotels Motels -structured Movie Theaters -valet Restaurants -with outdoor dining - with alcohol sales -*with live entertainment and dancing Personal Services OFFICE Business and Professional OTHER PERMITTED RETAIL Car stereo and alarm installation,if integrated into an anchor/major retail building and located within a building Portable carts and kiosks Note:Other similar uses may be permitted subject to review by the Planning Director. o ti 0 *Requires an entertainment permit p Permitted Uses Chart ca a Exhibit 11A a bl � N 'b p 0 N ` O The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 75 j 6 July 5, 2000 The following temporary and seasonal events may be permitted outdoors within the mall's interior common areas only. The following.temporary and seasonal events located within the parking lot shall follow permit procedures described in the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 1�...,.'�ii�, . .. •..._ . ....�. :;;..; :.:., ` .::.;, ..,,.;: , dif �.e,'C�,1. u9;9 1adC .t,., s fG� V. .4 Art Shows Auto shows Carnivals Circus Commercial Filming Concerts Contests Farmer's Market Fund Raisers Health Fairs Live Entertainment Miscellaneous Exhibitions Outdoor Retail Sales Pet Shows Seasonal Displays and Events Theatrical Performances z Note: Other similar temporary uses may be permitted subject to review by the Planning Director. Z 0 N 0 0 Q 0 0 Cn a Temporary and Seasonal Events Chart Exhibit 11 B a y y'Z o O Cp The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 76 z co July 5, 2000 .{. �•4ii �j+�{ n t� i 4.YT", 94)Yb► ` �s4d1'Y�t�rKf ��7SrlJ� '' 15srtr*Al. 4t4 ���?4h� 1? f ,5+ ii Mini►luun Pro'eet Area (AC) 50 Minimum Lot Size (AC) None Minimum Lot Frontage None Maximum Building Height 75 feet Maxiiiium Number of Stories 4 stories Maximum Additional Height for parapet walls, mechanical 15 feet e ui ment communication antennas etc. Maximum Architectural Feature Height 120 feet Maximum Lot Coverage 50% Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.5 Minimum Setback * Street side (Edinger Ave., Beach Blvd.and Center Ave.) 50 feet,or 25 feet if setback is fully landscaped Interior side (West Property Line) 10 feet Minimum Landscaping 8% of total site; 10% of common area Minimum Perimeter Landscaping Street side (Edinger Ave., Beach Blvd. and Center Ave.) 10 feet Interior side (West Property Line) 5 feet Minimum Standard Parking Stall Size 9 feet x 19 feet Minimum Compact Parking Stall Size 8 feet x 18 feet Minimum Drive Aisle Width 25 feet for 90 degree stalls Minimum Parking Required Shared parking based upon joint use of parking analysis with Site Plan Review Maximum Compact Spaces 20%of total spaces Handicapped Parking Comply with Uniform Building Code and Title 24 Parking Structure Design Comply with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance c Public Amenity Requirement Minimum of six public amenities required;At least two public art o elements and two water features within common areaCO Q Wireless Communication Facilities Comply with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance o Transportation Demand Management Comply with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance a *'Buildings exceeding fifty (50) feet in height shall increase the set back by one (1) foot for each one (1) foot of building height a above fifty (50) feet. .;0 Development Regulations Chart y y Z Exhibit 12 2 ° 00 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 77 July 5, 2000 toward the required landscape percentage or TYPICAL PARKING LAYOUTS minimum landscape width. IN A compact parking stall size of eight (8) feet, zero lylll� I�IIi'94 ,0 0) (0) inches wide by eighteen (18) feet deep may be 711 1 proposed for up to a maximum of twenty (20) percent of the total proposed parking spaces. All compact parking stalls shall be concentrated �° •+'3 °' around. the perimeter of the site and shall be LO prohibited within the parking structure. �• ,�} Total parking required by the Huntington Beach N Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (see below) �• .th b shall be installed for each project prior to final t ta' �s' S' ts' zs' 18 18 building inspection. STANDARD PAFWND SPACE ACCESSIBLE P hma SPACE STANDARD PARWNO SPACE Parking shall be provided in accordance with an approved Shared Parking Study. A shared parking program may allow for a reduction of the code required parking by up to twenty five (25) Parking Standards & Detail percent,based upon a shared parking analysis. It is estimated that the New Shared Parking Study will Exhibit 13 suggest a ratio of 4.5 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of development. 4.3.8 Parking. All developments will be required to meet Handicap accessible parking spaces shall be the minimum on-site parking standards as provided in provided as required by the Uniform Building o this Specific Plan document. The following shall Code and Title 24. o apply; co o Q 0 • Standard parking stall size shall be nine (9) feet wide by nineteen (19) feet deep and may be reduced to provide a landscape curb or wheel stop c (in parking structure) at seventeen (17) feet with a . two (2) foot overhang to expand the landscaping. -1 m This additional landscape area will not be credited H z � o m N N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 78 0 �, July 5, 2000 Parking structures shall be designed utilizing Ilse massing and basic design characteristics and Italian Village architectural guidelines found in this Specific Plan. The structures shall be screened from view using trees and landscaping. Parking structures shall include exterior, open-air stairwells in the design of the parking structure. Stairwells shall be built to allow pedestrians to be seen in the stairwell from outside of the structure, and allowing the same pedestrians to see out. Parking structure lighting shall be a minimum level of three foot-candles; preferably metal halide. Use lighting in the center of the parking structure aisles that throws light to the side, thus lighting pedestrians and parked cars. Design the structures to allow as much natural light into the structures as possible. All interior wall surfaces in the structures shall be painted white to reflect ambient light. The structures shall follow the City of Huntington Beach Police Department Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Guidelines. 0 ry 0 0 Q CO 0 y m aco y y Z A G N N 00 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 79 0 CD � CO July 5, 2000 Z.'.vF'ya:PN���F,sFn�i+,:, `�` ,�. ��'h��1,.. r''? r �i,_�.•��.s. Fl�f?I�r�l Intensity (F.A.K.) Building Height Architectural Feature Height Parapet, Mechanical Equipment Height Lot Coverage Setback Front Interior.Side Exterior'Side Landscape Percentage Perimeter Landscape Front Interior Side Exterior Side Parking Spaces y Parking Structure Design o Public Amenities N 0 0 Public Art Elements CO Water Features b fD y Development Regulations Check List M aM Exhibit 14 o y N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 80 0 9 9 P 06) July 5, 2000 Res. No.2000-68 Res. No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution A. Legal Description The following provides the legal description for the entire Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan Area,which is bounded by Center Avenue on the north,Pacific Railroad on the east,Edinger Avenue on the south and Beach Boulevard on the west. Refer to Exlubit 1 in the Specific Plan. Perimeter Legal Description Parcels I through 3,5 though 9 and that portion of Farcel 4,Parcel Map No:86-200, in the City of Huntington Beach,County of Orange,State of California as per map filed in book 225 pages 40 through 45,inclusive,of parcel snaps,in the office of the county recorder of said county,described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way(30 feet wide)with the centerline of Edinger Avenue(variable width),as said intersection is shown on said Parcel Map No.86-200;thence South 89 32'12'East - 45.00 feet along the centerline of said Edinger Avenue to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of parcel 1 of said parcel map;thence North 00 15'57"East 50.00 feet to the southwest corner of said parcel 1 also being the True Point of Beginning:thence North 00 15'57"East 1120.67 feet along the westerly line of said parcel 1 to the northwest corner of said parcel 1;thence South 89 32'12"East I803.57 feet along the northerly line of said parcel 1 and the northerly line of parcels 2,3 and 4 of said parcel map to the northeasterly line of said parcel 4;thence along a non-tangent curve in the northeasterly line of said parcel 4,concave southwesterly and having a radius of 504.00 feet,a radial line to said point bears North 43 06;Sr-East;thence southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 1211'46"an arc distance of 107.ZS feet: thence•alorig the northeasterly line of said parcel 4 the following 5 courses:South 34 41'37"East 207.33,South 31 44'17" East 229.95 feet to the beginning of a non- tangent curve,concave northeasterly and having a radius of 300.00 feet,a radial line to said point bears South 75 I0153"West;thence along said cure through a central angel of 50 58139'an arc distance of 266.92 feet,South 65 47'46'East 253.09 feet and South 35 19'06"East 70.61 feet;thence South 00 16150'West 273.62 Feet along a line that is parallel Nvit_h the easterly line of said parcel 4 and 9.00 feet a=esteriy;thence South 42 16"20"West 4I.4Z feet along a line that that is parallel with the southeasterly line of said parcel 4 and 6.00 feet northwesterly to a point in the north line of parcel 1 of an easement to the city of Hunthigton Beach recorded November 9, 1972 in book 10418,page 968 official records in the office of the county recorded November 9, 1972 in book 10418,page 968 official records in the office of the county recorder of said county;thence North 89 32112"West 533.76 feet-along said north line to the southeasterly corner of parcel 2 of said ca-ement thence North 44"32'12"West 41.01 feet along the northeasterly line of said parcel 2 to the north wr-,qt corner of said Parcel 2;thence:forth 89 3211 Z" West 32.50 feet along the north line of said pastel 2 to the northwest corner of said parcel 2;thence South 00 2748" Kest 37.00 fee;along the west Line of aid parcel 2 and said parcel r to the southerly line of parcel 4 of said Parcel map;thence North 89 3211 2'West 1874.1 4.15 feet along the southerly lutes of Parcels 1,2,3 and 4 of said parcel map to True Point of Begirsring. Note: This description was prepared as a convenience only and is not for us in the division and/or conveyance of land in violation of the subdivision map act of the State of California Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution '--�' - ire _h.-,�.�„✓.�'�i'..��.yv 7>` ✓.(�C tea. ••-•-- �LW Res. No.2000-68 Res.No.2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution B. General Plan Consistency Analysis California State law requires that all cities and counties have a long-range general plan for their physical development. Once a local government has adopted its General Plan, it must be implemented, and local governments have a range of implementation tools from which to select.Most mechanisms for implementing a City's general plan derive from local government's corporate and police powers, such as: construction of streets, acquisition and development of parks, zoning, subdivision regulations, school dedication requirements, code enforcement, environmental and design review procedures and redevelopment. A specific plan is an effective implementation tool that is often used to address a single project or a master planned project such as the Crossings at Huntington Beach. The Specific Plan provides a bridge between the broad General Plan policies and individual project submittals (site plans, subdivision proposals, etc.) in a more area-specific manner than is possible with community wide zoning ordinances. As a- result, a specific plan's emphasis focuses on establishing guidelines and concrete development standards to supplement those of the general plan. Specific plans must be consistent with all facets of the general plan, including the policy statements contained within the general plan document. In turn, zoning, subdivisions, and public works projects must be consistent with the Specific Plan. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan contains detailed regulations, guidelines and implementation measures that will serve as a guide, providing consistency with the City's General Plan and standards and guidelines by which future development will be approved. This section explains how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. The four (4) points listed below provide the basis for the consistency analysis contained in this section. L. California Government Code Section 65450-65553 permits adoption and administration of Specific Plans as an implementing tool for the General Plan. 2. The current General Plan designation for the site is "Commercial Regional" with a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.5, a specific plan overlay, and a mixed-use overlay. The mixed-use overlay would allow 0.5 commercial FAR and 25/units/acre. The site is currently zoned "CG" General Commercial with a 1.5 FAR. The more restrictive 0.5 General Plan FAR takes precedence. The adoption of the Specific Plan will supersede the existing zoning and adopt a new set of zoning regulations. Adoption of the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan;therefore,a General Plan amendment is not required. 3. The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan and serve to implement all aspects of the General Plan as it applies to the designated area. 4. The City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update, adopted in 1995, is comprised of 16 separate elements: 1) land use, 2) urban design, 3) housing, 4) historic and cultural. resources, 5) economic development, 6) growth management, 7) circulation, S) public facilities and public services, 9) recreation and community services, 10) utilities, 11) environmental resources/ conservation, 12) air quality, 13) environmental hazards, 14) noise, 15) coastal and 16) hazardous materials. The following provides a brief discussion of these July 5,2000 1 Res. No.2000-68 Res. No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Elements, which are applicable to the project including a listing of applicable goals and policies. Although the General Plan identifies objectives within each element, the policies actually implement the objectives and therefore provide more. specific criteria of how the identified goals will be achieved. The discussion below indicates how the Specific Plan project meets the applicable policies. 1. LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element (LUE) for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan provides for the types, density/intensity, design, and distribution of. commercial, residential, industrial, and agricultural land uses as well as public and private open space. The LUE includes goals designed to serve as a general guide for the future development of Huntington Beach in terms of location of uses,allowable residential densities,and other criteria. The LUE designates the 63-acre Crossings at Huntington Beach project site as Commercial Regional (CR) with a maximum building height of four (4) stories. Typical permitted uses of the Commercial Regional designation are anchor department stores, outlet stores, promotional ("big box") retail, retail commercial, restaurants, entertainment, professional offices, financial institutions, automobile sales facilities, and similar region-serving uses. The site is also designated as sub-area 5A in the General Plan with specific design and development standards for.the mall property. The primary goal of the Land Use Element is to provide guidance regarding the manner in which lands are to be used in the City of Huntington Beach.Applicable goals include: • Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economical demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. • Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure,and public services. • Achieve and maintain a high quality of architecture, landscape,and public open spaces in the City. • Ensure that significant environmental habitats and resources are maintained. • Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. • Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinctive identity for the City's neighborhoods,corridors, and centers. • Achieve the development of a range of commercial uses. • Achieve new development that enhances the City's quality of development and sense of place,goals for community character,and preserves significant historical resources. The following applicable Land Use Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. July 5,2000 2 Res.No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Correlation of Land Use Development with Market Demands Policies LU 1.1.1 Establish incentives for the development of uses to support the needs and reflect the economic demands of City residents and visitors. The majority of the Specific Plan area will be developed in a single phase as outlined in Section 2.1 of the document. However, fndivdual building pads may be developed in later phases along with expansions to the initial phase of construction. This approach will ensure that future economic development opportunities wall be unplemented dependent upon market conditions Additionally, the Specific Plan allows for flexibility in the Specific Plan Development Regulations This flexibility m development standards is intended to accommodate future market trends and tenant needs, without sacrificing the intended high- quality character of the project area During the formulation of the Specific Plan, staff identified uses to be permitted and prohibited witivn the document. `Future permitted uses"have the incentive of a "fast track"entitlement process since their approval shall be determined via the Planning Director vs the Planning Commission or City Council. LU 1.1.2 Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. The Specific Plan will encourage future development by promoting a comprehensive planned commercial project and allowing for future "fast-track"entitlement. This Specific Plan will promote development an accordance ►oath the Economic Development Element. Additionally, the landowner is promoting development through its internal marketing strategies and real estate brokers Correlation of Land Use Development with Supporting Public Infrastructure and Services Policies LU 2.1.1 Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). The Specific Plan area will be developed in a manner that would allow forprivate development to occur in a timely manner with an o verall Master Plan concept. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public faciE es and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Circulation Plan, and Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Sections S.3 and 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. July 5,2000 3 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Additionally,once a definitive site plan and developmentproject isproposed,an Environmental - Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en wronmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division 10EQA1 to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be move significant than described in the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan Ellis the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. LU 2.1.2 Require that the type,amount,and location of development be correlated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and services (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Elements). Development will be correlated with infrastructure needs Section 3.0 of the Specific Plan presents several conceptual development plans and discusses the circulation,public facilities and infrastructure improvements which will support the Land Use Plan and reinforce the design concept. Implementation of the proposed project will occur in a single phase, and it will be consistent with the intent of the Master Plan Concept. LU 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. Development will be correlated with infrastructure needs Section 3.0 of the Specific Plan presents several conceptual development plans and discusses the circulation,public facilities and infrastructure improvements which will support the Land Use Plan and reinforce the design concept. Implementation of the proposed project will occur in a single phase,and it will be consistent with the intent of the Master Plan Concept. Quality of the Qy's Built Environment Policies LU 4.1.1 Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in this Plan,as appropriate. Design Guidelines and Development Regulations are included as Sections 3.5 and 4.0 of the Specific Flan. Section 3.5 establishes a comprehensive set of design guidelines for the entire project area and for individual project.development, while Section 4.0 presents a detailed description of the development regulations and standards which are necessary to guide and control new development and carry out the goals and policies of the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. July 5,2000 4 Res.No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution LU 4.1.2 Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Landscape standards which requu-c development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Speciffc Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. LU 4.1.3 Require property owners to maintain landscaping, remove and abate weeds, and replace unhealthy or dead landscape. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specifc Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. LU 4.1.4 Encourage developers to incorporate mature and specimen trees and other significant vegetation, as defined by the City, that may exist on a site into the design of a development project for that site. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development a thin the Specific Plan. The Landscape Plan also requires incorporation of mature and specimen trees that may exist on a site into the design. LU 4.1.5 Consider creating incentives for the use of drought-tolerant species in landscape design. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 355 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development ii thin the Specific Plan. Policies for the use of drought-tolerant species in landscape design is also addressed in 5.-_--fton 3.0 of the Specific Plan and will be reviewed with the plans for development of inditiidual parcels LU 4.1.6 Require that commercial and industrial development incorporate adequate drought-con irrigation systems and maintain the health of the landscape. Landscape standards which require development proposals to implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Sr*t-cific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. July 5,2000 5 e Res. No.2000-68 Res. No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution The Incorporation of adequate drought-conscious irrigation systems and maintenance of the health of the landscape is also addressed in Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan and will be reviewed with the plans for development ofindividual parcels LU 4.1.7 Require that all commercial and industrial landscape be adequately irrigated with automatic irrigation systems. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. The incorporation of automatic irrigation systems Is also addressed in Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan and will be reviewed with the plans for development ofindividual parcels LU 4.1.8 Use reclaimed water for the irrigation of public and private landscape,as feasible. The City does not currently have a reclaimed water supply system available. As indicated in Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan, reclaimed water shall be utilized where and whenever feasible and shall comply with the City's "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" (Ordinance #1452). Usage will be addressed with future individual requests for development if such a system is available at that time. LU 4.2.1 Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's, building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or maybe amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications related to new, adaptively reused, and renovated buildings not addressed In the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. Additionally, once a site plan is proposed for development, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Hunfngton Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "lf a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to thatgeneral plan, the application of this division[CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior envirorunental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 July 5,2000 6 Res. No.2000.68 Res. No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EV the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. LU 4.2.4 Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions,open space,and other pertinent elements. Section 3.5 Design Guidelines and Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan include requirements for parking,access requirements,supporting functions, open space, etc. LU 4.2.5 Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Upon the City's adopfion of the Crossings at Hunfington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or maybe amended m the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. Appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use shall be incorporated in accordance with State and Federal Laws (refer to Section 3.5 Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan). LU 4.2.6 Monitor the conditions of buildings in the City and enforce pertinent building, municipal and zoning codes to ensure their maintenance and quality. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. Types and Densities of Land Use to be Permitted Policies LU 7.1.1 Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules (Table LU-2 - see below). July 5,2000 7 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Table LU-2 Land Use Density and Intensity Schedule Land Use Category ical Permitted Uses COMMERCIAL Anchor department stores,outlet stores,promotional ("big box") REGIONAL retail,retail commercial,restaurants,entertainment,professional offices,financial institutions,automobile sales facilities,and similar region-serving uses. The Specific Plan area will accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintains the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources The proposed permitted land uses are consistent with the City's General Plan for the site. Individual building pads may be developed in later phases along with expansions to the initial phase of construction. This approach will ensure that future economic development opportunities will be implemented dependent upon market conditions Ad&donally, the Specific Plan allows for flexibility in the Specific Plan Development Regulafions This flexibility in development standards is intended to accommodate future market trends and tenant needs, without sacriffcing the intended high-quality character of the project area. LU 7.1.6 Accommodate the development of additional jobs-generating land uses that improve the 1992 jobs to housing ratio of 0.82 to 1.0 or greater; to meet objectives of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (Southern California Association of Governments) and Air Quality Management Plan. These should capitalize upon existing industrial strengths and emphasizing the clustering of similar or complementary industries. The Specific Plan permits and encourages jobs generating land uses that will assist in improving the 1992 jobs to housing ratio. Additionally, during the formulation of the Specific Plan, staff identified uses to be permitted and prohibited within the document. "Future permitted uses" have the incentive of a "fast track"entitlement process since their approval shall be determined by the Planning Director vs the Planning Commission or City Council. Distribution and Pattern of Development Policies LU 8.1.1 Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, and in accordance with the principles discussed below. a. Enhance a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors by their distinct functional role, activity,and/or form and scale of development. b. Increase diversification of community and local commercial nodes to serve adjacent residential neighborhoods. C. Intermix uses and densities in large-scale development projects. July 5,2000 8 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution d. Site development to capitalize upon potential long-term transit improvements. e. Establish linkages among community areas, which may include pedestrian and vehicular paths, landscape, signage, other streetscape elements, open space, transitions in forms,scale,and density of development,and other elements. The Speck Plan area wiUaccommodate the development of balance of land uses consistent with the patterns and distribution of use and intensity depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, specifically,regional commercial uses Commercial Regional Permitted Uses Policies LU 10.1.14 Encourage the incorporation of community-oriented facilities in regional commercial developments, such as telecommunications centers, public meeting rooms, daycare facilities, and cultural uses. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan development concept outlined in Section 3.0 of the Speck Plan provides for a planned Commercial Regional complex in the City of Huntington Beach allowing for a variety of uses, consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. During the formulation of the Specific Plan, staff also identified uses to be permitted and prohibited within the document. Future permitted uses include telecommunication centers, public meeting rooms, daycare facilities,and cultural uses Design and Development LU 10.1.15 Require that regional commercial developments be designed to convey the visual sense of an integrated center by consideration of the following principlesa • use of multiple building volumes and masses and highly articulated facades to reduce the visual sense of large scale "boxes"; • use of roofline or height variations to visually differentiate the building massing and incorporation of recesses and setbacks on any elevation above the second floor above grade; • siting of a portion of the buildings in proximity to their primary street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks; • design of the exterior periphery of the structures to contain shops, restaurants, display windows, and other elements that provide visual interest to parking areas and the street elevation; • inclusion of a "public square"-as a gathering place of public activity in multi-tenant regional centers; • clear identification of building,entrances; • use of landscape that provides a three-dimensional character; • encourage the provision of public art; July 5,2000 9 Res. No.2000-68 Res. No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution • inclusion of consistent and well-designed signage integrated with the building's architectural character,including pedestrian-oriented signage;and • design of parlang structures to be visually integrated with the commercial buildings. Section 3.9 Design Guidelines and Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan address these issues The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan provides the framework andguidelines necessary to create a unique high quabtyregional commercial development. Development Policy: Community Subareas LU16.1.1 Accommodate development of the City's neighborhoods,boulevards, and districts according to the Community Districts and Subareas Schedule (Table LU-4). Table LU-4 Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 5A Permitted Uses Category: Commercial Regional (CR) - Region-serving Huntington ommercial uses permitted by the "CR"land use category and Center ixed-use structures vertically-integrating housing with ominercial uses permitted by the "-mu" overlay. Density/ Category: "F2"—Maximum FAR of 0.5 Intensity • Height- four (4) stories Design and Category: Mixed Use (-mu);Specific Plan (-sp) Development • Require the preparation of an development in conformance with a specific or master plan • Design and site development as a cohesive and integrated center and a stipulated by Policy LU 10.1.16. • Locate buildings around common courtyards and pedestrian areas. • Locate a portion of development along the Beach Boulevard frontage. • Improve the signage and sense of entry from the Interstate 405 Freeway, Beach Boulevard,and other major access points. • Implement extensive streetscape improvements along the Beach Boulevard and Edinger street frontages. • Promote the economic enhancement and revitalization of the Center. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan development concept outlined in Section 3.0 of the Specific Plan provides for a planned Commercial Regional complex in the City of Huntington Beach allowing for a variety of uses, consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. Section 3.9 Design Guidelines and Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan address design and development issues The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan July 5,2000 10 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution provides the framework and guidelines necessary to create a unique high quality regional commercial development. 2. URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT The Urban Design Element focuses on the quality of the City's physical and visual character, which is determined by the organization, scale, density and pattern of the community's built environment and open spaces. The primary goal. of the Urban Design Element is to establish and strengthen community identity.An applicable goal includes: • Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach The following applicable Urban Design Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Nodes Policies UD 1.2.1 Require public improvements to enhance the existing setting for all key nodes and pedestrian areas through the consideration of the following: a. provide pedestrian connections and visual continuity between the node and surrounding neighborhoods; b. incorporate shade trees to shelter pedestrians; C. incorporate the use of enhanced paving materials at the pedestrian crosswalks; d. widen the sidewalks at intersections where feasible to minimize the length of pedestrian crossings;and e. enhance the connections where feasible between the public sidewalk and private commercial interior open spaces/courtyards as described in the Land Use Element by using: • decorative paving materials; • landscape materials;and • street furniture. Landscape standards which require development proposals to implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. Section 3.5 Design Guidelines and Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan address design and development issues. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan provides the framework and guidelines necessary to create a unique high quality regional commercial development. July 5,2000 I 1 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution UD 1.2.2 Require that the nodes incorporate the public improvements specified in UD 1.2.1 and other elements that may be listed in the'table,as feasible. Landscape standards which require development proposals to implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan Corridor Identity Policies UD 1.3.1 Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character along the community's corridors, reflecting the unique qualities of each district. Ensure that streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors, the residential corridors, and primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while promoting visual continuity throughout the City. Landscape standards which require development proposals to implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. UD 1.3.2* Provide for the implementation of streetscape and landscape improvements along the major commercial corridors, through public capital improvement programs, business district improvements,or other techniques as funding is available. a. Develop or enhance the pedestrian environment in those parts of the corridors where there is existing or the potential for pedestrian activity,this includes the use of: • sidewalk furniture; • shade trees; • shade structures • special paving;and • pedestrian walkway linkages. b. Consider using.. special corridor oriented public signage, public art, or median monuments at prominent intersections. C. Discourage the excessive use of temporary signage including bunting and commercial banners. Section 3.5 Design Guidelines, Section 4.0 Development Regulations,and Section 3.5.6 Signage Guidelines of the Specific Plan address design and development issues The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan provides the framework and guidelines necessary to create a unique high quality regional commercial development. July 5,2000 12 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution 3. HOUSING ELEMENT The Housing Element,adopted in February 1999, is intended to direct residential development and preservation in a way that coincides with the overall economic and social values of the community. The Housing Element is an official municipal response to a growing awareness of the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the community, as well as legal requirements that housing policy be made a part of the planning process. As such, the Element establishes policies that will guide City officials in daily decision making and sets forth an action program designed to enable the City to realize its housing goals. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted three goals for its housing program which are consistent with State and Regional housing policies.These goals are: • The attainment of decent housing within a satisfying living environment for households of all socioeconomic,racial and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. • The provision of a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes throughout the City. • The development of a balanced residential environment with access to employment opportunities,community facilities,and adequate services. These goals relate to issues, which are not directly applicable to the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, since the Specific Plan is not designated for residential uses The Housing Element objectives and policies are also not applicable. 4. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT The overall intent of the City of Huntington Beach Historical and Cultural Element is to identify the historical resources of the community, their current designations and community status, and the issues affecting their future. Goals include: • To promote the preservation and restoration of the sites, structures and districts which have architectural, historical, and/or archaeological significance to the City of Huntington Beach. • Develop avenues for communication and participation in arts and cultural activities and programming to bring together diverse segments of the community. • Highlight the City's unique cultural heritage and enhance its visual appeal. • Expand opportunities for the City's children to receive quality experiences of arts and culture. • Establish a wide range of arts and cultural programs and facilities that address the needs and interest of residents,workers,and visitors. These goals relate to issues, which are not directly applicable to the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specifie Plan, since the Specific Plan area does not contain any significant historic and cultural 1 esour ces The Historic and Cultural Resources Element objectives and policies are also not applicable. July 5,2000 13 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No.200"0 Supersedes This Resolution 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT The Economic Development Element is specifically concerned with the identification of a strategy to address development potentials that will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base. Its goals and policies are formulated to provide new.policy direction for the City and the planning area. The primary goal of the Economic Development Element is to provide for the economic opportunities of City's residents; business retention and expansion; and land use plan implementation.Applicable goals include: • Provide economic opportunities for present and future Huntington Beach residents and businesses through employment and local fiscal stability. • Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial and visitor serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. • Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic land use planning and sound urban design practices. The following applicable Economic Development Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Economic Growth Policies ED 1.1.1 Maintain and expand economic and business development programs that encourage and stimulate business opportunities within the City. The Specific Plan will stimulate business opportunities within the City by allowing for and encouraging Regional Commercial development under an expedited entitlement process Additionally, the Specific Plan provides for a range of employment opportunities in the professional retail and service fields;thus stimulating business opportunities and strengthening the employee base of the community. Refer to Section 4.0 Development Standards for a list of permitted uses Commercial Use Policies ED 2.4.1 Encourage and assist existing and potential commercial oNvners to update, modernize, and expand their commercial properties. The Specific Plan will encourage future commercial development by promoting a comprehensive planned retail center and allowing for future "fast-tack" entitlement. This Specific Plan i-vill promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Additionally, the landowner is promoting development through its internal marketing strategies and real estate brokers July 5,2000 14 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution ED 2.4.2 Seek to capture "new growth"businesses such as,but not limited to: • telecommuting; • "shop for value"or"big box" stores; • entertainment-commercial developments; • knowledge-based retail and entertainment-information retail uses;and • high sales tax producing businesses. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specifc Plan seeks to capture "newgrowth businesses by allowing for and encouraging Regional Commercial development under an. expedited entitlement process Additionally, the Specific Plan provides for a range of employment opportunities in the professional retail and service fields;thus stimulating business opponWrufies and strengthening the employee base of the community. Refer to Section 4.0 Development Standards for a list of pe.tmiffed uses ED 2.4.3 Encourage the expansion of the range of goods and services provided in Huntington Beach to accommodate the needs of all residents in Huntington Beach and the market area. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan encourages the expansion of the range of goods and services provided in Huntington Beach by allowing for and encouraging Regional Commercial development under an expedited entitlement process Additionally, the Specific Plan provides for a range of employment opportunites in the professional retail and service fields;thus stimulating business opportunities and strengthening the employee base of the community. Refer to Section 3.0 Development Standards for a list of permitted uses ED 3.1.4 Encourage the development of a "big box," "shop for value" businesses, especially along Edinger Avenue. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan encourages the expansion of the range of goods and services provided in Huntington Beach by allowing for and encouraging Regional Commercial development consistent with the Specific Plan under an expedited entitlement process 6. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT The Growth Management Element, adopted in April 1992, is a pre-requisite to establish and continue eligibility to receive monies generated by the sales tax which was approved by Orange County voters in November 1990 as Measure M (Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance). The purpose and intent of the Growth Management Element 'is to establish goals, policies and programs that will promote growth and development based upon the City's ability to provide an adequate circulation system and public facilities and services. July 5,2000 15 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution The applicable goals of the Growth Management Element are to: Reduce traffic congestion. • Ensure that adequate transportation and public facilities and public services are provided for existing and future residents of the City. The following applicable Growth Management Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Land Use Policies 5.8.1 Promote balanced growth of residential and non-residential land uses and supporting public facilities and services. The Specific Plan prepared for this project area promotes the development of comprehensive planned regional commercial area, consistent with the City's land use designation. 7. CIRCULATION ELEMENT The purpose of the Circulation Element is to evaluate the transportation needs of the City and present a comprehensive transportation plan to accommodate those needs. The Circulation Element focuses on the City's arterial streets and highways; public transportation modes and services;water transportation;and air transportation. The primary goal of the Circulation Element is to provide a multi-mode transportation system that ensures the safe and efficient movement of people and goods.Applicable goals include: • Provide a balanced transportation system that supports the policies of the General Plan and facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while minimizing environmental impacts. • Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. • Develop a balanced and integrated multi-modal transportation system. • Encourage and develop a transportation demand management (TDM) system to assist in mitigating traffic impacts and in maintaining a desired level of service on the circulation system. • Provide sufficient, well designed and convenient on and off street parking facilities throughout the City. The following applicable Circulation Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. July 5,2000 16 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Streets and HighwUs Policies CE 2.1.1 Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) not to exceed LOS "D" for intersections during the peak hours. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Speck Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities to serve the proposed project. A Circulation Plan (refer to Section 3.3 of the Specific Plan) for the project will be prepared consistent with the City of Huntington Beach's Circulation Element. This plan will be approved by the City and the landowner will be consfucting public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally,once a defmifive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts pecubar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Speck Plan, and propose mifigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en vironmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division ICEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in Me prior en=nmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. CE 2.1.2 Maintain a city-xvide level of service (LOS) for links not to exceed LOS "C" for daily traffic with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway south of Brookhurst Street. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate pubEc facilities to serve the proposed project. A Circulation Plan (refer to Section 3.3 of the Specific Plan) for the project will be prepared consistent with the City of Huntington Beach's Circulation Element. This plan will be approved by the City and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses : proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionallyy, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed, an Environmental Assessment ciiU be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 210833(b), `If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact r eport was certified ivith respect to that general plan, the application of this division (CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the en vir onment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior emlronmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior en wronmental impact report." Based upon Public July 5,2000 17 Res.No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an en vimnmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City.. Public Transportation Policies CE 3.1.1 Encourage and support the various public transit agencies and companies, ride sharing programs, and other incentive programs, that allow residents to utilize forms of transportation other than the private automobile. The project Circulation Plan identifies has stop locations along the project fmntage on Edinger Avenue and on Center Avenue. The Circulation Plan (Section 3.3) describes the various public transportation alternatives proposed. In addition, the Specific Plan re-iterates any future project's obligation to comply with the City's adopted Transportation Demand Management ordnance. CE 3.2.1 Require developers to include transit facilities, such as park-and ride sites, bus benches, shelters, pads or turn-outs in their development plans,where feasible as specified in the City's TDM Ordinance. The City ofHunfington Beach has adopted a TDM ordinance. As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, the development within this Specific Plan prYiject will comply with City requirements and bus pads and turnouts must be provided at the site. Transportation Demand Management/Transportation Systems Mana eg ment Policies 4.1.1 Encourage non-residential development to provide employee incentives for utilizing alternatives to the conventional automobile (i.e., carpools, vanpools, buses, bicycles and walking. The Specific Plan indicates that alternative forms of transportation should also receive careful consideration. The future development within the Specific Plan will be required to address this issue. In addition, the Specific Plan re-iterates any future project's obligation to comply with the City's adopted Transportation Demand Management ordinance. CE 4.1..5 Promote ride sharing through publicity and provision of information to the public. The Specific Plan indicates that alternative forms of tansportation should also receive careful consideration. The future development within the Specific Plan will be required to address this issue. In addition, the Specific Plan re-iterates any future project's obligation to comply with the City's adopted Transportation Demand lllanagement ordinance. July 5,2000 18 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution CE 4.1.6 Encourage that proposals for major new non-residential developments include submission of a TDM plan to the City. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a 7DM ordinance. As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, the development within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requirements and bus pads and turnouts must be provided at the site. Farlang Facilities Policies CE 5.1.1 Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in private transportation use. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate supply ofparking that supports the pnosent level of demand and allows for the expected increase in use to serve the proposed project+ Section 4.3 Development Standards of the Specific Plan states that parldng shall be provided based on the results of a shared parking analysis to be approved by the Directors of Public Works and Planning. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en vironmental impact report was cerftfied with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are pxuliar to.the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the pn7or environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the deielopment envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for appro val by the City. CE 5.1.2 Fm%-ide safe and convenient parking that has minimal impacts of the natural environment, the community image,or quality of life. 711e Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in use to serve the proposed project. Section 4.3 Development Standards of the Specific Plan states d2st parking shall be provided based on the results of a shared parking analysis to be approved b►-the Directors of Public Works and Planning. Addbtionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Asc;ssment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessany. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project ju:vi,2000 19 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division ICEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described rn the prior environmental impact reporf" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan ELF the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Scenic Highways Policies CE 7.1.1 Require the roadways, as shown in Figure CE-12, to be improved and maintained as local scenic highways, major urban scenic highways, minor urban scenic highways, and landscape corridors with key entry points. Section 3.3 Circulation Plan identifies the roadways to be improved and maintained. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. CE 7.1.4 Establish landscape and urban streetscape design themes for landscape corridors, minor scenic urban corridors, and major urban scenic corridors which create 'a different character enhancing the corridor's surrounding land uses. For example, the design theme for corridors adjacent to-residential neighborhoods should be different than the design theme for industrial or commercial uses. The Landscape Plan for the Crossings at Huntington Beach (Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan) has been prepared to establish the design character and visual qualities of the interior and perimeter of the project area. CE 7.3.1 Require that new development include landscaping that is compatible with the visual character of the designated scenic highways and corridors. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. 8. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT The Public Facilities and Public Services Element discusses public facility service provision for Huntington Beach residents and businesses. The services discussed in this element include: law enforcement, fire protection, marine safety, education, libraries, and governmental adnunistration. July 5,2000 20 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Applicable goals include: • .Protect the community from criminal activity, reduce the incidence of crime and provide other necessary services within the City. • Ensure adequate protection from fire and medical emergencies for Huntington Beach residents and property owners. • Promote a strong public school system which advocates quality education. Promote the maintenance and enhancement of the existing educational systems facilities, and opportunities for students and residents of the City to enhance the quality of life for existing and future.residents. The following applicable Public Facilities and Public Services Element policies are identified below,followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Police Policies PF 1.3.1 Ensure that project development site designs provide"defensible space". The Specific Plan includes policies for future development to reduce crime. Crime prevention guidelines are included in Section 3.5 Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan, and they will apply to all future development within the Specific Plan. The Police Department will review the dei elopmentplans/site designs once proposed. PF 1.3.2 Ensure that new development and land use proposals are analyzed to determine the impact their operators, occupants, visitors or customers may have on the safety and welfare of the community. The Specific Plan includes policies for future development to reduce crime. Crime prevention guidelines are included in Section 3.5 Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan, and they will apply to all future development within the Specific Plan. The Police Department will review the det elopmentplans/land use proposals once proposed. Fire/Paramedic Policies PF 2.3.2 Ensure that new construction is designed with fire and emergency access and safety in mind. The Srucific Plan includes fire safety measures in Section 3.4.1, which will apply to all future development within the Specific Plan. The Fire Department will review the development plans onceFroposed. PF 2.3.3 Ensure that existing buildings are maintained in a manner which is consistent wvith fire safety. July ?,%)0 21 Res. No.2000-68 Res. No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution The Specific Plan Includes fire safety measures in Section 3.4.1, which will apply to all future development within the Specifcc Plan. The Fire Department miff review the development plans once proposed. 9. RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ELEMENT The Recreation and Community Services Element.has been adopted to identify, maintain and enhance local parks and recreational services and facilities. Applicable goals include: • Enrich the quality of life for all citizens of Huntington Beach by providing constructive and creative leisure opportunities. • Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents, and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. • Develop park sites to provide diverse recreational and sports facilities that meet the residents'and visitors'active and passive recreational needs. • Ensure recreation facilities are renovated and upgraded to meet the current recreational interests of adults and youth. • Provide parks and other open space areas that are efficiently designed to maximize use while providing cost efficient maintenance and operations. These goals relate to issues, which are not directly applicable to the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, since the Specific Plan is not designated for residential or open space uses by the City General Plan. The Recreation and Community Services Element objectives and policies are also not applicable. 10. UTILITIES ELEMENT The Utilities. Element discusses water supply, sanitation treatment (wastewater), storm drainage, solid waste disposal,natural gas,electricity, and telecommunications. Applicable goals include: • Provide a water supply system which is able to meet the projected water demands; upgrade deficient systems and expand water treatment, supply, and distribution facilities;and pursue funding sources to reduce the costs of water provision in the City. • Provide a wastewater collection and treatment system which is able to support permitted land uses; upgrade existing deficient systems; and pursue funding sources to reduce costs of wastewater service provision in the City. • Provide a flood control system which is able to support the permitted land uses while preserving the public safety; upgrade existing deficient systems; and pursue funding sources to reduce the costs of flood control provision in the City. • Maintain solid waste collection and disposal services in accordance with the California. Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939), and pursue funding sources.to reduce the cost of the collection and disposal services in the City. • Maintain and expand service provision to City of Huntington Beach residences and businesses. July 5,2000 22 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution The following applicable Utilities Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Water Policies U1.2.1 Require that new and existing development contain safeguards and mitigation measures preventing degradation. The Crossings at Hundggton Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the Cify in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally,once a defmitive site plan and developmentproject is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Ch-wings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en vironmental impact report was certified iaith respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than descrsbed in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Cede Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Speck Plan is currently exempt from preparation ofan environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. U 1.2.2 Require new development to connect to the sewer system. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and require ments of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructare as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additiona&. once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed, an En vir onmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Cirssings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. _4ccording to Public Resources Code Section 210833(b), "If a development project July 5,2000 23 Res. No.2000-68 Res. No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was cert7fed with respect to that general plan, the application of this division ICEQA1 to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Speck Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. U 1.3.4 Require the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation, grading, and other non-contact uses in the new developments,where available or expected to be available. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an En vironmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division (CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Wastewater Treatment and Facilities Policies U2.1.6 Require that sewer capacity is available before building permits are issued for new development. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public ,facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public July 5,2000 24 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and developmentproject is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), `if a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division (CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as sign f cant effects in the prior environmental impact report or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than dewnbed rn the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EII., the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Storm Drainage Policies U3.1.5 Limit new development,when necessary, until adequate flood control facilities are constructed to protect existing development and accommodate the new development runoff, or until mitigation is provided in accordance with the Growth Management Element. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was cez Pied with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which i-vere not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than descr7bed in the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City.. July 5,2000 25 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Solid Waste Policies U 4.1.1 Maintain adequate solid waste collection for commercial, industrial, and residential developments in accordance with state law. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project`consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Speck Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "Ifa development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en vironmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact r eport." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a.site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Gas Supply,Telecommunication, Electricity Policies 5.1.1 Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was July s,2000 26 Res. No.2000.68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division (CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which am peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described m the prior en vironmental impact report.n Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed m the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. 11. . ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/CONSERVATION ELEMENT The Environmental Resources/Conservation Element addresses the City of Huntington Beach's environmental resources.Applicable goals include: • Improve and enhance the overall aesthetic value and appearance of the City of Huntington Beach through the provision and maintenance of local public and private open space. • Protect and preserve significant habitats of plant and wildlife species, including wetlands,for their intrinsic values. • Conserve the natural environment and resources of the community for the long-term benefit and enjoyment of its residents and visitors. The following applicable Environmental Resources/Conservation Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings. at Huntington Beach.Specific Plan achieves consistency. Open Space Policies ERC 1.1.1 Encourage the provision of open space elements within the larger-scale development projects including but not limited to public plazas, entry courts, and planned development common areas. As indicated in Section 3.5.5 Landscape Concept of the Specific Plan, each project development shall provide sufficient landscaping to continue the Landscape Plan concept and the Specific Plan identifies an open space exhibit with plazas and pedestrian walkways throughout the Project. Aesthetic Resources Policies ERC 4.1.8 Include commercial, residential, industrial, and natural areas in the electrical undergrounding program. The Specific Plan requires undergrounding of utilities in association with development of future projects per Specific Plan Policy 3.4.6. July 5,2000 27 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Water, Electricity}and Gas Conservation Policies ERC 5.2.1 Require,the use of reclaimed water in common areas and landscape treatments of all proposed developments. The City does not currently have a reclaimed water supply system available. As indicated in Section 3.5.9 of the Specific Plan, reclaimed water shall be utilized where and whenever feasible and shall comply with the City's "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" (Ordinance#1492). Usage will be addressed with future individual requests for development if such a system is available at that time. ERC 5.2.2 Create standards for landscaping and irrigation, which are in compliance with State requirements. Landscape standards, which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards and In compliance with State requirements, are included as Section 3.55 of the Speck Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan 12. AIR QUALITY ELEMENT The purpose of the Air Quality Element is to address air quality factors affecting the City, and establish goals, policies and programs in order to help achieve the goals of the Air Quality Management Plan adopted by South Coast Air Quality Management District. An applicable goal includes: • Improve regional air quality by a) decreasing reliance on single occupancy vehicular trips, b) increasing efficiency of transit, c) shortening vehicle trips through a more efficient jobs-housing balance and a more efficient land use pattern, and d) increasing energy efficiency. The following applicable Air Quality Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Vehicle Work Trips Policies AQ 1.1.2 Require all businesses and multiple tenant centers with 100 or more employees to participate in a Transit Management Association or Organization. 777e City of Huntington Beach has adopted a 7DM ordinance, which addresses appropriate trip reducing activities As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, the development within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requirements July 5,2000 28 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No.2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution AQ 1.1.5 Encourage all new commercial, industrial, and residential structures to accommodate appropriate trip reducing activities such as alternative work schedules, on-site day-care facilities, on-site automated teller machines, "mail-in" applications, or telecommuting and/or teleconferencing facilities as technology becomes available. The City ofHuntzngton Beach has adopted a 7DM ordinance, which addresses appropriate trip reducing activities As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan,all developments within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requiremen Is. Transit Trips Policies AQ 1.2.2 Require developers of employment centers with 100 or more employees and major activity centers to include transit amenities and transit access as an integrated part of their projects. The City of HundnSfon Beach has adopted a IVM ordinance, which addresses appropriate trip reducing activities As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, developments within this Specific Plan project will comply with Cityrequirements AQ 1.2.3 Encourage property owners in existing employment and activity centers (such as the Pier, Downtown, Huntington Beach Mall) to include transit amenities at their sites when these projects apply for additional planning permits or senices. A Circulation Plan will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.3 of the Specific Plan). The circulation plan specifies locations for public transportation bus pads and bus turnouts and also includes a potenhallocabon for a light rail transit stop. This plan will be approved by the City and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. AQ 1.2.4 Encourage major commercial and industrial development projects located along transit routes to include integrated transit access points in the project design. A Circulation Plan will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.3 of the Specific Plan). The circulation plan specifies locations for public transportation has pads and has turnouts and also includes a potential location for a light rail transit stop. This plan will be approved by the City and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Speck Plan. July 5,2000 29 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No.2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Carpool and Vanpool Trips Policies AQ 1.3.2 Require that employment centers with 100 or more employees increase the availability and the "attractiveness"of parking spaces for vans and carpools. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a 7DM ordinance, which addresses appropriate h7p reducing activities As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, developments within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requirements. Vehicle Trip Distances Policies AQ 1.5 Encourage residential and commercial growth to occur in and around existing activity centers and transportation corridors in accordance with the Land Use Plan Map. A Circulation Plan has been prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.3 of the Specific Plan). This plan will be approved by the City and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. AQ 1.5.2 Continue to encourage job growth by maintaining the supply of commercial and industrial designated land in accordance with the Land Use Map. Consistent with the General Plan and in accordance with the Land Use Map, the Specific Plan permits job generating land uses that will assist in improving the 1992 jobs to housing ratio. The majority of the Specific Plan area will be developed in a single phase as outlined in Section 2.1 of the document. However, individual building pads maybe developed in later phases along with expansions to the initial phase of construction. Particulate Emissions AQ 1.8.1. Continue to enforce construction site guidelines that require truck operators to minimize particulate emission. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specif c Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any in&i dual request. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and developmentproject is proposed, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed July 5,2000 30 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000.80 Supersedes This Resolution for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "lf a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EII, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an en vironmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. AQ 1.8.2 Require installation of temporary construction facilities (such as wheel washers) and implementation of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shag supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or maybe amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an En vironmental Assessment.will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior.environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior en vrronrnental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an en vironmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Energy Conservation AQ 1.10.1 Continue to require the utilization and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the July 5,2000 31 Res. No.2000-68 Res. No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or maybe amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. AU development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. Additionally, once a deh'nitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "rf a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division. ICEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which arse peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows wi11 be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan E14 the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an en idronmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. AQ 1.10.3 Encourage energy use audits, and identify conservation measures, for all existing commercial and industrial structures. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or maybe amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any rndividual request. 13. COASTAL ELEMENT The Coastal Element, amended in 1992, includes information sufficiently detailed to indicate kinds, location and intensity of land use and applicable resource protection and development policies. The Coastal Element designates different categories of land uses which will be permitted within the coastal zone and specifies the areas where each land use snap, categories and additional policies together constitute the Coastal Element, which is intended to reflect local conditions and needs while meeting the Coastal Act policies and requirements. The Coastal Element is organized around the following issue areas, which have been identified as relevant to the City's coastal zone: • Recreation and Shoreline Access • Visitor-Serving Facilities • Visual Resources July 5,2000 32 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution • Water and Marine Resources and Diking,Dredging,filling and Shoreline Structures • Environmentally Sensitive Habitats • Energy • Community Facilities • Coastal Land Use Plan • Next Steps in Coastal Planning The goals and policies within the Coastal Element provide guidance and direction for development in the coastal zone. The goals of the Coastal Element.relate to issues, which are not directly applicable to the Crossings of Huntington Beach Specific Plan, since the Specific Plan area is not within the coastal zone. The Coastal Element objectives and policies are also not applicable. 14. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT The Environmental Hazards Element addresses flooding as it pertains to geologic, seismic and soils hazards. This Environmental Hazards Element and the referenced materials together satisfy the geologic and seismic portion of the Section G5302 (g) requirement. Applicable goals include: • Ensure that the number of deaths and injuries, levels of property damage, levels of economic and social disruption,and interruption of vital services resulting from seismic activity and geologic hazards shall be within levels of acceptable risk. • Ensure the safety of the City's businesses and residents from methane hazards. • Eliminate; to the greatest degree possible, the risk from flood hazards to life, property, public investment and social order in the City of Huntington Beach. • Ensure the safety of the City's businesses and resident from peat hazards. The following applicable Environmental Hazards Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Geologic/Seismic Safety Policies EH 1.2.1 Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction such as stated in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. July 5,2000 33 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution EH 1.3.5 Encourage property owners to take adequate steps to protect their property against economic risks resulting from seismic and geologic hazards. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or maybe amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time ofanyindividual request. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certffed with respect to that general plan, the application of this division ICEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Flooding . Objective EH 4.1 Ensure that the City's flood prevention standards and practices provide satisfactory safeguards for public and private development. The Public Facilities Section of the Specific Plan (Section 3.4) addresses this policy. Additionally, upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides speciffc development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual iequest. July 5,2000 34 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution 15. NOISE ELEMENT The purpose of the Noise Element is to identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The Noise Element recognizes the guidelines adopted by the Office of Noise Control in the State Department of Health Services and shall analyze and quantify to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources: • Highways and freeways; • Primary arterials and major local streets; • Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems; Aviation and airport related operations;and Other ground stationary noise sources contributing to community noise environment. An applicable goal includes: • Ensure that all necessary and appropriate actions are taken to protect Huntington Beach residents, employees,visitors and noise sensitive uses from the adverse impacts created by excessive noise levels from stationary and ambient sources. The following applicable Noise Element policies are identified below,followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Ambient Noise Impacts on the Community Policies N 1.2.2 Require new industrial and new commercial land uses or the major expansion of existing land uses to demonstrate that the new or expanded use would not be directly responsible for causing ambient noise levels to exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior on areas containing "noise sensitive" land uses as depicted on Figure N-1. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or maybe amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. The City Noise Ordinance addresses this policy. Additionally, once a definih've site plan and development pr oject is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach- Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are July 5,2000 35 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as signlf cant effects in Me prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. N 1.2.5 Require development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the acceptable limits of the City noise ordinance. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specirlc Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance),as they currently exist or maybe amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. The City Noise Ordinance addresses this policy. Additionally, once a site plan is approved, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the en vironment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior en idt onmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Traffic and Mechanical Equipment Related Noise Impacts Policies N 1.31 Require all new non-residential development to design and configure on-site ingress and egress points diverting traffic away from nearby "noise sensitive" land uses to the greatest degree practicable. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development July 5,2000 36 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the Ciors adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. The City Noise Ordfnance addresses this policy. Additionally, once a defmftive site plan and development project is proposed,an En vironmental Assessment will be performed which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an cm runmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the en vfronment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Speck Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. N 1.3.7 Provide for the development of alternate transportation modes such as bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways to minimize the number of noise generating automobileIrips. Section 3.3 of the Specific Plan indicates that alternative forms of transporladon should r ecefve careful consideration. The future development within the Specific Plan will be required to address this issue. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a TDM ordinance, which addresses appropriate trip reducing activities as discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, the development within this Speck Plan project will comply with City requirements N 1.3.8 Ensure that commercial and industrial uses, as required by the Air Quality Management Plan, implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs such as incentives for car pooling,van pools,and the use of public transit. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a TDM ordinance, which addresses appropriate trip reducing activities as discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, the development within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requirements 16. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The City of Huntington Beach adopted the Hazardous Materials Element as part of the overall General Plan. This Hazardous Materials Element identifies goals, objectives, policies, and programs related to hazardous materials. July 5,2000 37 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No.2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution Applicable goals include: • Reduce, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for harm to life, property and the environment from hazardous materials and hazardous waste. The following applicable Hazardous Materials Element policy is identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Policy HM 1.1.4 Implement..federal, state and local regulations for the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Once a defmitive site plan and development project is proposed, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which wiff analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en vironmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than descr7bed in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. July 5,2000 38 Res. No.2000-68 Res. No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution '=g'�{ L �ro4 -'a'�rt i.s—�.�'S+�caj,• rf � & .,.: ,* .� "'44 �, A sr s � � t�. ,ti .A x ss rub ��1 '' a _r. i �"`•� ,�. :. � p1^ry� ��; b "x'� � '+� -. K '3.s� 'u' �° .� ,4 .r ° t,-. ro`''i s 9a °/`� _✓ ''�r _'' �; a Res. No.2000-68 Res.No.2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution THE CROSSINGS AT HUrNTINGTON BEACH Huntington Beach, California Si na a Standards g g The Crossings at Huntington Beach Signage Standards July 5, 2000 1 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution L DUENT This sign program has been established IIs for the purpose of assuring that all = signage and graphic elements within { The Crossings at Huntington Beach are consistent with the project development plan and established architectural standards. This program shall serve as = the singular guideline for all signage design on or around the exterior of the project and visible from public right-of- ways. A project sign criteria program is '�"� td�tapxjy a requirement of the City of Huntington �p►(igNj z� Beach. 777 II. APPROVALS&COMPLIANCE A. All signage plans, permanent or temporary, must be reviewed and ]0'-0"X4'-0"' approved by an authorized agent of The Crossings at Huntington Beach Management prior to submittal to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Staff per Section 233.04.A2 of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance. B. All signage, permanent or temporary, must comply with the approved signage plan for The Crossings at Huntington Beach and have the required City of Huntington Beach Building Permits prior to installation. C. Where interpretation of these guidelines is not clear, The Crossings at Huntington Beach shall make a decision for clarification subject to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Staff approval. D. Where unique site or building design dictates, the City of Huntington Beach Planning Staff will review and make a decision upon The Crossings at Huntington Beach recommendations for E exceptions to these guidelines. E. The sign area shall be defined as the area including all figures which is an s =` integral part of the sign. Decorative or structural sign supports shall not be included in the calculation of sign area. F. Actual quantities may vary, specified 6'-0"X4'-0" quantities are maximums. G. All signage shall conform with sight- distance and visibility design requirement to avoid impeding the ability of commuters to view oncoming traffic. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Si Wage Standards July 5, 2000 2 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No.2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution III. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION A. Freeway Monument Sign(EMa) 1. Quantity: 1 location (refer to site plan exhibit). 2. Height:: Maximum 60ft. to top of lettering,50ft.to top of structure above freeway grade. 3. Area:800 sq.ft.maximum per side. 4. May include sculptural design elements, which will not be calculated as part of the allowable sign area. 5. Creative use of lighting, including exposed neon and colored lights,,will be permitted. AMI r . B. Primary Project Gateway Sign(P.Mb) y r'` 1. Quantity:Up to 3 locations (refer to site plan exhibit). t xr? r 2. Height: Maximum25ft. above entry road grade 14ft. minimum clearance if r spanning across drive aisles. s# t 3. Area: 300 sq.ft. maximum (project name only included in calculation). 4. May include sculptural design elements - on each side of entry, as part of the izA support column structure, which will not be calculated as part of the !f?{ J allowable sign area. C. Secondary Project Monument Signs 1. Quantity:Up to 4 locations (refer to site .�. plan exhibit). 2. Height: Maximum 15 ft. above entry road grade. I 3. Area: 200 sq.ft. maximum per side (total for project I.D. and optional tenant name listings). 4. Sign may include project name and up to three tenant names. 5. Project name and non-sign elements (base,columns,etc.)should relate to the design motif and use of materials as established in the primary project identification signs. 6. Tenant name listing panels must be integral parts of overall sign design. Materials, lighting technique and placement must be consistent for all tenant panels. The CrossinnQs at Huntington Beach Siznaze Standards July 5, 2000 3 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution D. Primary Project Wall-Mounted Sign (EWa) 1. Quantity. 3 locations (refer to site plan exhibit). 2. Height: 15ft. above garage parapet or °- - above finished grade. l` 3. Area: 250 sq.ft. maximum (project "=r name only included in calculation). 4. Sign to be attached to retail buildings or parldng structure 5. Sign to be w designed to relate directly to primary project gateway sign 6. Additional theater signage may be included at or adjacent to this project. sign and must be . designed as an integral part of the parldng structure entrance. E. Secondary Project Wall-Mounted Sign (EWb) 1. Quantity: 7 locations (refer to site plan exhibit). 2. Height: Not to extend above building - parapet. 3. Area: 200 sq.ft. maximum (project _ name only included in calculation). 4. Sign to be attached to building or gateway structure directly above entrance. — F. Directional Signs(EDa,EDb,EDc) 1. Quantity:EDa-10;EDb-9;EDc-4 2. Height:Eft.maximum above grade. 3. Area: 15 sq.ft. maximum per side (sign panel only included in calculation). 4. Sign may be internally or indirectly illuminated. r 5. Sign may carry tenant names and logos in a standardized color. � r 777e Crossings at Huntint?ton Beach Si�nage Standards July 5, 2000 4 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution N. THEATER SIGNAGE A. The theater will be allowed one identification sign on the north, south and east elevations. These signs are not to exceed 400 sq.ft. each. The . _ _. 4. maximum height of the sign is not to exceed 80ft.above the first floor level. B. An additional three signs for theater j will be allowed on the theater structure. These signs shall not exceed 300 sq.ft. of area per sign. C. Reader board signs are allowed at the - - _ north,south and east elevations,up to a ` maximum total of 500 sq.ft. Maximum - - height of sign not to exceed 60 ft.' above the first floor level. D. The theater will be allowed one wall- mounted sign, not to exceed 130 sq.ft. to be integrated into the parking structure entrance signage design . E. Neon accents,animated signs,and fiber optics sign features will be permitted. _, -- --- -r -�----fie-- r(«"r/ J i t is t-='}-=-- �- - �+� 'I � k" �"'T•-ems`-�-a�.� r�<_.._�•- ` - '[`t�=s-'•:��tgti�'c r _ '.;t�'' _ - - ��-sue''" The Crossings at Hurttil72ton Beach SiZna!ze Standards July 5, 2000 5 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution =; V.RETAIL TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS A. Creativity, uniqueness and high quality materials shall characterized signage elements used to identify retail tenants in The Crossings at Huntington Beach. Each storefront will be a custom design with graphics appropriate to the - individual storefront's design vocabulary. 'h B. Sign area for tenant signage will be ra calculated around the sign copy only,as contained by a box of up to 8 continuous straight lines (with right angles) formed around the extreme outer limits of the sign message and will not include elements integral to the storefront design. C These criteria apply only to tenant signage visible from public right of way. D. Building Mounted Storefront Signs 1. Allowable signage area: a Individual letters: 1.5 sq.ft./linear foot of building frontage. b. Cabinet sign: 1.25 sq.ft./linear foot of building frontage. c. Tenants with stores greater than 35,000 sq.ft. will be allowed 1.75 sq.ft./linear foot frontage for both >, ,, — individual letters and cabinet type r '= - signs. d. Tenants occupying more than 1 s story shall have signage allowances doubled. 13 - ''j J 1 ICJ — — ` - 2. Retail tenant signage may occur on each elevation of leased floor area. 3. Sign may be individual letters or other type if cabinet is designed as an integral part of the overall storefront designs. 'rt y ,a 4. Creative use of lighting sources is encouraged,internal or indirect. 5. Lighting fixtures must be designed as an integral part of the signage and storefront design. 6. Exposed neon will be permitted only if �i submitted as part of an overall r? storefront design scheme and must meet h all U.L. and local building code =- standards. Where used other than in letters, neon will not be considered a sign , but will be subject to all general storefront design criteria. 7. Logo marks and corporate identity elements (such as mascots, symbols, special shapes,etc.) are encouraged,but will be considered signage and are subject to all regulations contained in these guidelines. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Signaze Standards July 5, 2000 6 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No.2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution SIGN STANDARDS-COMPARATIVE STUDY Irt i IN ME& = O - iGI% TP i=7DARDS EMa Freeway Monument 25 ft.above Lettering 60ft. / Freeway Top of Sign 50 ft. 60 sq.ft. above freeway grade 00 sq.ft. (logo&legend) Reader board 115 sq.ft.:90 sq ft.message 800 sq.ft. 25 sq.ft.other info EMb Primary Project 5 ft.tall 5 ft.tall Monument (Gateway) 130 sq.ft. 300sq.ft. (logo&legend) 1 per street frontage EMc econdary Project of Addressed 15 ft.tall Monument 200sq.ft. (logo&legend) Tenant listings (3 names) 2 per street frontage EDa Vehicular Directional ft.tall 6 ft.tall EDb Pedestrian Directional 2 sq.ft. 15 sq.ft. EDc Project Directory 1 per entry Tenant names incl. o business names Up to four per tenant EWa Primary Project Not addressed 15 ft.above grade Wall Sign 250sq.ft. (Gateway w/Cinema (I.D.) EWb Secondary Project 1.5 sq.ft.per 200 s.f. Wall Sign I ft.of wall Height not to exceed Building parapet hannel Letters 1.5 sq.ft.per I ft.of wall 1.5 sq.ft.per 1 ft.of wall lus 15% lus 15% One per street or One per street or arldng lot frontage Parking lot frontages' Cabinet Type Sign Not addressed 1.25 sq.ft.per I ft.of wall rt ust be integral part of orefront desi n" **unless tenant is grater than 35k sq.ft. or a 2 story configuration The Crossinzs at Huntington Beach Signage Standards July 5, 2000 7 N O O O ' SIGNAGE LEGEND 1YPE UESCRIf'iK)N TYPE D[SCRIPTION TYPE DESCRIFIRA TYPE GUCMION IEM�[R[L\5'Al'AtC)NUMENi [E SCCONUAI[1'PROJECT AfpNUI tLNT E�� 1'CU[SIR1AN DIRLCTK.)N L EW$ PRMMY PROICCT WALL SIC.N lCakway w/Clnmu I.D.) EMI) PRI-%My PROILCT h1ONVAU-NT[C.Aew4y) EDa V[111CUlAR IkREC110NA1 EUC PROIECT DIRECTORY EW SECONDARY PROJECT TYALL SIGN C) �I I -I:z*.--*'- I I - . �'\ , ".," } Tni fir TTTTImtrnmirmTmnrrttmr EDa --G-n�,._. �w _Zl _ N\\ (SY tt rl (1y y1 11 ` m�",,'ll!!Ui1fTTiTiTft(iII(PTinl�},fllftll fl lii leis -� \ y• �II Ij r 15! -�f�, r I T .,.1 f!{t�t<lli{I�I•I,IIIu', i a .."� � � lillllliIIll%h}iH'il Q I, - EWb Fj 11 r ji• TI I L'7 'L.Ta1ttTTTIiT. `\ y0T �: { • I__I; 11[IIz1Ul rl'_= i- j_ t ,�. .�, \ r� 1, 1,1 j � -, I � i I� EDa 1. i.' EDa `I � ,'{t' f •t� 1 �� �:; •`'� ER A .N ` 'VU v •"� - � - { - N � f' w EDa _ - 1 �' t l �: . I ! { 111,III, IIIIIII IIIIIIII IIII1 1 f!I 111 EDb fT T jc IA`^Yf t�i II _._. _ _..._. , .,-.. • ,. r i, EDa Da t0 !i., Ij L!IJ -_-------•- r ,xiA�'1 f-++�._ _�%_ i:����'r%•l 1 Tq -} � � EMb ��"'� -• -"`� S lI r ��• ,, 'i EDb - I EWb .- �? '.:;� EDb \. q I WA:llr EDbMj�Q r ', f EWa lr' t Ewb 'r, NC-C '� LLI11111L111111111iI� i'r,^'.`i�j r I(.. *J rri / % L \ ��° _ n•fa ifT1TTTTiTiTiTTTiTTTi11 I'ersv �� - Q t 1 J LLJ LEI r EDa r^''`�'Cr SlrSrl� � _ �_ 4 ••� 3; / y � / ' � ✓� r� 1 - �f —f .�. ', ,�,b , vfHliff{Ii�I111H4:� r' •, � ,I �• - I, 1 I• >--t.__.-..1' r r t� 1 r � '`� , F. , rr ti a. I ;� ._ _. �...�f i rt-'-;Ya T I ;t ! ��I � _:::1:.:. .....x 1 t; it _ �•N Ill, I ,;I �/�� �..,r;,,ua �a\....�,� I Jf , , EDc EWb EDC S f �: �'� �I1,iIf;IfIII.IItU ,r EWb EWbi{4i /f'r:,. / '• iri-....I .rrT+: , r ' ni' i_ _'�11• 11ki}}__% ```••' p �_ :I�.� _L /1 .t..- 1 'S I�Ti' r /) •r� EMa Sli EWa ED� ii •I -u I, _ .h EDa �,fiil..; •� t. '•ti %.'� r -tlilr' l?.I D II I. I ! r 'r r.�• t i ) I AI j" EDPI J }.. EDa ' ± ,,;:! �.' rr '.`S., ;_.- }: _�_ ,__., r.._ —'"�,_. ------ �::i i ! ` ^y EDa 7.I a , I !: I I s ! � . s:. I iri 11�117tt;�r .. I t 1:.�'�r• l i.'. ri rv��lt d -; :.,.: _}- 'ii.r ��%vI%'%:;;•,., $'I r { , B Ill.i - q� __ � ! �.-��: != I' SDI il: I_11 _ : I. __.. , _f• �' �.-. :•ai, •II r- j: 00 1 t —1--_ s L ? ` - 44 I ' , _ EDb I ---'Au #- i _ I, m l I. :a ��, I a.�..� I- s s s: I { its �.-, > m L...J C:] •,'.•+"�I III -_)._ { rr:,.V t Y t EDa , ., I ' ' I! i• y c c r_� !,, I Z Ll±;i nl n ::Jlll!1!llllll' 1 �-1 -- -- _ '±:!!:illtllllillllJlL1!iI11111L'I:II:1f1;1!J.t.iL'lliplil!ILL!!!!;T� "' �J" Ifl j. =`->-- li,," a jTf llllWl!:!Wllllillllilllill!)il�i'Ja i!It - -1 ` i. !' Ul,glJillll,Illll,a p EMC ,,':� art--- ---�'f Iti• IEMb CDINGCR AVENUE EM - . .�..,r. _ >-.-- EMC (( ,_- - - , _.�..- . - Iln:Yu°CJI O,.!✓/,HICa(•rM6Rllh4 ."_.•.— ,:.... .� '�" - _\ __ • ,!,I, . co Res. No. 2000-68 Legal Description ig� is aha' z x p t 5 �£4.,,�,z..eC ,a•�ft'i:f*,� �'�+a 3?�i4��.�i��'e�r 3,'�_Fx,. s �g`�'i'w�' `"'"� y; Ib 41 Res. No.2000-68 Res.No. 2000-80 Supersedes This Resolution A. Legal Description The following provides the legal description for the entire Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan Area,which is bounded by Center Avenue on the north,Pacific Railroad on the east,Edinger Avenue on the south and Beach Boulevard on the west Refer to Exhibit 1 in the Specific PIan. Perimeter Legal Description Parcels 1 through 3,5 though 9 and that portion of Farcel 4,Parcel Map No:86-200, in the City of Huntington Beach,County of Qrange,State of California as per map pled in book 225 pages 40 through 45, inclusive,of parcel maps,in the office of the county recorder of said county,described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way(30 foot wide)with the centerline of Edinger Avenue(variable width),as said intersection is shown on said Parcel Map No.86-200;thence South 89 32112'East 45.00 feet along the centerline of said Edinger Avenue to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of parcel I of said parcel map;thence North 00 15'57'East 50.00 feet to the southwest corner of said parcel I also biing the True Point of Beginning:thence North 00 15'57"East 1120.67 feet along the westerly line of said parcel 1 to the northwest corner of said parcel 1;thence South 89 32'12"East 1803.57 feet along the northerly line of said parcel 1 and the northerly line of parcels 2,3 and 4 of said parcel map to the northeasterly line of said parcel 4;thence along a non-tangent curve in the northeasterly line of said parcel 4,concave southwesterly and having a radius of 504.00 feet,a radial line to said pointbears North 43 06;37'=East thence southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 12 11'46'an arc distance of 107.28 feet; thence along the northeasterly line of said parcel 4 the following 5 courses:South 34 41'37'East 207.33,South 31 44'17' East 229.95 feet to the beginning of a non- tangent curve,concave northeasterly and having a radius of 300.00 feet,a radial line to said point bears South 75 10153"Nest;thence along said curve through a central angel of 50 58'39'an arc distance of 266.92 feet,South 65 47'46"East 233.09 feet and South 33 19'06"Earl 70.61 feet thence South 00 16150'West 273.62 Feet along a line that is parallel with the easterly line of said parcel 4 and 9.00 foot westerly,thence South 42 16"20"West 41.42 feet along a line that that is paraUel with the southeasterly line of said parcel.4 and 6.00 feet northwesterly to a point in the north line of parcel 1 of an easement to the city of Hunt2ngton Beach recorded November 9, 1972 in book 10418,page 968 official records in the office of the county recorded November 9, 1972 in book 10418,page 968 official records in the office of the county recorder of said county;thence North 89 32112'West 533.76 feet along said north line• : to the southeasterly corner of parcel 2 of said easement,thence North 44"32'I2"West 41.01 feet along the northea.sterl_v line of said parcel 2 to the north west corner of said parcel 2;thence North 89 32'12" West 32.50 feet along the north line cf said parcel 2 to the northwest corner of said parcel 2;thence South 00 2748"Kest 37.00 for.along the west line of said parcel 2 and said parcel r to the southerly line of parcel=of said Parcel map; thence North 89 32'I2'West 187 4.15 feet along the southerly lines of parcels 1,2,3 and 4 of said parcel reap to True Point of Bed. Not`: This description was prepared as a convenience only and is not for us in the division a—rid/or conveyance of Land in violation of the subdi-v sion map act of the State of California Res. No. 2000-68 ANNIN MNG - DM IS SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 14-5—II CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH © — '=---•ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ' = o—•.M-- —..._. Avlg , C _. 17 7 at 71� • 41t 1 at 21 Its i t SUBJECT •" at �I PROPERTY T III Ott eNs. it CF-E �.�..�• .w Cs-a6 � - i Q Q II � C4 t C : I � C4 Mt C4 to t t2 ' C4 C• C2 C2 — RS Its R3 R3 R3 - at at R3 R, t:.�R EXISTING ZONING It, MI MI _ RI CF-E R3 Ott as R■ I; , ,...;.■•..1- _ _ DESIGNATION.. - R at R2 u as .. - R1 —� As - At az SUBJECT PROPERTY = j Ott Rt 13 R oil AsCG AND CG-FP2 • n 'a Ml115.1 11 A ■ Its Rr i C4 a . a .710 M! MI As b A (CHANGE PROPOSED TO I CF—E t� Ott THE CROSSINGS AT ......... c2 e o MI MI HUNTINGTON BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13) -� MI R3 CFR +a MI C4 ... .. C2 ■a t319R2Y +a MI R3 C4 f t• i R: j Res. No. 2000-68 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 5th day of July, 2000 by the following vote: AYES Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Garofalo City Clerk and ex-officio Ark of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Califomia ATTACHMENT 7 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning V U DATE: June 16, 2000 SUBJECT: THE CROSSINGS AT HUNTINGTON BEACH—DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN In addition to the staff report delivered to you yesterday, staff is forwarding several items of communication received in our offices today. These attachments supplement the information for review of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 and include the following: Attachments 1. Packet from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton including a letter and red-lined version of the Draft Specific Plan with amendments as recommended by Montgomery Wards. 2. Memo from David Biggs, Economic Development Director to Planning Commission via Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning dated June 16,2000. 3. Article on Drive-Through Restaurants from California Planning and Development Report dated June 2000. xc: David Biggs,Economic Development Director Scott Hess, Principal Planner Herb Fauland, Senior Planner Gus Duran,Housing and Redevelopment Manager Terri Elliott, Civil Engineer Associate Bob Righetti,Public Works Consultant Jane James, Associate Planner Duane Olson,Division Chief/Fire Marshal(without attachment) GAAdmItr00\0600y2.doc SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A L11ITEO LIA81LITI PAFiNEHS -—DING a 01"S—AL CONPOAAT—S ATTORNEYS AT LAW FORTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1448 WRITER'S DIRECT LINE TELEPHONE (213) 620-1780 OUR FILE NUMBER (213)617-5565 FACSIMILE (213) 620-1398 100-92503 jcurtis@smrh.com ?v June 16, 2000 �� HAND.DELIVERED ✓1/41 �ko 40 . Oep 162�0 of1 Huntington Beach g Commission e����tofp O City 2000 Main Street /401-1- Huntington Beach, CA 92648 IV Attention: Mr. Gerald Chapman Re: City of Huntington Beach Special Planning_Commission Hearing on Tuesday, June 20, 2000/Zoning_Map Amendment No. 00-1/Zoning,Text Amendment No. 00-2 (The Crossings at Huntington Beach) Honorable Planning Commission Members: Montgomery Ward, LLC ("Montgomery Ward") is enthusiastic about the prospect of the remodeling of its facilities and the redevelopment of the Huntington Center. The Specific Plan could be an appropriate vehicle to start this redevelopment effort and reverse the negative impacts created by others in delaying redevelopment activities and the closing of stores. As of last Friday, June 9, 2000, we learned that the City.of Huntington Beach ("City") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ("Agency") are now the "applicants" for Specific Plan No. 13 ("Specific Plan"), known as The Crossings at Huntington Beach, because Ray Silver, City Administrator and Executive Director of the Agency, unilaterally declared so by memorandum dated June 5, 2000 that Specific Plan was a "city-initiated project." As indicated under separate cover, we question this procedure and declaration. Montgomery . Ward is a major retailer which operates 251 stores (approximately 20,000,000 square feet) and is involved in numerous innovative and leading malls throughout the country. Prior to the end of this year, Montgomery Ward will have renovated 78 of its retail stores and has plans to remodel at least 40 of its retail stores in 2001. As explained more fully in our letter to the City and the Agency dated 1 0 S ANGELES ■ ORANGE COUNTY ■ S A N 0 1 E G O ■ 5 A N FRANCISCO SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City of Huntington Beach June 16, 2000 Page 2 June 16, 2000 (a copy of which is attached), Montgomery Ward. has the expertise, experience and financial commitment to redevelopment which makes Montgomery Ward uniquely qualified to ensure the success of the redevelopment of the Huntington Center. Given this expertise, experience and financial commitment to redevelop- ment, and given that Montgomery Ward is one of the two major land owners of the Huntington Center,Montgomery Ward previously submitted to the Planning Commission comments on the Specific Plan by letter dated June 13,2000. Montgomery Ward has now had an opportunity to further review the Specific Plan and set forth additional comments directly on pages of the current draft of the Specific Plan, as attached. Montgomery Ward requests that you make each of the requested changes. We will be available at the hearing on Tuesday to answer any questions. Very y y s, Jona C. Curtis for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER& HAMPTON LLP LkLMLEIM 00\70173836.1 cc: Mayor David Garofalo Mr. Ray Silver Mr. Howard Zelefsky Mr. David C. Biggs Ms. Jane James Gail C. Hutton, Esquire Paul D'Alessandro, Esquire Murray Q. Kane, Esquire Mr. Douglas Gray James C. Hughes, Esquire Mr. Spencer H. Heine Mr. Loren H. Hohman Corey E. Light, Esquire J UTA-1 b-Zeee 11:6'J HL I Fit 1 MLN 2s UHRY CH I CAGO 312 715 4800 P.02iO4 MardSCorporate Roal Eatata 535 W.Chicago Avenue Chicago,Illinois 60671 312.467.20W 41, June 16, 2000 ✓(/N ®!O �epd l6 4t40 �me7t ?Opp City of Huntington Beach h9 Department of Economic Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Attn: David C. Biggs Re: Supplement to Statement of Interest and Request for Proposal for Redevelopment of Huntington Center within the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area Dear Mr. Biggs: This letter shall serve as a supplement to the letter sent to you by Montgomery Ward, LLC ("Montgomery Ward") dated April 14,2000 (the "Original Letter'),which Original Letter served as Montgomery Ward's response to the Request For Proposal, which Request For Proposal was sent to Montgomery Ward by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach(the"Agency'). As a clarification of Montgomery Ward's statement in its response to the Request for Proposal, Montgomery Ward believes it is in a position to remodel its retail store in such a manner that will fit architecturally with the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Montgomery Ward is a major retailer which operates 251 stores (approximately 20,000,000 square feet) and operates distribution centers with approximately 3,500,000 square feet. Prior to the end of this year Montgomery Ward will have renovated 78 of its retail stores and has plans to remodel at least 40 retail stores in 2001. These are more than traditional remodels. The look and feel of the remodeled stores are dramatically different and many people have felt these are new ground up stores. Montgomery Ward is involved in numerous innovative and leading malls throughout the country such as the Arrowhead Mall located in Phoenix, Arizona and Northeast Mall located in Hurst,Texas (Dallas metropolitan area). Montgomery Ward is a major occupant in over 40 shopping centers owned by Simon Property Group, the largest shopping center operator in the United States. Montgomery Ward has the expertise, experience and financial commitment to redevelopment which makes Montgomery Ward uniquely qualified to ensure the success of the redevelopment of Huntington Center. We have (606984.1.8/5100 11:59 AID ' JUIV—lb—eUUW 11:4e HLIHtIMEN 2 GRAY CHICAGO 312 715 4800 P.03iO4 David C. Biggs June 16, 2000 Page 2 attached a fact sheet that describes in some detail additional information regarding the present status of Montgomery Ward. All existing occupants at Huntington Center have been negatively impacted by the closing of stores and the lack of activity at Huntington Center, however, Montgomery Ward is very excited about the prospect of the remodeling of its facilities and the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Therefore, assuming the economics of the renovation are reasonable taking into account the requirements of the proposed Huntington Center Specific Plan,recognizing that the details of such plan have not been finalized, Montgomery Ward will renovate and remodel its retail store. If you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed matter,please do not hesitate to contact either Loren Hohman, Director of Real Estate of Montgomery Ward at (312) 467-6241 or Spencer H. Heine, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Montgomery Ward at (312) 467-2220. Very truly yours, MONTGOMERY WARD, LLC Y• Its: E+.E �►�t v cc: Mayor David Garofalo Ray Silver Gus Duran Howard Zelefsky Jane James Gail C. Hutton, Esq. Paul D'Alessandro,Esq. Murray O. Kane,Esq. Connie Brockway Loren H. Hohman Corey E- Light, l✓sq. Jonathan C. Curtis, Esq. Michael Adams ( osm,1-615100 11:59 AM) i o—cr�eir� 1 1•4YJ HL I tit 1 MEN & UNHY CH I CAGO 312 715 4800 P.04iO4 SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT STATUS OF MONTGOMERY WARD 1. Montgomery Ward has been in business for 128 years and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Electric Capital Corporation in August of 1999. 2. Montgomery Ward operates 251 retail stores in 30 states. 3. Montgomery Ward has 43 stores in California including a number of stores located in major malls such as the following shopping centers: a. Topanga Plaza(Canoga Park); b. Mission'Valley(San Diego); C. Plaza Bonita(National City);and d. Del Amo Fashion Center(Torrance). 4. Montgomery Ward is located in major malls throughout the country and is also in many major power centers. 5. Montgomery Ward will have remodeled 78 stores by the end of 2000 and the remodeled stores will be 48% of the company's business by year end. 6. Montgomery Ward's remodeled stores have shown spectacular results,with 20% comparable store increases and the remodeled stores are performing at 20%above the rest of the chain. 7. The remodeled stores have open aisles, are much brighter and have improved adjacencies. (611114.1-8/15/00 8:65 AM) TOTAL P.04 CD Legislative Draft 0 (underlined text depicts new or revised language since May 22, .2000 draft) m . 17. Ln The Crossings at Huntington Beach R E c IE I v " J U N 16 2000 M City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning SPECIFIC PLAN NO., 13 �, t 0LO Q C�U U C L w Prepared. by City of Huntington Beach Planning Department cc With Associates LLC. with Greenberg Farrow Architects EDAW Richard Sawyer m Adopted 2000 m . m Resolution No. m " I June 7,2000 I z ti rr c1 e_1 CV e. S t I S .}.,f� 7 1 1 e_,i C- I_ c.,\ clnC- rl zz, r\e— Pr de. IMPLEMENTATION W r- rcA is c o c-Q- r r\e.� 00 2.0 ADMINISTRATIONLA 1-4 The City's Planning Director shall administer the Text Amendment and action by the Planning N provisions of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Commission and City Council. Specific Plan in accordance with the State of California -� Government Code, Subdivision Map Act, the 2.1 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTjON PHASING S,"— Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and the City's PLAN -1i a. 'e•X Is t +r1s Pl o,,s General Plan. 3 C> ,,a The proposed Specific Plan proje is ant cipated to cry Tlie Specific Plan development procedures, occur in one (1) phase. The exi ling ViII ge Retail, . regulations, standards and specifications shall (Barnes & Noble, Staples, and Ci uit City) and any { supersede the relevant provisions of the City s Zoning remaining Department Stores (su h as, Burlington (� o Code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision (5 Coat factory, or Mervyns) will . u Ordinance) as they currently exist or may be amended receive major exterior renovatio , new enhanced in the future. Any development regulation and _ paving, and landscaping. a demolition, u building requirement not addressed in the Specific infrastructure and utility wo of the new Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations construction,will be scheduled an built such that the in place at the time of an individual request. remaining center remains in opera ion with minimum 06 inconvenience to the remaining to ants. Construction w The Specific Plan may be amended. The Planning is anticipated to take 24-36 nt nths from start of Director shall have the discretion to determine if demolition. w requests for modification to the Specific Plan are ►^ f, ,�., , J minor or or.ma� Q Z.Z METHODS AND PROCEDURES ��P R,� t�e Minor modification is a simple amendment to the The methods and procedures for implementation.of exhibits and /or text which does not change the the Specific Plan shall be on a project by project basis. meaning or intent of the Specific Plan. Minor The adoption of the Specific Plan alone will not modifications may be accomplished administratively require infrastructure improvements to the project m by the Director with a report to the Planning area. Physical improvements will only coincide with Commission. Major modifications are amendments to the commencement of the f"irsl project and approval of CD the exhibits and/or text which are intended to change a Site Plan Review. The Specific Plan is a regulatory the meaning or intent of the Development Concept, document and is not intended to be a Development N Design Guidelines,or Development Regulations.Major Agreement. modifications require a Zoning z ti The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 15 June 7, 2000 A Site Ian Review approval shall valid for a period Specific Plan, and all other applicable of years Additional one year extensions may be provisions of the City's adopted codes m requested for a maximum of years. Such an and regulations;and extension request must be -made in writing by the original applicant, . property owners, and/or The site is physically suitable for the m authorized designee,a minimum of thirty days prior to type and density of development (D the expiration of tho,current approval. If construction �ronosed;and activity does not commence within the approval or Ln extension period,the enlitlement shall be terminated. The design, of the subdivision or the N proposed improvements will not cause All final decisions on site plan review proposals shall serious health problems or substantial be llte responsibility of the Planning Director. environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife Qr 2.4 PARCEL MAPS their habitat; and The prof ct area may be subdivided through a Parcel The design of the subdivision or the Map process. Parcel Maps shall ve prepared type of improvement will not conflict consistent with the Mater Plan Concept to facilitate with easements acquired by the public o development. These mats shall identify the at large, for access through or use of, CE ittfraslructure and improvements necessary to ro rtv within the proposed support tile anticipated projects.subject to review by ssitbd vision unless altern five the City's Public Works and Fire Departments. easements, for access or for use,will be aUpon recordation, Parcel Maps may be further provided. LO divided and/or adjusted by filing a subsequent 2.5 REUSE/CHANGE OF USE REVIEW a' Parcel Map or a Lot Line Adjustment, pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. A Any proposal to reuse and/or change the use of a Tentative and Parcel Map may be approved, or previously approved and constructed development, �- conditionally approved by the Planning Director and the Cit�Engineer providing the proposal is found to within the project area, will be subject to additional Cl be incompliance with l)te Specific Plan review by the Planning Department. The additional review will follow the same procedures outlined in the In order to approve the Tentative May the Planning Site Plan Review process. A "like for like'.' change of Director shall make the following fin din use shall only be subject to the requirements for a new N -- - certificate of occupancy; however any new m construction beyond that shall require a new Site Plan • The proposed Tentative Map is Review. In addition any proposed physical consistent with the General Plan, modifications to the existing structure and/or site m CD N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 47 ID June 7, 2000 z ti shall be subject to additional review and approval of Requests for Deviation may include but are not the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building limited to building height, setbacks, open space, m permits. The Planning Director may refer individual parking, and landscaping. Deviation requests, up to a projects to Design Review Board for review and as ten (10) percent of any single standard, may be final arbiter of compliance with the Specific Plan.Any considered by the Planning Director. Deviations m decision by (lie Planning Department may be appealed greater than ten (10) percent must be approved by a C within ten calendar days to the Planning Commission. Variance application before the Zoning Administrator, v subject to the procedures outlined in the City's Zoning 2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION and Subdivision Ordinance. Development and construction phasing of selected provisions and MThe Zoning and Development Standards of all features may be approved by the Director concurrent anticipated development activity for the Crossings at with a Site Plan Review and shall not require a Request Huntington Beach area have been identified in the for Deviation or Variance to the Specific Plan. Specific Plan. Development project requests shall be subject to environmental review as mandated by the Deviations shall be allowed when, in the opinion of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The the Planning Director, significantly greater benefits Planning Director shall impose any applicable from the project can be provided than would occur if environmenla[ mitigation measures,as specified in the all the minimum requirements were met. Some o environmental analysis, as conditions of approval on additional benefits which may make a project eligible 0 individual Site Plan Reviews. Such conditions of for consideration include: greater open space, greater approval shall describe the time period and manner in setbacks, unique or innovative designs, public open u which the mitigation measure must be satisfied. space, and the use of energy conservation or } innovative technology. The Planning Director may approve the Request for Deviation in whole or in part 2.7 REQUEST FOR DEVIATION upon making the following findings. �a The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan F Development Regulations are intended to encourage Promotes better design, environmental and land w projects which create an aesthetically pleasing planning techniques and contribute to the Jappearance, enhance the environment, and facilitate economic viability of the community, through innovative quality architectural design with an aesthetically pleasing architecture, landscaping adaptation to the surrounding environment. and site layout; and Deviations pertain only to the Development Will not be detrimental to the general health, Regulations of the Specific Plan and may be granted at welfare, safety and convenience of the m the time of Site Plan Review for special circumstances t R neighborhood or City in general,nor detrimental and/or unique architectural features. f or injurious to the value of property or t 7^J S r FS S J C, r1 e� S"t t improvements of the neighborhood or of the City cl ` in general;and S „ P w ��l The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 18 z r\- C- QV t June 7, 2000 i . .—i .. 'l .. q., ..• 1. .l n �.rn ' `a;. r. m �} �'I 'a OD g tk LA 40 liwutYl.�iY•F+y:, J'' T '.r '• }�I IM.t7-1� ,•^� �`I;� '• �i:•.Y, 3 � , Ill V' i—. AA IRV.43 1 U_ _ •" ..<:,;•�, 1 _ - ,��•yS:. 'tom..' WOW LD w Z$ di 5 S 25 2 4 i5ll _ : ..;' - ._ _ .I ' I.'i l rrf•' 1: ' " 3 r�'.:t31 r %k•+'; a�lrnlilfl>tlr} `+ ' .I 1 J. ' i •E l CE :v' J 'i• �I-� .r I _"•�l ;.;, � �:.:'.r 11�:�} .; Illi il� 1. ���,���i�� � �W J T�e__ perk-'� ,.S C., �� '� S o r l is Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan �� e� L, e_ W cf-4 r,C-c e ,► Exhibit 3A L/ ` C�It r\ 5 S Mole: This Wastruli ve shows a hypnNletical development scenario on the p�'ecl sila CD CD The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specltic Plante P �1 /�/`' 2!1 Qe- {� i �� V'S r 3 \ S rti �(/ 'i c� June 7, 200O S �'� o k -� \� �. S a-, ' � 1 " ii iI •i7 it 1: :I S it � � �Q •P � 1 _ _ Y. 77 Z 1. 1 _ �• a♦ - t r 11 _ _ ss ■ •`�, j '1. r. . 1JUB IF lllllll�NM r -� - - - - . _ 1 1• r': i= :i —__ __ _`��:�r. ... a -:rim • :� r.. '- i rmap •• ice. 1�� i 1 � 1 + �. ,- _. •! �'- �.Ji'I� +i .r. I !: 0- � is •p y 1 loci r.• :I .. _� a ..,- -°,l•� _ 'F �' r. •'lj_�_.,:r+._:,;�11"'�;�1,�p -- --� -- -••.:1---'�_.._•'"�'r�R.�i'•r�'ro v _ '6• e'��1+1 _ _ r,:i �. wi ►, __ - D-•��g_ - ..11�.. _ � .�_ _ v •� 3 _ a.-t, �J.♦.��.•f'i:�t. _ •e.•rr - e -+ •..�s•�;!:� • •- 1 /1 Il 11 I I /1 1• 111 11 I .< h 1 - �� 03 00 CD LA M cc W co IIII CE C \ j 2 ��_ -� �, p Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan '���•� n E..P c I J , �c � �� i ��I e� Exhibit 3B "'�1r►. V ` e�, r\ S S ` -S ^ Iola: Misillusimlivcshowsa hypo/helical dcrelopmelil scenario on 1/1e project si(e. CD SCE' . � 1eSCr�lt ..3 71.(� PCr-(�`i ��� �C,r m The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan I +�S { c( 22 z June 7, 2000 c-�^ s t V c.f I"-) -\ 3 4 fie DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT m 0- 3.0 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN m Tlie Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan The Crossings at Huntington Beach provides for a M development concept provides for a planned retail, range of employment opportunities in professional, Iz dining, and entertainment complex in the northern retail, service, food service, and entertainment; and portion of the City of Huntington Beach. The Specific will broaden the employment base of the community. N Plan establishes the general type, location, The Specific Plan establishes a clear development M architectural style and character of all development concept to assure the facilitation of a cohesive regional within the site's boundaries, while allowing for shopping center. Design measures encompassing site creative design ideas on individual projects consistent planning, area landscaping, building architecture, with an overall concept. sireetscapes, pedestrian linkages,setbacks and signage have-been established. Adherence to these details and The Crossings at Huntington Beach will be a 63 acre to the established Design Guidelines will create a master planned regional commercial retail, dining, unique and integrated development. and entertainment facility with supporting services. o The Specific Plan is designed to allow for development. The illustrative conceptual master plans (Exhibit 3A & Co in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding 3B) depict scenarios utilizing the various guidelines community and City of Huntington Beach. The described in the Specific Plan. The plans provide 5 Crossings at Huntington.Beach Specific Plan provides potential layouts identifying building orientation and an opportunity for a variety of quality regional serving placement, parking design and access, roadway a commercial uses, consistent with the City's General configuration, entryways and landscaping. The plans 06 Flan. are not intended to reflect an ultimate design situation Q� because a large variety of other development patterns The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan and activities may evolve which are also consistent Ui provides the framework and guidelines necessary to with the Specific Plan policies, guidelines and J create a unique, high quality, visitor serving, regulations. The project statistical summary is shown retail/dining/entertainment complex. The site's on Exhibit 4A and 413 and hypothetical conceptual proximity to regional transportation systems make the floor plans are shown in Exhibits SA'and 5B. area ideal for a variety of compatible uses and fs W o-C( P �� i.� S C. activities. T7ie. development concept is designed in concert with the area's history of commercial activities a 1 r C_'^Coe t%/s rl S m and the community's need for a strong self-sufficient c k (.e G,S n , i_c t Lo e } < < I economy. r C. }. e The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan W �� . 23 z June 7, 2000 ti Ilie Specific flan recognizcs Ilial although the main construction of the project will occur at one time, [lie m ullimafe buildoul of the property may not occur immediately. In fact,building pads may be established without associa[Fd building construction bul shall be m landscaped in a park-like setting until such time as CD development is proposed. Therefore, this zoning v document anlicipales fulure expansions of the LO development si(e. In order to address this concern, Flexibility has been incorporated into the Specific Plan N Development Regulations (Section Four), This flexibility in development guidelines is intended to accommodate future market trends and tenant needs, Miliout sacriCicing the intended High-quality character of the project area. O C.s V "r)-- P 1 U S-I 0 LO fl� c1-, � W J - OD m ' m m The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 24 'i June 7, 2000 z Z) ti IN a To be de nyo�% ,littshedrr�� 646,71 //+�y 9 t CS) Mcaler 100,000 Ln Anchors .175,000 Relail 4707187 N �, R�slaurarrls 77,Z4 6 Addilicn to Slap Center 71,800 8947233 SUBTOTAL Anchors 82,000 Strip Center 106,000 Reslauranls 7,300 i Banks 8,240 203,540 } SUBTOTAL (�'� �"CiY�%:ji:{ � �•_�y�s"�'`z�' �I:.:i:F1;Y .5.-: ,V�'� .;1�:.j' ..Y,+���. � Ja ' 06 LU E Note: Area dislribvtions are approxmlate And may change as the project is developed w J Project Description (statistical summary) V v* c� e_ Exhibit 4A co L, i 1 �i i -.S P ieeSe c c� c! mc.,�,,\ y '� , 7 � J S cL+� cr � �'� C � F7 '� 1.� � v�,��i✓L � \4 q N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 25 -7 June 7, 2000 ti 4. IN I m To be demolished 517,231 .. 14 Theater 100,000 C- Anchors 175,000 Retail 343,556 Restaurants 77,246 addition to Strip Center 71,800 7677612 SUBTOTAL I 11 M---w—MOM, � O Anchors 211.488 Strip Center 106,000 Restaurants 7,300 Banks 8,240 333,028 � SUBTOTAL E W J Note:• Area distributions are ipproximnte and way chaggc as the prvjccl is developed. CE S ��-• C Project Description (statistical summary) m Exhibit 4B CD The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 26 ID z June•7, 2000 r� RrnID m �,uf1HIEH'�IEIf1 EI ' ,1.ummrnilirnn !" N rmi T T 00 - hill !q'Eli'EI�!il t<"IE•I''I=1 - 1. %111 r g�11 1E1!illEf!UI�I - s•��� ���;� '� , -_ \ •�` •i:1111111111111111! .1 \ __ ��1+��`:•� •• / '� RAVEPA16%'.ZSJ. �'��� _' fir'-y '� � ,t - l;f+IIN1hEEIEI�EN'•k -��������\ ` '1 � _ ,t� - ;'•, •7 lHl l[I�II IIC ",1'1 '` I•I� + S- { �� max•=• TIMMIRAM ;,. 1,1 II� '�'�d�t•:T?�Ql''} 'if'' i 1 lr,c _..��.r�1�a'"f`"t., [ IITI �� � •�-� LO El FF �11 .. �'T:.,f �!•�'r�.s��:�+; i�NIIIIEE�,H.I+II!lt =_ q. i' ,.� _.. .rah ..— '•i=' �. ,.;' ..,.. , 4; t .EC f lirun,i�1 1 [- c _ _ __ _ Vim►. 1 ��. _ ,' / F t 2 'f- �{•11uuy1'1j� ! i t i,1121111 ej iS I! [1J 1{IILLLJUJlIIJiL �glilllw,111.14n11,111ug11111Uu1:11:ItMIMI��.!L�Ular .. .. '•Z•._.< .'y IIJIf1171;III17711[I',Illfl�[�y�lwIll lEllu111 IiIli1T,IJI111fIULlllllr i 11T1uuul�lT1_1w,11111_u114tN111111[III ¢ -. Conceptual Floor Plan Exhibit 5A Level 1 CD CD m . The Crossings at Hunfinglon Beach Specific Plan 27 I June 7, 2000 IL I• �;�r.�- .I u�t�rrtrrmrTlmrrrrrmrrnrr:r>rr-•,..._-` .•—�.•!• -.••-�f �-�! 1 `•.'y ,` m �a` �- t11�11f1��1IlNIE!I;`,�:1i7�IDD191nn1n1,1111;11a• i .. ITil l,fifc�t �— _ �=. �� \•\• `� ` CO CD I I — 111 lIII!11 - '1111111171111111i1• � � � b""' � �•••� >��� �/ \• RAVEc0 ZE � I�.� � _ O Il1?TTTIIIItIiTli •\�Ct�• `•\ f ; ��€': I :�n; _ \' •� ,IINEIIIII11iNlIEID �•,;\'•;,�� • f � "'" ����` ��EI:INEIIIIN!!1lc� � ',.�•`�}\•�` ......___--• . SN Q L - Hl111l141lEI H = "�,,�'` l u Ulu RIM c� z51 it "� �• �" j 11 _ � II c �- - ! U G� U L7 CJ -:• i a�sr\, - c�v - _ _ - = ueu C�_]t Ll _ \�'�r iI IIU1:1U[I1T!JIW �I![I1111UlIIIIII�:(_'z1[IIIIIIIIIIIInIIIII�UIINIfIiUn111i1L•Illf---- _'• - - - - - - , uJ .: ...�. ` --- - - --'�,. _� II�1cllllUll1,InnnllnNlmltn 5131[IWI111ID1, �1WllllU1llll1U11911W11111IL12LI11Ap .ar S ��- C M -� S Conceptual Floor Plan Exhibit 5A Level 2 m m m The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 28 I Z) June 7, 2000 ti =--- CL � •••�_ I 41lI;F.IIUIIINSIIiI � � � � ': _ .��\\ �`�•, �4s, ��,, CO j In _ cam �, �T, - _ _- - o — Imn..... uaml HUM W. . ..�..._L. ._.. .__. '==' � �lulllu;�iillfllllo _ 'b�\ �•� �--_-__ o ? 'IIUcli - - U 1 — T - - 1 II - - - 8 I CE yl I: 1_SI_Irt 111111111'll7" 7 j ter.—�'•�- t}I:ILJJI9LW!I.WIIUI:JLP.lL1UlU�WI11U1Cr - r �:_•s.-�•-�-�..,.z:._._.r'r -TM'ie.,,! U11�WIIIli11JI�yUIUIIUiIUU]IULi 1!(UUaWUUP�WiillT � I UIMM w W ' 2 f- . - J Q S L M -�� x L: I �' N Conceptual Floor Plan 3 g Exhibit 5B Level 1 CD CD N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 29 �o June 7, 2000 ti li t ,t V n � ;.' •��2arnnlm..::nr r n u•_u I, , '=;r._�-•,.. ��� � QIH�II�IUIHHU�1� N - HUtI1ltllUlllUl � � � � � ' `��- �; \•,�\ 9 �S Ln A AVt N\ v Ilk �111\ 0,FE : P 1.IF10E :•i �- �— — � is @ y I• \ :"., .o.�` � `�'.-_..__ ...I _ � L�fH11NlH11N:11 ,- it ! �, �• �`'••• �'• MI S= 1 F All w F � -1 t — lrmrnrm a rt. 'a c E i �_ — ti'v _ Ilav )�71__. � : � _ �... ,�..v ar: .v.- „�, �r:"'!' -! /—Ulllllmnirutwnlll - 1w1[llllllW1U' iU1lI1J �t S c,4 s Conceptual Floor Plan 1� Exhibit 5B Level 2 m m The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 30 �n June 7, 2000 ti I'lle elhjcclivc of, Ilse Specific Plan is to implement the -40,113 anti lhrlicies of the llmilinglon .Ileach General 3.1 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USES m I'la n lly definin,4 the physical development of Cite CDCl'ONSir1'{s 11 llunlin,'{Ion lieacte site. Included in this The Crossings al Ilunlinglon Beach Specific flan :11lpro:rrlr ,arc [lie eslablishment of land use, recognizes unique development opportunities within circla1,11io11, infrastructure, landscape and lite project area. The purpose of Ilse Specific Plan is to ;arclrilectn-al dc;si�{n characteristics for the project create a distinct cluster of activities and allow for M :urea. ']'lie .pecific�Plan consists of a number of major individual project development rind tenant occupancy c.•.011117ouenls which will g1lide the development process to occur in a timely manner, wilhin an overall Master inc nclin% the t irculaliun ('last, E'ublic k'acililics flans, flan Concept. 'flits approach recognizes development Landscape Concept, Dcsign Guidelines, and palterns, market conditions and establishes sufficient Pevrlc1ptnettl Regulations• flexibility to provide for lite opporlimity of n variety of activities within like Specific Ilan area. Any reuse, sulnlivision, or new development shall be subject to the provisions of the Specific Elan. Refer to The City of Huntington !leach General Platt identifies o Seclieua 'L.a Site 1'l,rn Review. typical permitted cues under the Commercial Regional LO land use cater or V. The U The Specific flan identifies and requires sufficient limiled to, anchor department stores, outlet stores, Cuss ( k4L uinfiastruclure and public facilities to adequately and pronnoliona ("big box") retail, retail commercial, ex��VA- efficiently support any and all 111ilicipaled uses and restaurants, entertainment, professional offices,CE USeS' �J CLI ;aclivilies. 'I'hcsc improvements will coincide wills any financial institutions, and similar regional-servin8 LD La upcoming development project. 'Mis trpfronl effort uses. I t N� Will allow for btlildOtrl of Ilse Specific Elan in an include some come eslnesses, such as auto 9c expcdiled mrnancr, subject to compliance wilh tine repair s typically a local serving commercial c�rc S}?ecific f'I;n1 and the Environmental Analysis. . future activities for the area will depend o � market conditions and ut:ty include a variety of TheC'rassin,ts at l luntin��lon [leach Specific Elan aclivilies consistent with lite City's General Plan.These identifies elTeelive }and plarilting and design development activities may be either an expansion of re,gulalions techniques in a flexible format which c:tn existing facilities and/or independent new projects. ' lake advantage of ideas and opporltmiks presenled.by The project area can accommodate a lolal future leriants alid 11sers. development of 1,100,640 square feel of regional ci-Immercial 11ses. m m CD The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 31 j June 7, 2000 ti CO m ..; ., .ti,,. . : r r,,Mil n (nlN?L'!Illllllfi Wq I.H1 I HII I!1111 11_ It �l (I - aN NN� i:7A D1 z�• "��:vin 0� r :.,� �.'C , � - I••_•'• .••'- n� ,;�'d� ��" �' IIHHIIIfIINHINI �. CE Liz ,• - � _ •�� �� r - ' _ _, _ t � _�,1�!fHIIIHf IiHIfENH _ ,��`• �.___.-'� � ( - " ` ,� ti;-r rt, g � �, , _ _ n., �. �HfNllll'l'+II}1 �;� .� w+ ��;�' ..,•� i 1 I� s U cf. li I. •1i 1 - - CE Fr W - - oI r- - - 01L'lllll',lll!liWLll!:L'll9]l;; ``��s n Iu ii nri , n ,� n- L iH;1 F— E•�- ._ ...�.ids—.•.�__ — - --- ��-.� —_� -- --. nr--- — -.._ .�. � --F- Q B Pedestrian Plaza / Walkways Plan Exhibit GA m mThe Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 32 z June 7, 2000 ti -` J13111 l I'l II Im I' Lhi•I• .'i 111F•I+d h t. __ --r_ 1�\`` \ `\♦ ,( I . s' :'trr`-'-'rr'•r't 1 :-i•nNfHIIIUI!',I: __ _ ffllll�l;!I''i�l lif lil;l�illl�Il� niIIL. t m � _ _ .W I„I•,.� ��;��,- 1%IIIHIINIHIIH'I � `� "i� � i •�� �tt� - ��� ��.��`�.� � �`.♦ c- =F __ -- IT l•� � � t �. � �, �IININIEf�llllllll �• ,� �.�. �`. �..__—�� .r ar TiE Z Z Z64 Cl Nil ES 5 CE LO MAW 4'I U I NI IE LU LU �- _ .--1 W 2 J Q 5 c� C Pedestrian Plaza / Walkways Plan Exhibit GB m m The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 33 ! z June 7, 2000 ti Rl:G10NA1, CO M M 1:RC IA1, 1.)S1: VO1,1CII;S; � Strada, the I'laza and the Colonnade. A pedestrian N :•.I, I Any CXpallsion beyond the initial site plan walkway syslern is also used to connect the Crossings IL npprov,rl,shall IX Ilu•urr;;h the silt JAM review 111-000SS al lluntinglon Reach with public transportation (sce sedic„i'l.►). facilities and surrounding network of public sireets m (sec Exhibit GA and 611). ;�.1,z hclail, dilting) Cnler•lailttzienl, turd related uses PEDES'IRIAN PLAZA AND WALKWAYS POI,ICIFS. V) drawhi:� from a re){iomil commercial/market area shall pre the 1►riruary intended activity within the 1rroivd Data• 3.2.1 Individual developments and activity areas within the specific plan area shall be linked through a :5.2 PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AND WALKWAYS series of pedestrian walkways which culrninale in an interconnected syslern of pedestrian plazas creating a variety of open spaces. 'I'}1e c:rc��sin�{s at [lurrlinglun Rcac;lt Master Plan iderilil'ies op cil space areas which can accommodate 3 Z 2 A pedestrian walkway system will link or outd001'c;onuucrci,rl acliviiies,seasonal recreation and enter'tainnicrrl activilies, and casual pedestrian connect all future developmew pads to !lie central O rneelirr,{ places. These pedestrian plazas become the portion of the Crossings at 1-luntingion ltencli. a c.•enlral imus of a number of commercial nodes within Ihr prujeci area. In addition to the major plaza areas, :�•Z•3 All pedestrian wttlkways shall be designed and (here arc a minAvr of entry nodes which serve as the landscaped consistent with the overall Theme of the }nlc:r•1'1-16D:{ links Between the vehicular and (he Crossings at I lint ingion 13each. cc prdcsp'inn areas. 'k . od 3.2.4 Pedestrian walkways The clustering of open space p[azas are connected 94 shall be ineoryorated on the landscape and Ihrvugh pcdeslrivr walkways. '1•hese walkways also Technical Site Plans and shall comply with American serve as a link INtween (he variety of Village Dimbilities Act requirements. The walkways shall J commercial I;rcililies ,nd 111e Entry Plaza,the Village include shade trees,sealing every Z00 feet decorative CE pavers,and lieliting (see cross section on page 41), c,rn ar, ClCD CD The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan P � a j 34 June 7, 2000 ti � .� � hrrtnrUmfARRRfI1fIf1IRIIlU1111R11C � --.. -..-•"• i -- - — - \ � N n Hill IHHlI rr mlrnrrr>r�n � I � \ •� '° k}HIHIHIHHU m � uuJuuJul m _ Cl '>n HIHfIHkHIHHHi � � � tlHiHllliNiiNHHI ... �� y UIIIUlI1UJIMUILIMUl11UIWUlllllillWl M - C7 - i UlWIJ1UlUUJIUI � IiUI UUll 11 p� x I •_ - NG UE W _E W Q 0 6rculation Plan Proposed New Center Ave. Driveway Existing Off-Ramp m Exhibit 7A The Crossings of Huntington Beach Specific Plan 35 I ti June 7, 2000 ME _ fILIJ I fit I III till 11 fit,11111111 mt - �ojl- •, t =r�ulu iiE�yu�l11 \\ �i•:'�'�':^�!L« `q {fin_�111u'7:. � .I x �+��-f �i'4S:i1,r• anti: - 'a il+irll'i ltl'I lilfli(��4ijrillllil:sl�Id ill;-, S' C { � i$�illii.:[it•�'-Yin^'�:: ` �.• •. ,• � __ � _ Y,.,{�ti.. I1• � a: .., '••S• t+'9'`''t"�i."'''t�'=Y.i'L,.' ��.'...;.'i: " [[.�'t� .1 •. jt .t•{:}. ,in G•.. tSt i;��;�t�..5{'''•' j{: .. ,.•'.• 1'«.•2'•.''1, :r•t..'a.r :. .SS,. I S "y��O�� i.lr,...4gA-•J+� p:I' •� I •tl,It,y .{i. •.�� YI• 4 :f ii'{ �ll�r�' �.;�\■ .1u � r• � •� .'�r'ie Rl.si':y}; ..'S• !�7.•1tJ,-�';' • i ` 'J`'•nb�;t;�e;1.J•'' ''•.+i —'a��:':�::+j.�� .•yn •'k.:•Yry� S':�-i�'.t, .:+�t:i�1?•Vr�.j1�:1��T.1�_j�,G•r��:l!•'I_n�!`,f •�{=�r r+ ��•�''S i . Iffy <� :.�.�, ij•�r -'t 'rE.. : i••'•�: .trn....rc.. ••9 t1.I y�, .. v '!- :�. .t J.I•f •�w'1^:. 't 1 / t i::iJ" y�=�•..�::cJ�^, I�IA�PA f=S'I'r{ idi• "L`i'r i 'tn...� :i. �.. SZ ��. t; 't�fr1l.°w 1 ljtjl 1(��\ NRr�r�Fl(1 i •T:'.•rl':1•• :�1 :r•.t..:l}'1+•.t �.' + .:�. y'3 ter �..i•.rj•.i.+'•.: '• :: ..�.: ••l �.� .� i:J .i: ;v QS is S, � •:•tt•::_1'•�•t•t 1...:_ .1,.�.....: :v_,r• - t L', end• p .:! �saV ' t s t d �.•a�a4A. f • � � C9i i�i 11:2iSlr�,t�'i.•.7�: .�'�1 �t;..ln�s(;;•0"i,�3 ••_tt',ls:a�.:,.� '� .-•• Ell t P l�h•_.___ --- p � �1 --- _Sf,. a r��}•: f���� � �'��l.4�' • 111 �• s I Il:n t41!(I41(1t 1'�`�t;i'1i1i�r:e.•• 4 �'�' o •. ;f(1'!tr l�Iltl�i�l��. 7'� /(nr: 1 � ■ �� �I• ������(([ 1 ��1 fry �•r�t':`:]i-r t _ \ • .. '_ Lt h•!I' {u ., _ __ — � � 1. IWIIIHIIIIIII /..•fir is �: �� •. 1-�.Iv.:i;. � � • 1 • •1lti yf :?.4:i aN^. � 1{�:J�:�F.Tw•f t�'• '•tw p�••.S.t.•.(i I .. I ::r�i.��'7 ��[•�'°%.:.r: tsar �:... L � I 77:1.i11'lll 1�1i n ��!I�ji11(1.11:1/111(•' � ��•r;!•••' .. ! •rr�rrlr. ... •. .•.. .tom .t;- f.',•• .r• '• i i '4:f«I 4j:i' %,".'`' :% i nni•��.•'I i-r• ,.1 •1�.r(t ff�� 1i � '/ li.` .� S.1 '�'s%i•�'r�• •.�'.. h ��...LL.L�11• •' •ter Nlfr �1� 1�'��n)•}t•���f.l'. ,••�5%' .!'t!!'•{..:i�.i,.:lJt.�,.y ,'.�,N�wrs� n ;,,r..:.'.�.. '.t• ' ff��ZYi jY•�*� f'1,,�`ty ���,`• ' !' •�' 'rJo� r �• • r .r .t. ! (•. 7�j<0".:s-;. •>lf!���; :i.•ti_:I. �✓r.:%'I r;'•�'.�j',.•1: •i�,• •::'••i�.•.•�� �.f�'�`'; r eS ih:1'4'�,••is�.rrinwi.�r'nr tj•t 3.:L•. ^. . .. :r'• . r . 1 .pair•/:.air i• P I is I n•'t, �. rI ,.`•; 1.••ei' 1/ $v:. •q T,S4�ti`r.l.r{u`� ��/ I 5;•/.ralr,:A•f .�f�C'tia� %r�� •!�::.'!1•.,•�i �' '.R•d lRift.. � ''ir'�"�:♦ '• .ai,.a r•ir�,:':rI1�L! I•jr lr a. '! I�lt':: /•..,il won, If•.% wa` .4 S. OPE 111 1 .1721 t�fL CD J, 5AN D_1K0 FREEWAY_405 lumill cc ry s I� RT{TmR1fiRTRii1f � i i —- \VflklkN!!llFil -� l — _— _— l — — _— " - lJI = ec � MU I' �i,�uunnnultnun�rtm,imentsnnnudSJliL Tr= ��_� s=sr�.-_�• - _ _ W1iliU � � llllI1WUJ tlil _ �JUINGER�_AYENUE _ X .� ,L Circulation Plan Proposed Off-Ramp Exhibit 7B CD 0 m N The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 38 z ti June 7, 2000 N 3.3 CIRCULATION PLAN d e't 0 ��-- -� �` enhanced by a number of signalized entry drives and a SP C k. �� 3.3 \ S ekC Cc �4, public transportation facilities (Exhibit 7A and 7B). The Circulation Plan�illustrales the maior and minor m driveway entrances to the site,signalized intersections The circulation plan relies on a hierarchy of C9 bus slops and bus pads supporting the development circulation features ranging from major arterials to and surrounding areas, and the public street system local streets. The system is designed to accommodate within the Specific Plan boundaries. The Circulation customer, employee, and delivery traffic to and Plan is consistent with the Huntington Beach General around the project area while discouraging through Plan's Circulation Element and the Edinger Avenue traffic from bisecting the project site. Precise Plan of Street Alignment In order to efficiently facilitate new development on- Primary access to the City of Huntington Beach and site, primary access will be from interior drive aisles. the Crossings at Huntington Beach is provided by Direct access from adjacent arterials will be subject to Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway).The City's General review and approval of the Director of Public Works. Plan designates the intersection of Beach Boulevard Primary access locations into the project area will be and Edinger Avenue as an internal node and a primary located and designed to provide full turning o entry node to the City. Access to the project site is movements.The locations relate to existing driveways LO provided by a system of arterial highways including: and median designs,and are anticipated to adequately Cl u serve the projected traffic volumes for the project area. u Beach Boulevard, a north-south principal arterial Specific future development proposals may require Qstreet 0 20 foot right-of-way), designated as a state modifications to These anticipated access locations. highway, a primary path/image corridor, major urban scenic corridor,and transit service route. Alternative forms of transportation should also receive o° careful eorisideration. The current OCTA bus route Edinger Avenue, an east-west major arterial street passes the project area on Edinger Avenue and Center w (120 foot right-of-way), designated as a truck route, Avenue. The project Circulation Plan identifies primary path/image corridor, and minor urban existing and proposed bus turnout locations along Q scenic corridor and transit service route. Edinger Avenue and Center Avenue. As a supplement to vehicular access to the project area,potential future • Center Avenue, an east-west secondary arterial street access such as a light rail system and stop shall be (80 foot right-of-way), designated as a transit pursued if available, from the existing rail line on the service route. western boundary of the site. N N Internal circulation is currently provided by a network In addition, the Development Concept encourages the of private drives/streets serving as access to individual creation of a pedestrian walkway system. As a means portions of the project area. Circulation is further of achieving a strong landscape image, pedestrian CD CD walkways are required and shall be provided N throughout the development to facilitate pedestrian The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 39 z ti June 7, 2000 N 3.3.7 Pedestrian sidewalks shall be incorporated into the 3.4 PUBLIC FACILITIES m project as a component of the landscape plan. v Sidewalks shall be installed throughout the 'The Public Facilities section discusses infrastructure, L development to facilitate pedestrian access from storm drain, sewer, and water facility improvements adjacent developments to the project site. The necessary to serve development within the Specific N pedestrian walkway system shall include walkways Plan area. A specific analysis of infrastructure Neel around the perimeter of the site in the street right-of- requirements and detailed design, construction and to way and through the parking lot to the project area. phasing plans can be found in the final civil report Qe� and bound under a separale cover. 3.3.8 Public landscape areas within the right-of-ways shall require a separate Parkway landscape PUBLIC FACILITIES POLICY: Agreement for continued maintenance of the area. All public facilities infrastructure necessary to serve 0 3.3.9 A traffic impact analysis/traffic signal warrant development within the specific plan area shall be analysis shall be required, in association with a completed concurrent with initial project development proposal for the site. Future traffic development, subject to review and approval of the impact analyses may be required due to unanticipated Director of Public Works. Q project developments•not previously an4ylzed. All LO traffic studies shall be subject to review and approval by the Directors of Planning and Public Works. 3.3.10 Circulation system improvements will be master _ planned to accommodate ultimate buildout of the Specific Plan. However, since the majority of the Cl project is anticipated to be constructed during the initial development stage, all on-site and off-site circulation improvements shall be completed prior io the first occupancy request. Future expansions permitted under the Specific Plan may generate N additional circulation improvements as determined by future traffic impact analyses. CD3.3.11 A Delivery and Fire Truck circulation plan, N depicting on site access routes and manuverability, shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works and the Fire Chief, in association with ti a development proposal for the site. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 41 .lure 7, 2000 — I N N Q. v , co U) 3.4.8 COMMUNICATIONS � p N Telephone service in the Specific Plan area is �I �'e" provided by General Telephone (GTE). Relocation of existing facilities and new installation shall bee- concurrent with project development. Provisions for fiber optic communications shall also be included in [lie overall site planning for the project area and shall I be provided prior to the first occupancy request. o Cable television service within Huntington Beach is e- C 41 Q provided by Time Warner Communications. 2 Installation of new services shall be concurrent with uproject development. Cl 3.4.8 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL co 0a w Rainbow Disposal Company currently provides Z solid waste disposal services for the area. Based on Ui= service projections and anticipated demand increase, I an adequate level of service will be maintained. No CE solid waste disposal facilities are planned to be located in the Specific Plan area. r� N ti m m m N I lD I Z ti The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan qg June 7, 2000 0 N ' 3.5.2.7 Public Restroom Facilities shall be designed to m minimize the corridor distance leading to public CO restrooms. The length of the corridor from the mall In exterior to the door or the restroom shall not exceed N thirty (30) feet. Restrooms shall be designed utilizing N a single door to enter Into the facility. Stall doors ti M shall have purse hooks installed in both men's and women's restrooms. All hallways leading to the restrooms shalt have surveillance cameras installed that shall be lane recorded 24 hours a day. LO 0 1 I \ , l Y�1 C'�G' LGti r cc n J + C 7,-J Q� 1 '1 od ry LIJ OPG' n - �, , re�� Pe�cleS f G � N m m m N I iD 7' Z ti The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Pion 50 June 7, 2000 m N a 3.5.3 COMMON AREA GUIDELINES m 100 The Crossings at Huntington Beach is divided into several unique spaces. The Italian Village setting will be carried out through v distinctive architectural design elements including towers, domes and arches, cobblestone streets and walks, water features and site amenilies that reflect the quaint and harmonious lifestyle of an Italian Village. A wide color palette with contrasting accent N elements will create a lively exciting experience for visitors to the Crossings at Huntington Beach. (See section 4.5.3). r� 5 -- �� IUD ";I ' • -- -• - • - .. ,.... � �. ,.. , r fTt(liTJrtif�ll nu ll t QHlkit�lIIIIHitlf m� _ � � ,_ — "� ` '' � •• kllnitlktnnitnfnl poll ` 61 K�1m� �tnIHIN118N111! ''1 t'- .. ; ;,`\ ,', \ IM y�. RAVE♦ \\nit III I T. Cl Lo HIM Cl Co W �'il Cl �{ -, Uuu—UWLwal, mjJJ[InJ II,ISI IIIII�1111�1Y llJlnrumnunlly' — I ,� �• I '�UWW9ti 1 :IJJJL I�l —+. \}l11WIIlIlIDWLWI LJUI WJIktlL_ JI11JL'L'11UWlIWllI •- ��-t-----�c�----* I. _� FDiTJGERA t' ttl _'. m CD 5 �� ^ ��s �x �•� � ' �s Common Area Locations Exhibit 8A The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 51 June 7, 2000 I m M d m � 0) l LO UL nmmlrnmemm�unmrRm�mnrnumrr, •_ . . _. . ::•. • " — - -- - •• ��•`� \��� » :QIII �kll{nrU aumrnlalrm�nrn Ism 1 I - - - �. ��. •� % 'Ir Uitll �_ RA Mr z, O \ Q r r•. cc LD bu Ld - -_ -- �Im � I� HE Loam - uuluullnluuu•n1I��P.1 uu wu,uumnuw nwuuuuuwuluu� � 1 uwturw n _�( `��� NCD 3 11 + 3 4 �I N )' �`' s Common Area Locations Z ` S S- Exhibit 8B a ti The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 52 June 7, 2000 COMMON AREA POLICIES: T fie- 'S T"�� a�`� S M 3.5.3.1 Common Area Lighting will create a strong, i . a attractive night identity for the project. Selected f s; "T elements will be highlighted with illumination. CDThese elements are selected for their ability toCD M enhance the dimension and add character' to the building ,architecture, to promote the appropriate +1`7,1-e- ore Ln degree of prestige to (lie project,as well as to provide �Ao-A c I �� � . N a safe and secure environment for visitors and M merchants. ForkhW lot fixture d„ c V. t� 2fC 3.5.3.3Exterior lighting shall be lodaled and designed to evenly illuminate the parking areas, including the parking structurd. Particular attention shall be paid to o the illumination of all sidewalks,connecting walkways a: and alcoves. All light standards shall be consistent with respect to design, materials, color and color.of _ light, and with the overall architectural style of the } project. All lighting shall be confined within the CE project and shall not project beyond the project boundaries. w F W _ J Lighthrg a pa=Se;vayIt lips ��:''•.�, 3.5.3.2 Illumination of buildings and landscaping _ will be indirect to create a strong positive image. starrArfule Concealing light fixtures within buildings and +: s N landscaping can highlight attractive features. Use of a variety of lighting levels at entries, plazas, parking lots, and other areas where evening mactivity is expected, will create an exciting night Walk"yfivture Accent fixture cv time environment. i z The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 58 June T, 2000 3.5.3.4 Hardscape in the common areas will consist of 3.5.3.E Landscaping in the common area will consist of- a non grid-like patterns, which recall the historical y��, espaliered vines on columns and trellis elements,ce �' -' cobble slope walks and streets of an Italian Village. potted planters to add detail near storefronts, and 4- Water elements shall be creatively incorporated to nc"e'e/ large and small planting beds throughout the plazas provide visual delight and interest. d { th�' and p � g � � passageways. .Landscaping may consist of ��- cc, , r. a1 cr I_, q e rer,$, ,ref,•, oundcover, grasses, shrubs, vines and trees and m ..�. a - f'^ lLo_ shall constitute a minimum of 10% of the common CO ' ; y a 30^ area (excluding-Village Retail). � N ' ro PIZ� o i U } Q CO 3.5.3.5 Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the surrounding public streets and shall Ui not be exposed on the wall surface of a building. w Screening material and color shall be compatible with the overall building design and colors. Dackflow cc devices,electrical transformers and other mechanical equipment, located on grade, shall not be located within the front or streetside setbacks, and shall be 3.5.3.7 Trash enclosures shall be concealed with screen screened from public view or undergrounded:s-wflk walls and ornamental gates.'Loading docks shall be - ##�e-e�csspli screened from view from the surrounding public streets through the use of architecturally detailed N fagade, building walls. The facades shall be walls: integrated into the overall architecture of the CD m project. Landscaping screening shall be provided N where possible. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 59 z June 7, 2000 i 3.5.4A New Stores and Theaters 3.5.4 ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES M Implementation of the Specific Plan will Many of the elements of the Crossings at Huntington generate construction of numerous new in-line retail C Beach architecture reflect that of an Italian village and anchor stores and will likely include a multi- CDfiving environment. The Architectural Guidelines are screen movie theater. Design and site layout of any intended to establish a character,style and quality for newly proposed structures shall comply with the IT each architedtural category. The categories are: following policies. L New Anchor Stores and Theaters NEW ANCHOR STORES AND THEATERS N General Tenant Storefronts POLICIES' Existing Major Department Stores and Village Retail The description of these guidelines is not intended to 3.5.4A.I Building massing and articulation shall discourage individual innovation and creativity,but to possess a balance in form and composition; large simply provide a framework within which an overall St*T I, tc.S flat unarticulated building elevations shall not be sense of place will be reinforced. Building design shall t''"'<<� �� permitted. The large planes of the theater and comply with the following architectural policies. « 1'1<.Slc major tenant -walls should be enhanced with FAG^t L I- patterns and graphics consistent with the overall 1-. �� 4 r c�.t1 e c� 0. SV cle fNe-I ci ic^ is design themlof the center uarL b` oc� L•1 .a� wL��- F� eS of \ P `'es a� T�� ���C�3 sA-re. .3r cc 4 01 Q 1 m m N - I The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 60 June 7, 2000 M GENERAL TENANT STOREFRONT POLICIES: 3.5.4B.3 Tenant storefront materials may include but are not restricted to: 3.5.4B.1 All storefront designs and plans shall be subject CS) to the approval of the 4and4ord and the City of Opaque: Translucent: vco Huntington Beach. Polished metals Glass block Smooth brick Etched glass 3.5.4B.2 Storefronts are encc uraged to have multiple Smooth and Rough plaster Clear glass N planes to create a vari ty of volumes and spaces Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete Crackle glass M and to maximize each st re's visibility. Porcelain and Clay tile Metal grillwork Painted or Stained wood O �nl /`2 r Glazed ceramic file o� La Smooth,Rough or polished stone II Powder coated or anodized metal r Ce 1 Cast concrete or plaster (i.e. columns,cornices) 0 L U_ U I i Od r Wf J Q r i Elevalion of typical slorefronts sitowiug varyirW li*hts, N window rhythms and he4hls and canopies. m m m N I lD I Z The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 62 .tune 7, 2000 3.5.4C Existing Major Department Stores and Village 3.5.4C.1 Complete facade improvements of all Retail remaining`buildings shall occur if expansions." LO renovatigns. or reconstruction to any portion of the 1' The existing, operating department stores are G3 acre property apLpronosed._All improvements CL Mervyns, Burlington Coat Factory, and Montgomery shall be subject to compliance with the Specific m Wards. The Village Retail Center includes the Plan. 00 building wing on the east side of the property (Barnes and [Noble, Circuit City, Staples, and in-line 3.5.4C.2 The facade improvements shall be compatible retail?. The Specific Plan is intended to require with the Italian Village architectural theme remodeling revitalization, and new construction discussed in Design Guidelines. r N with an Italian Village theme throughout the 0 acre property. Therefore, the following policies apply to 3.5.4C.3 The renovatio designs shall be subject io the rea. any remaining department stores and the Village approval of the Crossings at Huntington Beach ' i Retail center at the time any building permit is managemen an the City of Huntington Beach. Cr? S,^j f reQicested for the property. ��1 , 3.5.4C.4 Building materials and colors shall be guided i' Pvl." EXISTING MAJOR DEPARTMENT STORE AND by, but not restricted by, the approved Common 8e-,c� VILLAGE RE17AIL POLICIES: Area palette. National retail store materials and o colors will also be considered. LO _U 2 U } Cl U od LU � •a _E LIJ Cl y y E r cv 4' t '� �� � 4• � • m m m Conceptual Facade Improvement i The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 65 z June 7, 2000 i ctti 41 / :j Ilgp� �• I'••.��'i6'ii'.s�::l�ltsh•�li'i.r'"."3S.,•':�1���,:.�V�17�1F�.7�+'.•,• �• ►� i it a ,1�u / rr 1. I: I� r�1 ! _ ,IXw nl"P�`'.t'/, !. •ii II 'I' •n i:i! 1�•rA)'i7 Y��' 1���GY, , I�4�S•r.R•iY�`��'��:'�.. �! !• irF/�•i<<YF��a13' � � •A1 I . y' r' .'l�Ji1r/r ! �l Ii I r I•. r� •••C I..-2d � i•►; •`_/. � �.!yOh a3 a '~'"`7 �}j°LIT•�Rh��li'�J a•••'! � ��1! � ♦ t.r f� eF • t� i .� l .. o. `. - - -- - _ ♦ tl IS' bpi:r o ri:�! ' i� JJ•�'.J 4, 1 _ �i - irc?•.'�-.iel� _ _ _ F� �II��° - - a�l :j _ al:!jyi+��' i�j•w � �'�f��.Jf� ,� ! u a•t!:2iY�.�� :: »•r • d � Jp�f i�� rat 1 a r 1. '•. .' ' ,. '' n • It1 wu ' i ,1 r. a !L. I�.� PlIF _ er A sit;. _ Lilga• :: Ql I <<• - _�1_ 11_= _ _ __-� � _ P w, ,J_ _ - !1, I_ �•Ty�•w.CI11111• •13•e. /'1 �i! » l7i:i0 •�. _ a '=1 NIM r t • J / too M - ------------- \� \\ 00 V. LLI TRAVDZE- �wf I` � •Y ` F. � 1 h `' _ •li: Iz i 1 � I Landscape Concept Plan N Exhibit 11 B 6. m N I tD z The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 67 ti • June 7, 2000 I 3.5.5 LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES r� The landscape for The Crossings at Huntington Beach 3.5.5.2 Existing healthy trees, where feasible, shall be is an integral component of the overall project design. preserved or relocated on site. If healthy trees are This design concept is urban in nature and has strong removed, replacement shall be as follows: Each elements of an Italian Village. These elements include existing naphiclepis "Majestic Beautyremoved the use of strong vertical elements such as Italian shall be r4placed with one (1) thirty-s!x (36) inch Ul) cypress and Palms at the main entrances in strategic box tree or palm equivalent, All other healthy tree areas for emphasis and continuity. Some of the other species with a ten (10) inch diameter trunk at elements that fit well with an Italian Village breast hieght or larger shall be replaced with two M environment include the following which are (2) thirty-4x (36) inch box trees or the palm indigenous to the California coast. i.e.: Bougainvillea, equivalent for each tree removed. Should the Ivy Geraniums, Hibiscus, Lupine, Azalea, Indian foregoing substitution of two (2) 36" box trees be Hawthorn and tree varieties such as Silk tree, Alder, impractical, the ratio may be modified Ig one (1) Strawberry tree, Deodar Cedar, Carob, Carrotwood, 36" box tree with the approval of the Directior of Crepe Myrtle and the like. The Landscape Concept is Public Works. Palms may be substituted for trees at composed of these elements as well as other elements, the ratio of half (I/2) foot of brown trunk height such as decorative paving,water features, public art, for each one (1) inch of box size. if the situation o and lighting which are complementary to and assist in occurs where there is not enouSh planting area for u the implementation of an integral landscape design. the trees required, the accumulative box inches of These Landscape Guidelines establish the design trees may be utilized, For example, two (2) thirty character and visual qualities for development within six (36) inch boxed trees could be combined into cc the Specific Plan. one seven two (72) inch box tree. For halms, the requirement of eighteen feet of brown trunk for LANDSCAPE GUIDELINE POLICIES: each thirty six (36) inch tree would work as w follows: two (Q thirty six (36) inch box trees could w 3.5.5.I Site layout shall respect and preserve as much of be combined into one (1) thirty six (36) foot the existing site features, including trees where (brown to mk) m. All tree replacement shalt be Cl possible. A professional consulting arborist shall subiect to review and approval and may be determine whether existing trees can be saved modified by the Director of Public Works. during construction. M T ncl S C CrCrt- Vfr ��� rPS 5 a0 � , Per perms , The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 68 z June 7, 2000 m M IL PLANT PALETTE - SITE m 1J�SCRIPl7ON AOM WCUNam. COMMONNAME C00 D FRONTAGE TREE PYRUS KAWAKAMI] EVERGREEN PEAR v LAGERSIROEMIA FAUREI CRAPE MYRTLE Ln METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE FRONTAGE HEDGE LIGUSTRUM J.TEXANUM' TEXAS PRIVET JUN[PERUS CHINENIS `PAMONII'[UNIPFR M FRONTAGE ACCENT SHRUB. BOUGAINVILLEA Sr. BOUGAllW1LLEA HIBISCUS ROSA-SINENSIS HIBISCUS FRONTAGE GROUNDCOVER GAZANLA SP. GAZANIA ZOYSIA TENUIFOCIA KOREAN GRASS ENTRY DRIVE THEME TREE O1,EA EUROPAEA OLIVE ENTRY DRIVE TREE JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDA PI CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE PYRUS CALLERYANA'BRADFORD' BRADFORD PEAR ENTRY DRIVE ACCENT SHRUB AZALEA SP. AZALEA O ENTRY DRIVE EDGE SHRUB PHORMIUM TENAX FLAX ENTRY DRIVE LOW SHRUB TRACHELOSPERMUM JASM[NOIDES STARJASMINE u END ISLAND TREE LAGERSTROEMIA FAUREI CRAPE MYRTLE _ RHAPIOLEPIS'Me�ESTIC B£AUTI" INDIA HAWTHORN TREE FORM u END ISLAND LOW SHRUB ASPIDISTRA ELATIOR CAST-IRON PLANT i Q TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE ROSMARINUS OFFICWALIS SPREADING ROSEMARY LO END ISLAND ACCENT SHRUB ROSA SP. SHRUB ROSE PARKING LOTTREE PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA TLOODGOOD' LONDON PLANE TREE— W ULMUS PARVIFOLIA TRUE GREEN' TRUE GREEN ELM ZELKOVA SERRATTA SA�VLF ATZELKOVA W ULMUS PARVIFOUA CHME ELM F SCREEN TREES EUCALPT'US SP. EUCALYPTUS PINUS SP. PINES AGOMS FI.EXUOSA PEPPERMINT TREE PARKING GARAGE SCREEN TREE TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX PARKING GARAGE PLANTING BOUGAINVILLEA SP. , BOUGAINVILLEA TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE ' FITTOSPORUM TOBIRA `MINT JULIP' `7 SCREEN TREES MELALEUCA OUIN UENERUTA CAIBPUT TRE£ M TRLSI'ANIA CONFERTA BRISMNE BOX n S FICUS RUBIGNOSA RUSTYLEAF FIG CD Plant Materials Palette m CD 1 �1 L e Exhibit 12 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 70 June 7, 2000 m v m 3.5.5.15 Landscape screening is intended to soften and 3.5.6 SIGNAGE GUIDELINES CC) blend the connection of the building areas with the landscape of the parking lots. Trees shall be The Signage Guidelines identify a framework to provided to soften, and visually relieve, parking and advertise a place of business and provide directions or N utility areas and to provide summer shade. information specific to that business. Attractive and 4 effective signage can be designed without detracting Trash enclosure areas, where appropriate, shall be from the overall design quality of the project area.The provided with tree and shrub planting screens to . Signage Guidelines also contribute to the overall soften the enclosure. Mechanical equipment and project area urban retail design theme. Design, color, transformer areas shall have landscape screening materials and placement are all important in creating and/or low-level screen walls. Valves,meters, back signs that are architecturally attractive and integrated flow preventers, etc., shall be screened by shrub into the overall project area design. The intent is to plantings and/or low level screen walls. create and promote a quality visual environment by O allowing only signs which are compatible with their 3.5.5.i G Landscape lighting shall be provided in selected surroundings and which effectively communicate = I areas to aesthetically enhance the site. Pedestrian their message. walkways shall include adequate night lighting for CE public safety and crime prevention purposes. Signs shall be designed to be architecturally L5 Courtyard lighting shall be a minimum maintained compatible with the colors 'and materials of the 06 level of one foot-candle. adjacent building. All signing shall be consistent with w the Crossings at Huntington Beach's sign standards 3.5.5.17 Conservation water measures shall be (appendix Q. = incorporated in the landscape design. A minimumfn rr I 1 IT �'�,cI Qof seventy-five' (75) percent of the requirede P landscape area shall be planted with ground cover r1r- II and the balance (a maximum of 25 percent) with S t.S '� S V l c turf. The use of shrubs, hedges, and berming shall n f �J < be provided to screen cars in the parking lots from 1 c S r street view. 1 (' � �� � l.- 1 S • J c m CD m N I lD I Z ti The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 73 June 7, 2000 v 4.2.14 Use. The purpose for which land or building is 4.3.1 Permitted Uses. Permitted uses shall be required to IL arranged, designed, or intended, or for which it is meet all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach occupied or maintained. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. A list of m permitted uses is provided in Exhibit 13A. Iq 4.2.15 Wall or fence. Any structure or devise forming a Ln physical barrier. This definition shall include: wood, 4.3.2 Intensity. The maximum intensiiy shall be consistent I- concrete, concrete block, brick, stone or other with the City's General Plan. masonry material, metal, and wrought iron,etc. 4.3.3 Building height The maximum allowable building 4.2.16 Zone. A district as defined in the State Conservation height shall be seventy-five (75) feet and a maximum and Planning Act, shown on the official zoning maps of 4 stories. Rooftop mechanical equipment and and to which uniform regulations apply. parapet walls may exceed the maximum permitted building height by fifteen (15) feel, however 4.2.17 Zoning maps. The official zoning maps of the City mechanincal equipment shall be screened from view. of Huntington Beach which are a part of the Special themed architectural structures or elenienls O comprehensive zoning ordinance. such as towers or domes may be allowed up to one Q hundred-twenty (120) feet. U II U 4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4.3.4 Setbacks. Refer to Exhibit 14. The Development Standards shall serve as the 4.3.5 Landscaping. landscaping shall be permanently C mechanism for the implementation of the Crossings at maintained in an attractive manner in all setback and w Huntington Beach land uses.The standards set forth in parking lot areas fronting on, or visible from,adjacent z this section will assure that future development within public streets. = The Crossings at Huntington Beach is implemented in a manner consistent with the intent of the project area 4.3.6 Signs. All signs in the project area shall conform to J p CE I �e— Masler Plan. The standards contained herein provide the provisions of the sign standards in Appendix D. flexible mechanisms to anticipate future needs and �� achieve compatibility between land uses and the 4.3.7 Lighting. All illumination of interior circulation surrounding community.Standards and guidelines are streets, parking areas, and project sites, shall be k,�/'ct t V) designed to be compatible with the existing land use coordinated to provide consistent illumination S i categories of the City. The primary land uses in the intensity. Emphasis shall be placed on areas of high S n Crossings at Huntington Beach shall be regional vehicular and pedestrian activity. Light fixtures and commercial,retail,dining,and entertainment. standards shall be consistent with building marchitectural style. Public streetlights shall comply m N with the City of Huntington Beach guidelines for street `a lighting. z ti The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 77 June 7, 2000 N a. m CD New building construction of the following uses and facade improvements to existing buildings shall be permitted within the v Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan subject to review and approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Director. Other U' changes in occupancy, such as, like for like tenant changes, new tenants established within existing buildings, and/or intensification of tenant uses shall be subject to building permit plan chock review to verify compliance with parking and the N Specific Plan review. r� Aquarium Day Care Facilities Banks and other financial institutions Government Offices ' Commercial recreation and live entertainment Public Safety Facilities Food Markets (Specialty Markets-max. 10,000 sq. ft.) Utilities and Communication Facilities General Retail Parking 0 Day S -surface Cl Hotels Motels -structured Movie Theaters -valet i Restaurants -with outdoor dining c� -with alcohol sales C4 -'with live entertainment and dancing E Personal Services _ OFFICE Business and Professional OTHER PERMITTED RETAIL Car stereo and alarm installation, if integrated into an anchor/major retail building and located within a building Portable carts and kiosks Nole. Other similar uses maybe permitted subject to review by the Planning Director. "Requires an enterlaimn ntper71 it Permitted Uses Chart t'l�-� -� s � r-,�� � Q-� cl r e �c i � S -�, r e_.. Exhibit 13A i ti The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 78 June 7, 2000 M �:.�lt•*4}'�4r 1�r y�4' .Y. � :.:.� rl'�� ~t,1 *' �J i'•+ F ��•N .,� Fyy ._ " a. ,�y.f;.:<u. 14v' B r �tJ�lr��•�a •.r• ln.i�f.•'ly:: N�, •j a r y 4F. i �� f�l° r ) •f�.�.J� i ', I.' u'•y 8r1 iy . Minimum Project Area (AC) 50 CS) Minimum Lot Size (AC) None v� Minimum Lot Frontage None U0 Maximum Building Height 75 feet Maximum Number of Stories 4 stories N Maximum Additional Height for parapet walls,mechanical 15 feet rn equipment,communication antennas etc. Maximum Architectural Feature Height 120 feet Maximum Lot Coverage 50% Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.5 Minimum Setback' Street side (Edinger Ave., Beach Blvd.and Center Ave.) 50 feel,or 25 feel if setback is fully landscaped Interior side (West Property Line) 10 feet 0 Minimum Landscaping 8%of total sire; 15%of common area LO � Minimum Perimeter Landscaping = Street side (Edinger Ave.,Beach Blvd.and Center Ave.) 10 feet interior side (West Property Line) 5 feet Minimum Standard Parking Stall Size 9 feet x 18 feet Minimum Compact Parking Stall Size 8 feet x 18 feet C4 Minimum Drive Aisle Width 25 feet for 90 degree stalls Minimum Parking Required Shared parking based upon joint use of parking,analysis with Site w Plan Review Maximum Compact Spaces 20% of total spaces cc I Handicapped Parking Comply with Uniform Building Code and Title 24 j Parking Structure Design Comply with Zoning,and Subdivision Ordinance Public Amenity Re uire ent Minimum of Six public amenities required;At least two public art elements and two water features within common area Wireless Communication Facilities Comply with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Transportation Demand Management IComply with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance m ` Buildings exceeding fifty(50) feet in height shall increase the set back by one (1) foot for each one (1) foot of building height m above fifty(50) feet, s e-� <<� I r Q-� �-}f Development Regulations Chart z '� Exhibit 14 The Crossings Hunfington Beach Specific Plan 1 \ ui 80 June 7, 2000 JUN-16-2000 11:37 ALTHEIMER 8 GRA1'CHICAGO 312 715 4800 P.44 - The Crossings at HuntinZon Beach Specific Plan No. 13 Section 3 5,4C - Nonconforming Buildings and Uses � r.� rA'1 -3� ` I S G L,e � V�e. ` f g c/` Cl l ^S � \ J /1 'J f l� 1 �S t�j✓1 'd; 1 3.5.4C. Pumose -- d Q S e S , 0 -% A % 1 8 e ve l a Q r�C,\ + S remodel/renovation of non-conforming buildings in order to promote the public health, saf and general welfare and to bring such buildings and uses into conformity with the goals d policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and The Crossings at Huntin n Beach S e��I Specific Plan No. 13. This section is intended to prevent the expansion of nonco rming uses W o a and buildings, establish the circumstances under which they may be continued d provide for ci .� the removal, correction,remodel, or change of such uses and buildings. . e 3.5.4 .1 Re ations S Applicable S The following regulations shall apply to all nonconforming uses to all buildings or structures e-- non conforming due to use and/or standards as specified herein: l. Continuation. A nonconforming use or a building or s eture nonconforming due to use and/or standards may be continuously maintained p vided there is no alteration, enlargement or addition to any building or stru ; no increase in occupant load;nor any enlargement of area, space or volume occupied y or devoted to such use, except as otherwise provided in this Section. 2. Additions to a Nonconforming se Bui ing. or$rructure. This section does not authorize the extension, expansion, or enlarg t of the area of land or.the area within a building or structure devoted to a nonconfo g use,or the alteration, enlargement of or addition to a building or structure nonconfo g due to use and/or standards, or permit the addition of land, buildings or structure in conjunction with a nonconforming use or a building or structure nonconforming d to use and/or standards, except: a. Exterior buildin teradons to a building or structure nonconforming due to standards whe the exterior alterations comply with the design, architectural, and developme policies and standards contained within the Specific Plan. a b. To the ent required by a subsequently enacted or subsequently adopted law, ordin cc or regulation, and the Director so fords. Such additions as are permitted by the bsection shall not be construed to extend the termination date of the subject n conforming use, or a building or a structure non-conforming due to use or (g:�jm�aouFngstzmorsjp� • (AtrachsnentNo_8.1) JUN-16-200o 11:38 ALTHEIMER 8 GRAY=CHICAGO 312 715 4800 P.45 - r, earthquake, or other calamity, or by act of God, or by act of war, or by the public enemy, may be re-consu-acted provided that each of the following conditions is met: a. Such re-construction is permitted by the Uniform Building Code. b. Re-construction is commenced within one year of the date of damage, ess otherwise allowed by the Planning Commission, and be pursued dili ntly to completion. 4 5C 2. Termination Conditions and Time Limits The following regulations shall apply to all nonconforming uses and bull gs and structures nonconforming due to use, and to buildings and structures nonconfo ' g due to standards as specified in this section. I 1. Termination by Discontinuance. Discontinuance of a nonc orm-ing use or of the use of a building or structure nonconforming due to use and/or ds as indicated herein shall immediately terminate the right to operate or use such n conforming use,building or structure, except when extended as otherwise provid this Section: I & Changing a nonconforming use to a confo ' g use; b. Removal of a building or structure nonco orming due to use and/or standards; or C. Discontinuance of a nonconforming or use of a building or structure I nonconforming due to use and/or ds as indicated herein for consecutive period of one or more years. 2. Termination by Operation of Law. No conforming uses and buildings or structures nonconforming due to use,shall be d' continued and removed from their sites within the time specified in this section, exeep en extended or revoked as otherwise provided in this section. Buildings or strut nonconforming due to standards enumerated in this Specific Plan, shall be remodele d renovated to comply with the standards enumerated in this Specific Plan within the a frame specified in this section, except when extended or revoked as otherwise provi ed in this section. In the case of nonconfo ' g uses and buildings or structures nonconforming due to use, and those buildings or cr=s nonconforming due to standards enumerated in this Specific Plan: 'I a. Where a nonc nform-ing use is carried on in a conforming structure—three years from ,I the date of option of the Specific Plan. b. 'Where nonconforming use is carried on in a nonconforming structure due to stand ds enumerated in this Specific Plan—three years from the date of adoption of the pecific Plan. C. ere a conforming use is carried on in a nonconforming structure due to standards enumerated in this Specific plan—three years from the date of adoption of the (g:ym�crou�ngs�amortizstioa (Attachm=t No.92) JUN-16-2000 11:39 ALTHEIMER & GRAY—CHICAGO 312 715 4800 P.46 ' 3, eview o ort'zation Schedule or u st 1. Request for Review—An application may be filed with the Planning Commission requesting extension of the time within which a nonconforming use or building or structur nonconforming due to use, or due to standards where applicable, must be discontinued d removed from its site or remodeled and renovated as specified in Section 3.4.5C. The Planning Commission may accept such filing either before or after the date expiration of such nonconforming use,building or structure. 2. AQplicatiori and Procedure—Except as specifically provided in this secti the application and all procedures relative to notification, public hearing and appeals be the same as for a conditional use permit. 3. Burden of Proof—In addition to the information required in application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Planning Co iorrthe following facts: a. That to require cessation of such use,building or eture would impair the property rights of any person to such an extent as to be unconstitutional taking of property; and/or b_ That such use,building or structure do not now and will not during the extension period requested: 1. Adversely affect the health, cc or welfare of persons residing or working in the li surrounding area, and, 2. Be materially de tal to the use, enjoyment or valuation of the property of other persons loc d in the vicinity of the site, and, 3. Jeopardize, ger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or gene elfare. 4. Findings and c' 'on—The Director of Planning shall recommend and the Planning Commissio hall approve an application for a nonconforming use,building or structure review, pr tied the burden of proof set forth above has been met by the applicant. 5. Condi ' ns—The Planning Commission, in approving an application for a nonconforming use d structure review may impose conditions.it deems necessary to insure that the ap oval will be in accord with the findings required. Conditions imposed by the Planning C mmission may involve any pertinent factors affecting the establishment, operation, and es, d. i (g:\jm\etoszintcs\arnoetimtion (Attachment No.S.3) : oQoaadao El 1 ©� wz" dim " IN � 1 r Mil.,i Will t • i I ' a) • of I Z N m m m SIGNACf UG TYPE Dt ION TYPE DESCNIPNON TYPE D(SCK1PIICN nTt ,OESCRWTION 1... F+ EME fRlEw U�Of(UMJNJ EMc SECONDAKY PRMCT AIONUMtM EDU P[DESTRUN OIR[LTII)NAL EWd l'KIMv Y l'R<)1,11 1YALl 5llll lC a�r�ry .!t inmu I.U.I A ReiwM'Uv3n�3 N.mml m EMb PRMAA KOJECr W..NLAWiT(pAemyl Eta VEHKU. ARDIRECT7t)+A1 EOc PRcvLTDw(CTORY [EMj•5(CONOAKTPKOIICT%VAL1S[(N n EDa --- EMc _[_- EDb ![W71 tT afcrmlmmtiTnm[t Ttmmn \�� \ �. D GIII SIN D`IECO FREEWAY-405ul m EDa _ = EDa = _ _- _ __ _ _ '\ faAVE `\\ j X PO EDa �. EDb EDa - EDa cio EWb ; `' _ � '•� _ o . EDb o _ DI EWbf EDc Ls EDb EWa EWb / EDC a EDa ' -1 "b. , :� '�' �-�,\`�• --._-__. 11 @ 8 EDc EWb ,., EDc �IIIINH{flHl+f� EW a EWb �v IIfN EMa \ .( avY�• �IOT � _ - EWa EDb = EDa - = EDb _ -- == -_ � EDa = �' �,� •'...,, &`/{/!// f 1 N EDb �M�1i:1-1ft�,• _ - - � _ � __ _ - ■v.r - G EDa D l lu,Iunnf►ilnf,iii,�I11�U1pilulllllfllltf111 l W Iu Ill II IDulSlllllUlllLllll,i ti�!llllllillulll[E,lu![mu u to 1 i'��� o m m r EMc — EMb Nc NUE EMb ._ EMc co m I I . r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Interoffice Communication • Economic Development Department TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission Members VIA: Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director i FROM: David C. Biggs, Economic Development Directo' DATE: June 16, 2000 SUBJECT: Proposed Specific Plan for Huntington Center I understand that questions have been raised at the Planning Commission regarding the Redevelopment Agency's involvement in the possible redevelopment of Huntington Center. The purpose of this memorandum is to address two areas: (1) the Agency's role in the Specific Plan process; and(2)the redevelopment process. r Specific Plan Process The adopted Redevelopment Plan for the City designates the City's General Plan and Zoning Code as the land use controls for the purposes of redevelopment. The City's 1996 General Plan requires the preparation and approval of a Specific Plan for the Huntington Center area before any development can occur in the area, including redevelopment. As such, the Agency has been supportive of the efforts to develop a Specific Plan for Huntington Center. The. Specific Plan process. for Huntington Center commenced under Macerich's ownership. At the time, the Redevelopment Agency was a co-applicant when the Specific Plan application was submitted. Contrary to claim now being asserted, Montgomery Ward was consulted by Macerich on the Specific Plan. When Wards did not respond to a request to be a co-applicant for the Specific Plan, the Redevelopment Agency became a co-applicant, and Wards was advised of this in writing (Attachment 1). Additional background information is provided on the Redevelopment Agency's statutory basis to be an applicant or co-applicant for the Specific Plan as prepared by Murray Kane, Agency Special Counsel. (Attachment 2) Since that time, I have had regular contact with Wards regarding the future of Huntington Center. When Ezralow purchased Macerich's holdings at the end of 1999, Ezralow substituted in as the Agency's co-applicant for the Specific Plan. Ezralow utilized the g:\david\projects\huntctr\specific plan memo.doc draft of the Macerich Specific Plan and made some modifications to reflect their ideas for the area. On June 5, 2000, the City and the Redevelopment Agency became co- applicants for the Specific Plan and Ezralow withdrew their application. The Agency has relied on Ezralow, to'a great degree, to work with other property owners and tenants in the area covered by this proposed Specific Plan. This is due to existing contractual relationship that exists among these parties and to which the Agency or City is not a party. Earlier this year, I met with Mr. Loren Hohman, Real Estate Director for Montgomery Ward in my office. We discussed the possible redevelopment of Huntington Center, Montgomery Wards' interests, and the status of the proposed Specific Plan. Mr. Hohman indicated to me that he was working with Ezralow on the redevelopment of Huntington Center and was being consulted on the draft Specific Plan. In particular, we specifically discussed elements of the proposed Specific Plan, including the fact that it proposed to eliminate automotive related uses. Mr. Hohman told me he was going from our meeting to an appointment with Ezralow to discuss Huntington Center and the Specific Plan. In this meeting, I offered to get Mr. Hohman a copy of the draft Specific Plan, which he declined, stating he could get a copy from Ezralow. On May 23, 2000, 1 met with Mr. Hohman and two other representatives from Ward's at the International Council of Shopping Centers tradeshow in Las Vegas. We spoke about the timing for consideration of the Specific Plan and the redevelopment process. Mr. Hohman asked to be provided with a copy of the final draft specific plan. Upon my return to the office on Friday, May 26, 2000, I conveyed this request to Jane James in Planning and she sent out the requested materials to Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and . Hampton, the attorneys representing Montgomery Wards. Also, while in Las Vegas, I accompanied Mr. Don Docken, Senior Vice President for Ward's,. together with another city staff person, on a site visit to one of their new prototype stores. This is a single story, 96,000+1_ sf store. Mr. Docken indicated that Ward's new prototype stores range between 90,000 square feet and 130,000 square feet, excluding the automotive use, in a single-story format. Redevelopment Process A primary goal of the Redevelopment Agency is to facilitate the revitalization of Huntington Center. During Macerich's ownership, the Agency had preliminary discussions regarding a redevelopment program and some level of financial assistance. Macerich's decision to sell the Center placed any redevelopment processes on hold. Once Ezralow took ownership and sufficiently advanced the development of the proposed Specific Plan, the Agency initiated the formal redevelopment process. This involved requesting Letters of Intent and proposals from property owners, and others with a property interest, for the comprehensive redevelopment of Huntington Center. Three responses were received by the deadline. On June 19, 2000, the g:\david\projects\huntctr\specific plan memo.doc i i Redevelopment Agency will be evaluating these responses. Staff is recommending the Agency negotiate with Ezralow for the,redevelopment of Huntington Center. Additional background information is included in the attached Request for Redevelopment Agency Action for June 19,2000. (Attachment-3) The selection of Ezralow as the master developer for Huntington Center does not preclude the other two respondents, nor any other tenants, from being involved in the future project. This will ultimately be addressed with the context of the negotiations, with the scope of development and tenant mix to be determined in the future. The Redevelopment Agency negotiations and future actions will be taken in order to ensure a development scenario which best meets the goals and objectives for the site. We would encourage the Planning Commission to take action and approve the Specific Plan on June 20, 2000. This will ensure that any negotiations for the redevelopment of the area are undertaken with the Specific Plan parameters in place to guide these efforts. Please feel free to contact me if I can answer any questions or provide additional information. DCB:ls xc: Mayor and City Council Members Ray Silver, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Murray Kane, Agency Special Counsel Gus Duran, Housing & Redevelopment Manager I g:\david\projects\huntctr\specific plan memo.doc Letter to Mr. Loren Homan — Montgomery Ward's c .. ��yt fib. a� ;� � z.� •,-.-�, s � ;� - f NT $. Z n i f J�' ? City of Huntington BeacE C E I "i E D * 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 926U J U L 1 1;;J8 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT _ CC"11MD t!i Y DEVE--&MENT July 15, 1998 Director 714/536-5582 Redevelopment 714/536-5582 FAX 714/375-5087 Housing 714/536-5542 Mr. Loren Hohman Regional Real Estate Manager Montgomery Ward's Corporation 535 West Chicago Ave. 25`h North Chicago,Illinois 60671 Dear Mr. Hohman: Montgomery Ward's Store at the Huntington Beach Mall This letter is to advise you that the Macerich Company is working in cooperation with the Redevelopment Agency of the City.of Huntington Beach to redevelop what is now known as the Huntington Beach Mall, located at the intersection of Beach Boulevard,Edinger Avenue and the San Diego Freeway. The project involves reconfiguring the mall into an open-air entertainment retail center with.anew 18-screen movie theater complex•-new retail anchors and restate-rants---�—= Macerich has attempted to have Montgomery Ward's cooperation in filing its entitlement applications with the city, but they have been unsuccessful in securing the necessary signatures on the applications. Since the Montgomery Ward's store is within the city's redevelopment project area,the Redevelopment Agency has decided to be the entitlement co-applicant with the Macerich Company. This will allow the Macerich Company and the Redevelopment Agency to continue planning and implementing the redevelopment of this significantly important project for the City of Huntington Beach. If you have any questions regarding the Redevelopment Agency's interest in the redevelopment of this Huntington Beach Mall or how this may affect Montgomery Ward's, please feel free to give me a call at(714)375-5909. If you would like to speak directly with the lead person who is coordinating this effort on behalf.of the Agency, please contact Gus Duran of my office at , 714/374-1529. Sincerely, David C. Biggs Director of Economic Development xc: John Genovese Tom Jayred 7/14/98MONTGOM Memo from Kane, Ballmer & Berkman J i KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN A LAW CORPORAT10s SIS SOUTH F10UL-RoA s,rREr'.r,SUITE ISSO LOS AtNGLES,CAUFORNIA 90071 TELMONS(211)617-W 60 FAX(213)625.0931 MEMORANDUM TO: David Biggs, Director, Department of Economic Development City of Huntington Beach FROM: Murray Vane, Agency Special Counsel DATE: June 15,2000 RE: Statutory Basis for Agency Specific Plan Co-Application The following is a brief outline of the statutory basis justifying the Agency's joining as applicant or co-applicant in the applicatiod for Specific Plan for Huntington Center,within the Huntington Center component of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan(the "Redevelopment Plan"): I 1. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 3343 approving the Redevelopment Plan provides that: "In order to implement...the Redevelopment Plan hereby approved,the City Council hereby declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding necessary to be carried out by the City of Huntington Beach under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan." Such proceedings would include a specific plan. 2. Section 900.8 of the Redevelopment Plan specifically provides for aid and cooperation between the City and Agency in carrying out the Redevelopment Plan including "...the adoption of specific plans...". 3. Section 33020 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, found at Sections 33000 et seq. of the California Health& Safety Code (the"CRL"), provides that" `Redevelopment' means the planning,...replaruling, redesign,... of all or part of a survey area." 4. Section 33220 of the CRL provides that"for the purpose of aiding and co- I operating in the planning...of redevelopment projects...any public body—may: (d)Plan or replan,zone or rezone any part of such area and make any legal exceptions from building regulations and ordinances." With respect to a specific plan, this section would be implemented by the City at the request of the Redevelopment Agency involved. In this particular case, such request properly took the form of the application for the specific plan. I III �I �i Request for Redevelopment Agency Action — 6/19 ..s rX3"°7r e'��'t?'"'-•vE�`^ �N�_"n �cs'r �il§„'�',F �� ��?„`', .�3 ar �'rx��e���{� .. .�;s AM .., .. f �,t. y 2 .. s` z 3 'L.ci'�"P�, L, ?e:;y_ :.r.•.,.. Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved 'Cl Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: June 19, 2000 Department ID Number: ED 00-26 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, Executive Director PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, Director of Economic Development1' SUBJECT: Approve Developer Selection from Huntington Center Owner Participation Proposals Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis, Environmental status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: On March 3, 2000, the Redevelopment Agency issued a Statement of Interest and Request For Proposal (RFP) letter to all the major property owners and long- term tenants in the Huntington Center redevelopment site. The letters requested proposals for the redevelopment of the entire Huntington Center. Three proposals were submitted (Burlington Coat Factory, The Ezralow Company and Montgomery Wards). The Agency Board needs to select a respondent to undertake the comprehensive redevelopment of the site. Funding Source: Not applicable at this time Recommended Action: Direct staff to.negotiate an Owner Participation Agreement with. Huntington Center Associates, LLC, an Ezralow Company subsidiary, for the comprehensive redevelopment of Huntington Center. Alternative Action(s): Do not select an overall developer for the entire Huntington Center. Analysis: On November 26, 1984, the Redevelopment Agency Board adopted the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Plan. One of the principal reasons for the adoption of the plan was the obsolescence of the Huntington Center and the need to redevelop it. As time has progressed, the center has lost two of its anchor stores and has become severely deteriorated. JC Penney left the Center in August of 1994; Broadway closed its store in August of 1996. The replacement store for JC Penney only occupies two of three floors in the building. REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 00-26 The City has seen its sales tax revenue from the site decline from over$1.5 million in 1990 to less that $850,000 in 1998. One of the existing anchors has seen its sales volume decline by 30% between 1994/95 and 1998/99. The gross assessed value of the site, which has dramatically driven down the Redevelopment Agency revenues, has declined from $94 million in 1993/94 to $45 million in 1999/00. In addition, there are property owner initiated assessed valuation appeals now pending. The community has Fong clamored its redevelopment, as the center has become an eyesore. The Agency attempted to work with the various owners of the center over the past 10 years to no avail. Recently a new owner has come into the picture and has demonstrated the interest to pursue the Center's redevelopment. The Agency intends for the Huntington Center to be rehabilitated and repositioned into a high-quality, well-integrated retail and entertainment center under unified ownership. To that end, the Agency has determined that, in order to revitalize the economy of the center and to best achieve the redevelopment goals of the Agency and Redevelopment Plan, the Agency may need to encourage comprehensive changes to both the structural and tenant composition of the Huntington Center. The Agency believes that unified development of the Huntington Center will allow for the oversight and site control necessary to effectively redevelop and maintain the center as a superior quality development, and will advance the Redevelopment Plan's stated goal of implementing design and use standards to assure high aesthetic and environmental quality, and providing unity and integrity to developments within the Project Area (Redevelopment Plan, Section 500). In addition, Agency expert consultants confirm that unified development and maintenance of the Huntington Center in the highest standards will enable the center to attract the combination and caliber of tenants as well as financing necessary to reposition it into a first-rate retail and entertainment center. Because of the Huntington Center's location as a major gateway to the City, it is vital to the interests of the City that the Huntington Center be redeveloped in a manner that will significantly enhance the image of the community and set the standard desired for future high-quality development in the City. The Agency believes that the unified, comprehensive.development and maintenance of the center as .envisioned by the Agency will accomplish these purposes as well as those set forth in the Redevelopment Plan. In order to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan and accomplish the objectives described above, the Agency issued a Request for Proposal and Statement of Interest (RFP) (Attachment 1) to qualifying owners and long-term tenants within the Huntington Center. The RFP described the objectives of the Agency and Redevelopment Plan, and sought proposals for the redevelopment of the entire Huntington Center in accordance with such objectives. Three proposals were submitted - Burlington Coat Factory (Attachmbnt 2), The Ezralow Company (Attachment 3) and Montgomery Wards (Attachment 4). Agency staff has carefully reviewed and analyzed the three proposals in light of both the goals and objectives described above and the specific requirements set forth in the RFP (see Attachment 5 for summary matrix), and has come to the conclusion that only the proposal from The Ezralow Company meets these goals, objectives and requirements. REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 00-26 The Economic Development Department is recommending The Ezralow Comparfy's proposal for several reasons. First, it was the only submission which addressed and proposes to fulfill the Agency's stated goal of comprehensive development - the proposal offered detailed plans prepared by experts for the extensive redevelopment of the Huntington Center in its entirety. The submissions by Montgomery Ward and Burlington Coat Factory, however, did not address the Agency's stated goal of comprehensive development. Rather, Montgomery Ward only addressed the renovation of its two individual buildings, and .Burlington Coat Factory only addressed its desire to continue leasing property within the Huntington Center. Based on their proposals, it does not seem that either Montgomery Ward or Burlington Coat Factory desire or are willing to engage in a comprehensive redevelopment of the Huntington Center as envisioned by the Agency, instead, they want only to maintain their individual stores. However, fragmented development proposals will not accomplish the goals and objectives established by the Agency and Redevelopment Plan. Second, The Ezralow Company was the only party which submitted essentially all of the documents which were required by the RFP and necessary for the Agency to adequately evaluate the potential participant's redevelopment plans for the Huntington Center as well as the potential participant's development experience and financial capability (please see Attachment 5). Montgomery Ward and Burlington Coat Factory did not submit these essential documents. For these reasons, the Economic Development Department recommends that Agency staff enter into negotiations with The Ezralow Company (or any one or its affiliates or subsidiaries) for an Owner Participation Agreement for the redevelopment of the Huntington Center. If this recommendation is approved, staff will negotiate for a 60-day period, during which the selected participant shall be required to provide adequate assurances to.Agency that the participant has definitive plans for and is capable of attracting the combination and caliber of tenants as well as financing necessary to rehabilitate and reposition the entire Huntington Center into a first-rate, unified development. Environmental Status: None for this action. Attachment(s): 1 RFP Letter. 2 Burlington Proposal. 3 Ezralow Proposal. 4 Montgomery Wards Proposal. 5 Huntington Center Proposal Analysis Matrix. Cr -Iv',m N C �1 trends Odd how the fast food Joint has become STEPHEN SVETE nance to force hungry families to get out of emblematic of what's wrong with the mod- _._ _ their mini vans to purchase burgers and ern world. The recent bombing of a. fries. Both cities originally used the onus of McDonalds in Brittany was widely inter- _ _ -- ..- air pollution to create the legal nexus for the preted as nothing less than a shot across the Havelt Your-Way ban. However, using the air pollution bow of cultural globalization. Here on our , approach is not advisable these days. golden shores, discussions about the merits Just Get Out The County of Santa Barbara lost its of quick service restaurants are more meas- attempt to use air quality as the reason for ured, but the burger and burrito huts still . denying a drive-through use permit for the can cause high anxiety. Of The Car First popular In-N-Out chain in 1994. In that Particularly loathed by many are drive- _ county, the applicant must demonstrate that through facilities. These car-friendly land the air quality impacts of a project with a i uses have been scoffed at for years by stu- drive-through would be lesser than a project dents of the urban form.After all, when it comes to bleating speak- without a drive-ihrough to gain a permit.And that is exactly what the ers, idling vehicles belching exhaust, and multiple curb cuts, what's purveyor of Double-Doubles proceeded to do.Armed with a CRA- to like? Drive-throughs have been banned in a handful of Califor- commissioned study (funded by In-N-Out, Carl's Jr., and Burger nia's municipalities for many years.Now,a new generation of towns King)demonstrating that cars idling in drive —perhaps enthusiastic about neo-traditional and smart growth con- through lanes for 15 minutes or less cepts — has brought drive-through lanes under new scrutiny. And are 25% to 40%less polluting than the fast-food industry is armed and ready. cars that pull into the parking lot, In 1999,the battle of the drive-through ended up in the state Leg- stop, restart and leave a short time islature, which argued over the merits of SB 1200. The bill, intro- later, In-N-Out prevailed in its appeal duced by Senator Charles Poochigian(R-Fresno),attempted to over- for adrive-through. ride local government's land use control of drive-through facili- Last year,Marin County had more suc- ties.As proposed by the bill, cities could not prohibit drive- . :�,, cess with a conditional use permit through facilities without the establishment of elaborate and L1'" 11' a'' •',..- process. Based on careful site extensive findings. Supported by the California Restaurant review for circulation and parking Association,the bill's goodwill theme was access rights for T' ' '" issues, combined with neighbor- �' 'w ... ` the disabled. A much watered-down version of the bill /_ u ^x ` "�!n hood character review and com- ;`passed in September 1999. The new law simply requires muni input, a drive-through for�-r•,.. .J tyg that local agencies specifically notify"blind, the aged, and =a; � � .��. In-N-Out was rejected in the Mill disabled communities" regarding hearings on permits for , p x ... Valley shopping center.Accord- drive-throughs. One has to wonder how interested blind . ' ing to Tom Lai, principal planner people could be in drive-throughs. for Marin County, the finding for Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo have long dig- denial — which went all the way to`�°_;, allowed drive-through facilities the Board of Supervisors on appeal—was — not only for restau- f based in the fact that the site was within a ` rants, but for banks "neighborhood-oriented" center, and a drive- and all other through would endanger pedestrians and services. Santa harm the character. In-N-Out Barbara's ban proceeded with building the dates to 1979, restaurant sans drive- and San Luis through. Of the Obispo's to chain's 143 stores,it is 1982. Probably one of only two with- not coincidentally, both out a car queue lane. burgs are known for both the quality and quantity of their pedestrian As it stands today, land use authority over drive-through lanes life.Glen Matteson.a San Luis Obispo city planner,concedes that the remains with local agencies.Outright bans are still legal.Condition- argument for the disabled has some merits. He acknowledges that al use permit restrictions are upon what most jurisdictions rely.And complaints about the lack of drive-through access to fast food restau- Michael Prosio,the Restaurant Association's deputy director of gov- rants are heard from time to time in his bucolic city, and many com- ernment affairs,said the CUP approach is what its members prefer. plaints are in fact from disabled people. "Blanket bans on drive-throughs really don't respond to the But even though the fast food lifestyle is thwarted in his town, specifics of particular neighborhoods, and may preclude what some Matteson believes the overall benefits to community remain in place. customers really want.We prefer to be allowed to address site design "Though the.term neo-traditional was not yet in use when we passed on case-by-case basis,"Prosio said. the ordinance, the sentiment that minimizing automobile access In other words, the burger barons want the chance to drive their would be an improvement to pedestrian life has seemed to prove point home.■ true;'he says. Stephen Svete, AICP, is a principal in the Ventura-based consulting Like San Luis Obispo,the City of Santa Barbara also uses an ordi- firm of Rincon Consultants,Inc. ATTACHMENT 8 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication ~ Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefs Director of Planning kY� g DATE: June 20, 2000 SUBJECT: DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13—DRIVE-THROUGH USES Planning staff continues to recommend that drive-through uses are not listed as a permitted use within Specific Plan No. 13 as outlined in the June 13,2000 staff report. However, if the Planning Commission determines that drive-through uses are an appropriate land use for the mall property and includes them as a permitted use, staff offers the following suggested development standards: 1. The building shall be the predominant visual element along street frontages,not parking lots or drive through lanes. 2. Drive through aisles shall be located towards the rear of the building,away from the street frontage,and screened from adjacent parking areas. 3. Buildings with drive-through services shall be"built-to"the minimum front setback lines. 4. Drive-through aisles shall provide adequate on-site queuing distance to accommodate five cars(150 feet) before the first stopping stop(e.g.menu board,teller window,and automatic teller machine). No portion of the queuing aisle should serve as a parking aisle. 5. Drive through lanes shall not exit directly to the site's main entrance. Drive-through aisles shall provide at a minimum 25-foot interior radius for any curve. 6. The main structure should be sited so as to maximize the distance for vehicle queuing while screening the drive through operations. 7. All building elevations shall comply with the architectural guidelines as specified herein. 8. Buildings shall incorporate a full roof with built-in roof top wells for mechanical equipment screening. 'i 9. A canopy shall be provided over the drive-through lane at the pick-up window. The canopy shall be architecturally compatible and fully integrated as part of the building design. I 10. No individual freestanding or pole signs shall be permitted for drive-through uses. 11. Drive-through uses shall be limited to a maximum of one drive-through use on the 63 acre site. xc: David Biggs,Economic Development Director Scott Hess,Principal Planner Herb Fauland, Senior Planner Gus Duran,Housing and Redevelopment Manager Terri Elliott, Civil Engineer Associate Bob Righetti, Public Works Consultant Jane James,Associate Planner Duane Olson, Division Chief/Fire Marshal GAAdm1tr00\0600ii3.doc ATTACHMENT 9 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN CHAPMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PAUL WALESSANDRO ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: RECENT COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THE CROSSINGS SPECIFIC PLAN DATE: JUNE 20,2000 We have briefly reviewed the recent correspondence from the attorneys representing Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory. We disagree with the various contentions set forth in those letters. We believe that the proposed Specific Plan has been properly initiated and noticed for hearing by the Commission. Further,we believe that the environmental analysis is appropriate and that the proposed Specific Plan complies with all pertinent laws and regulations, including the California Government Code, and the City's General Plan and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if I can be of further assistance. c: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Principal Planner Herb Fauland, Senior Planner G:4:2000memosxrossings 6-20 ATTACHMENT 10 � � 1, ,I ► .,/,.��`F 1�r11't Nr`,1"l'Ql�,/(�,=/C� �i: � �y"1 n..•. �' ! i,�.i �,J� r A�{±• 4_ � �.���r �.er.an �/� s �'�'�' � a� �9.a �T��r It+T � Il•tf� ... Zl. t r _' :/ es - c y i.iK,y'•,s(' S e�1 l �s 14� 3-��K„,J titi � Q E 7�y�'^k ; , PT � t..,�d, i ' ..t,O.Q t '�`t i. ,H '• e4o.- •. ... ••,..:..:.,,., u{r.. .. i ;... ti x 1. ---- ----._. .- ------- -------------- Nil SOUTH (MAIN) ELEVATION SCFEAE 2 UZZO WARDS _ PROPOSED ELEVA'nON8-SCHEME 2 EAST(MALL) ELEVATION TM U SCHEME ��� �717 H'I1061 Ate! SC EME 2 HAMCI BEAM CArOPM 0 O 1O w c I Will \\III All �sa�� \�„�i I�h � VIP, r�\\�`>'1�`1�` �rF r '�� — =�14' l 1�SDI i, I //Yj�►r� Ila 01, \�� •i'•'• / �t���l� �11� 1�1'�k� fl lr _tt `G' •ii.' ..T �I�t. � •.',I',\1 r/ii•4 /.�� �%. - - 1�''1�1�,����, �'��e(\` ��il,"� I �r� kl x. �g`-. {1, �i "i .�•�• .� y � [' ~ (��r� `� �1�_•„���~��1r��1 ��:�,kly;l'r� ' •/ ��\����'•r�;� � a� �., } �.t .� ..r�.•: e•. ��,1 ��. ��� �►%ter�.iy� .� !• .1�1 _ L 1+ r i.'. :,�• .1 ��"'� ! ��_�_ psi �f jil,�}�i+�►� \ I�JILI ,�``j,,,l`'�,,,';`� =r y I' WY J. f,r •e'A , e'l�jett'�x rt-�`•"` }' �'FS�,F'k'�tS�17tt'S�q.�l"°•-: , .t ^e"Sh'.i:�4j, X i SOUTH (MAIN) ELEVATION SCHEME I iVA OX-l" 1wV1WARDS PROPOSED ELEVATIONS-SCHEME I EAST(MALL) ELEVATION I WV43°"WRAC&*V'P COM 7M CM001 AVEM SCHEME I WV" AwlCAFOFM 0 E 70 O ATTACHMENT I I lam, fW�c&a.cL, INARDS June 20, 2000 I Ir' ORION LTrc. °,,,i".s 4 }I?�_+� ,�-}<•c„ r ,. �Ggws+ _ 'aga •cXAG xE•.r x" .} kz?.,�. i t` 7 v,•ys °<a"•hr '4 •(K DO'S z.un> �s P .'.k�.�^'1k,�_ .'�''v 4.4r'_`ir.� TEt rvis�,."� % Abz ti'# 31, � . :, . -' _ - __�_I �� _ �s�!� ` . I ;, - o C•`,.. I ;"F? �� _.. � :F 1 G _'�f��v__ � h3+'ah'L` ��'.—�f i •.� _ji. �F` 2 a .': � III fSMW �� �_�_ �• AS- li �ri,�+t t N r .••7b "'~ �r1. —, tj `1 j.k4ll W�-'`^J� =f "_ •• Y tf`_._�.,L� j r t 1. a/ I ( �, FIN WELR V4 TV r4 Imo. I � I 1•!e 1® � I � 1 � f I I : r ��;�, � _ '� I l it _,.. � •.I � ��'`� r r ^I _ yin.� �•$ �.�€;lr Rf�y��� �w,��/t�r ir1 f7 f.;3 J; i'. "x,•*4evr�•r1, .. ♦ �;`r,#'+�T\ F+ h.tt , .>"F.« �.4a'.-''s.- r�,�, k'it. �q''-rtgsg .. '��' a: ,kj,'�t sy,.l +c Yw.:•h#•�.s'."t'Z:�ns�}�'Z-17 ,,: :,:iia)1 .g.t e• .r+ §t} Z -•a__.--��-' iGb ,�,�... tc�. �, �.T`��.t,t �.S '1x�i` ^+Yi 4'`y,a3 �#�.1:ris.••� �r..r 4 � � � � _ �+ +ti'�n,� l yF. r a;r� ,., "sftJ•'`s�'`' t�- rid "s^N'�' y��h;y�� s' _ ,s.,s:� :.(` (^y.. ]C £�i r^•+•_ S� '�.>.r T• A14w4� �.t�.����,�'g'IoM- ��.x,�$�,��t.r�'- l„t�.t f 'c .,tt -'t2t ,,, r C S`a.�r�,_S�r"'r#3��}�•, _ _ n�:'T.' °` i ., s,>•+t xl r4(a:cl.^�..-s:`�.,t£ "i5y �� �� ���°�w` 1�?'tw.� ,� a.�N`r _ ., t a�i "gym, r ''��td`ri'�`'�.: � � z', Et x�A�i4 If-�..�' .r �;, _ x�,• ..=r rt Y,� .,)`m' >t +n3 ..�'S..sx�, ! ^�` ., ?rP �� � Y' i 3'. 7 +i ¢ fan�r•� +. �i iI ,• �' .,-•- f A � -'--r. 1 r G v I sa? �Cl t � ,�a��. . .-+� V� y olt�-'•� :s._,i�4' I.4 s-,.,,rs9• "G� yf t (�.� t'_ � � '}� tr� k S ,�t7�,!_r �"T p �.�iiy�• G �, 'fi�Y• ��1'r � � '�� �A t s_i;�{"�il, il•I-�t� �r� � �=��S� ` 'I •i�`1 � ('I� � = r i � � -t� @�Ir',tea„�c;-_ ' _�✓ {.F 1 S r6.�= j 4`.I {� {_ {f{t` illl � �.� l: � � �1 t r � �i'1��rl:'\ pk-���� �" L i t!� I i�hhi��":S " ;1 ����E �'� "•ui Y rt� � � ' � `�` � �'' t "' - = R^ T( ,Val '1 d ..4I� t f.t_li+ !:a�!j ` �� •�. I' � -'+I ..t �I�. � � tl;tj ! .-0i� ����z{.�;,�[..j.j Y.V rj :;� '' .-� L F`, § 1 .�•�.�.h.�,t�.��f.!!iii it.. 3:� `„• j , + .. i=i�i.: � .�1' �t,,.k•, "'r^ y r`��7(�F: �I !i, �� �i`_,\ `�� �j''�' ; ;,� ?; ��I `/ ' �;= r )• — y (-� ✓' �� {t �� +e�r 4 �YFY l a: 3 � 1 3A r (�- I �i'� r f �• J y1 �'�,'._"\``'"�.'�11� I '^«_ � � �' � � ' L ,i �i � G1 4 �� }� ���+7• I—:�:. I 0111 1111��'!� — .Q� �J f R`: (^' -r '.r� fit(• su,:1 1:r;r� P�3 i '�1 r,3,,�:a1 .;:., _ 4"t, 1 I I � � -.A: Ilt � 6p i �re J f ��.. t�� a � � I{ •�� �����" � li.. '�,3 � �h�, I r/�.t� I y. _ '.� j"r i'� � �4�� any r„:�� •Y ttf Ffi+1t i -..y� a e5, �t Y:t�a�{ 1.1 I n t -r:" ���5/•A F art'/'- K� l! f .. (f i •.2-' `R• Y�.. ri t '� t?�'�'v;r In .� t `rii2 � s:�ll � �.�.. � ._�_ '~.77!r r J�l�'rH ./ � - �� �S 1 � l'. , t � i• ��� K�etu�,`a�,h� '�, l E''Vd+'•I i ' �', tt CTv-s _ .•,,.,. -tA� ,y.• t7( �ti C ,i � .:. a �i` .:J, C4'r-' � � i� 1�'�'+�C�a �.rrxx.���'��' �-...y, t� r t}7` !+ :a } ';--1:•� .�,1' � '�i. �� I !' r. :rt C `;:` - � ��"".l�}F�r�4 ���-�r•-mot. � .3� 1�.,•t ' '' �{ v�::;,� j / >r4n 4� r^ � �',! �1 f_� � 3 4 �. :! �FF'1�- r. �y�'fi¢ryy'�i�'•��? .�j�S:r=x`r:��t� t i'r *'�; i l �' f :� 1! (I I 't� V �. _Iar 'd'x r.,.y >.'a ,. r'r •'`' f it V�Y 7P�h�;'b' ,. t� - .� � i h.�: � z�:•.,. �/!: o-!�C? T t•'M'�'ar /.fyt. t �r .��t� � ]'. , �V iV�'- 4! =;:����y.!j �K� r+ �L 4 �. � �_-,,r7 r y.,F � :. •{' _t �t t "'1' iu ,r�..`1 i � , �� �7.v,fi _�� j �\_` ,I�) � t Y' t b'y�,- _ f_t= it ��7 �,�� V •� _ a lit E IC' jl Wit: .�Y'._., •- _, ,K�ri y r.. Xf '-�'lu�����t { �•t Lit.',.. � 1 i r' � f 1 r����'�>ss.�•�+��� � '6 t� � /�:j•��� ' �y 4��R��''al ,•�ti •"'^ +oR�' '•' '�'�t f �' i.:�'-''s>xs�i 1. wl` T-a%a�• ''° ��a, �"r,�;'''ry��.«�3,5`i •Y\:I <,r.-,i d! t'•..n�Nr^kFt o � I;;�'! a' ��+ t.y$ YC. � 1, ,i '3" . r # S G F4• '.ram." i#"5� Led _Y� 1 +�a.�.+t_.S. yl, /, •C 4LF i. Y♦t.�n jib SC 7 , ¢�tt� T yc. "F;rM:I:•� i!%�3�Iry �f"" Y �•J• j71 i I .I I. tti 1 I l ul,l�;l�y , h•euuueuw _ aR ,� 5#�i5 F•'3,� / RRI�'�,I ,,lltl�l � � 1';trr��„�ttl, l\;.1:•:\��.'\,. .a�•``oo.•'��',`\\a���.! �_ �\\�.` r.�-+, ...�+;,y.�!ti" r r.i.li' �i'lS' �: .�•t.`\\\�..��i.`)°7`':`�`''a'\\. :o....d:.o�;\ - a.o '.c=.t'.-T'3�E7�';:�:y: •-a A t 1 1' }1,t bb \\„a .\C� '��e � �:��.�,: ,.1�,`e�-�r_.�:'i�:a - - ;.t,•.?7F:�..�r,•vl%.��' !� � �(J�(j'j I 1 i 1�I ; I I t. c t.t.}I`�t ��1.`�. `�:S\\'\•al\��\0•aC�,\:�•:�:::::a`'L^\\Vi:.�cd::r,:::..�a;.:r.r,-. J+ f t�t�+� I 3! ,� `l ` ,.\,.\�\ \ PP.`CC'�.`�\\�'•,�\t.��o.C'aJao, !, ! �ht I t t. b 1 �b�\\.�•;���\�.�.`,.,.,:�.\p,4��. \.::v.+```c`a`a`:`'c:z:`,>' �:�>,:;. ;��::;:,i` •s'^^�'S 1 � 1 P 6,LJ tJ� }I M RY a 2 j �fN, V , AA •1• .. ` �i r r r,• I 1 '� y �ll RV (� �� i`� �� I. a r -� "{f 5 r 74� �.•51 IN 11�, Cf) I j r s .!t�jf <` •�,i� tte.�s t l 1 ` � '-`� .vRG1 1 i �) ��f i}t 7 ti r�S! ��r i 1 �Yt ��a��: ��' `•�'�1 ) R rI _ -- �; NA M , t t�'+��1{*�s � �?. It; � `R _xc.•l, q� i � !��!� 9 S,� •,1} 1 tk .,.t, r'0fvf`� s{ ��y4 - � � t � •i �a �.�.'`"k++f,<'✓may i ( , .. ~,t pit'!+ 1 IC S 1 r~ ` „� ' ��•.+x n sr I Ff f � S � "E�x i f y�, r ,�"�y f x�� �t^��I f �i�{��1 - , F'. . �. i .. Y�•. � ' "� 1i� t s! I r°� tr'y�, 1 '{i•r.9 � e�� + t�y�c r r �'• f r•u � M Y o ��• NNWI ..,. I ,.,� I �, ' ` �Y{���,.�'i.'. ' .`1i.'�'17t}S�;p''a%1��•���itht .��'a 'Y+s:1�e'&��a��t�i�§,1�;�'� 91 r + yy f 3 r ���f•Yjt�,�x� - 'f •)/ I .+ ] ' )y, 1 � SJ N' 1 �'�7 � t 11�"i�s'14!� a •,r3 � � Jb '�}M1,?(�'FM rS' F t�� '��- I fu. ;�,�l r rs t j�.•f�x�Y �'+4. .11 ' ,K.1. i 'f-•' 1 'i>Y, q.. �>, t ._..•Q• _.X �y3i 7T •ea I � 1� � �s � f � '!j..� Z i<,��� 1�,�` .a l�,i{ir =x � , Al U 7S I 'i j•{ t '2'.Y����.,.. ��,I)�`6�.Q. ..t f•' ��„ q y�s' Gl'r�,; 'of r _ I dmira�7� R z �i1�sP,�t h^'a h.}r� 4 n •w a. S a:" f r + °4 f Cci +. a�t�.. ®'� ..^S °+ � r ��.a dTt '"+r., ���� �• Yt��� ��` / 1� xlllll�`^,i� -� i �� � Y � A�' �y� I ` 4;yy.,., Sx., �jk" P•t� to '1T t / . f-� •�+%�j�� >��'.7� o-:� �' t' _ os� n r n�rt A-4 ����j2�§3� L,,�X} F r 't� •�y .ar���i�._P'1f:fla' �'a� 1 tyt �zv�, ( .,,\`\J y5�ig 1Y •YjFi �I' . .� y J/ r iY l r Yj 'x MR �•,+2. .ra •kryl t� y�f tx f�,.st 3� � t ��^ _ .I ��' ' ii j' t 1 I. , `•�I r � '� dq:^ - --,: -e r q- . � �'1�j1yA kv:)d 1 j �� �r �J•t� . C �my � .rd� lF � Tr' �� 1��� Mt-( p �yr` , r'c�r• ,t�k�'�s r4i, t t es, ni, .,e � 'al. � t `<, TAM a I.;.� / t�...IY ,m' V y�•,rl 1 r \ \q G ( ar ,� e� fsi� �'1�,' + ..ti i '1 '1� �4 lA y w �.®; -A � +6•w'y�, vi.- '"R '!'M '1 jJi, �,,t •o ��, , i� � 1'j•',9 (y` ,.ry �..� 6� Q.. r4 f� �,•/�r,1r , 1 •t,,•:,• , ti:'�,,`�� � rc �M/•><�' .�, ' .t•� �'Q� �, , ;` .r' \• \ �'' �,. 41� ' k 1p s 1.' '' _ Vf �•�r./ It s� yak"+�.'qr�,� r.\..` �••�• I \ 1' art _. s, � n'r r. ��r# ,} '1-. ''� !i•s w' t.�r7 �• ' \! Y9'•7F��.��V x l�l—=F.�.. �,rrr��� rr '#(r�x"a� r'�'�, r r,IM�r Ae �> .� r n v, � fl .r�..� ,;� ,�• � "`�- aTr i^•t..t I � nK 5 {� xir -4� y$ ,_1 \ �\� J•� $Y� k'n t 'M1MAhAnr 1, { �����•� - �.�- \ r .�' c,?.r�,rti��� •'E:... �'. :.:`_: •' � ..: .��'�7r�,MS{,�mf'r.�1i,�ti�hit; t+�•'. ;- -'A� �ly«,�� Y;�V'•�zb .�. w 1 � 'rl'I,'��yrht Nlr MN, �INn�y��iy','�tyy�rnyl(t. r i{ � �, 'r'hryrl l'Inhryh titR 1' � � r t1r t � �I�f 1� a� �5`�'h}�y�nhlyr'rh��.r�ll•Ir�{� .a I' � r r�'�=.i �..,{ •.. � � r ,'� .Y yy'1�'flyyl�ry+�,r Y'r- y, r , .>:...vJr:� ,.tx..0�•:.�u. 4 J_V h 7. i 7 r( 'err 11 � S 'Y G ♦ti r hyr'}r,rtll,h' { C67'� i )���ri�' µ � �w: •e'��'_ ,i`t�� y� y�'�"s 9; e �'•��'�•1�,y;M1?r,l�''A Y��'y • r y r •, r -{ +;ra rr r{ lud,rrr r!I rj ,.''k�S:�r a.-<'S -�t,;{�'< .�,•,� 7.:.. a . . �. I i.� �Y�yi'{�Yc� s � . � �r�{{!h q{Inlplfrry.;2 Jr. �'ilf •°aa>? t,r4y C L p.1 '� \t I �� f�{ Sy,1 f , {�! ....... r, h 2'L• T<Fi /� CIO s >, { ,�.� r•� I� k,7 ,� ��Cr1 7}� \\n f /' i• 1 J„ !'f, jlr{lur" i ;�,T"„~a��r��y��k ;' ���:.y, a�Pr � •� '�� � - ° - `/ II r ��ti� r�{r rl�t p�� g''R'.... f �3. .l +i'# 'i a a3 ,�1:. .��F I \_-• 'L��.' tJS'.i• , i< Nd ki' rF�r ar}i y,��SCti d + .`t j 3<� 'I I c r A� "„",\ hkF ,Ir #S`• S - {� '�Li ,At1�,Y�'�'.n3 x s z• i*7�. r c• �lY.` � rb t, �9r; ,�+��a�)�' , � �- J"t tx}� � y.Y IQ r a t t 1 ��i.L�.r,�`S 't 1 k f- � �k S L r• r 1 1 1�' ..:.J i,., 7�r� {(G k r >.� �jp`�i k6-�x���.-. t� .,, i i r i ��... -.j '(Litt •ri ��-� � r{ �i .s.{ r i sr �', ! 1 .�, r 1��it :.i•ti��� i '�: ,-st `l\1\'y14,yV'�y�46"!v`�w t. y', yt.; � 1 � r, •'ivt7.7 ��" t��#�3>'� ��I �✓- J j`()� �,(\*�y,•�y''grti•.�,jpy 'i -t t 7 3 j{ d j i I) t1._..,..1 /� 1!;��?sy t � ��C�'�y�� ,�+ N •�� �I;' s;.t�`y�\♦'��4y',�y`{1�4y h� 1 rt.�`- H ✓ k whrL p �axras,3r � P z t 3,�,ry �G a -I ryr.y, �p \,,\`S tv�y'iW4.�L'1)y fey �,a r P � � •�PPPF ,y i•, I t t\ {i���4"h % t }`,y s` t y I},�t ' ,F 1 ��F`' ~, I r �` �.lT,-\ ..'r ��.SMi)•4 \ ,\ ti 'v.\ '`4•_ 1 / .•b -�j`r_1 �?r 5 Y? �Y• .h t r � G t !'.ta�.f , \j\t�s�� ` PIKE.} \\ `\t\\�� r t ` � mm N�N�� ti. � ?r,�t � _ 1 '1-N`� r r tr ',t I' n ���\a•i�\. s � #, I�� 7 y{ .fir _ - t 1Ir� rr t`- 1 t`�1��11`• a r l yy y t�=rt�F t �7/• )i• L� ; .r�,�: IAA- �� }4�.(-}1�' . h Y ' 1, r,p `'� t r, � e���3: t l'St`t[::::'` f /rr, i 4 1l p � )^�'e s.;t�\���dy .'1"w '•S's '1�I Y S 7, fi (�rt��l�'6' .�tltt' i sFl , it hf t 1[ "S� e A• .)V ( e Zf"�'• �,"� ,{j a',� t, l It t _ �la` :r f' ,. y X;;i �! li... �JA• r : I a 't t A y 1x1 } F L ill i�'`?tai;i�f., t• .:r'taias;�4:i ii ili u:.: \ VV1�;Cite?c l .Jd\. t r / 1• ���l�;�i�`�-�`a::.i tl�?'• F;:: `•�-utg7 15,'t ,� �l rr k _... l dQ �', 4 x i�,n't:Fc�'.•�=it?4ii11 li:i 4, Y"' t P n � .!/ 1 Le t•t1t:�: t�tF �' 9 i .'( � >r ' 1 r '.1 t'•�tiiFs�'•rtt�ij 41�1'al?Fl.s ._ � -.\> 15� 3 trw�'.. �) \ ty t ',�%�C 1 .. .: ltu[ Ft y ! -.L t ,is y �; �� •.t ��'>>: �jf 4 �� !:?:.i:•F:l Niln � \ ��y�.='ii�1t+) } r � "'.--r 7.s. •t r�r 13 1 s tii•i: � [Y':•' t:.u. titi. �°'t -3�e yr' sr � y v?„ � _ �.;�:�'��jtFirl�,. �t:i:'•`•:..`\. \•\ 1.��;fs�"- ""i- ,,��b�; 1 }"u2s'. ;: ,x};��°,n ,:_ �:?itiliF � E_ 4S'c•;il,ttu:i44�1:: �: J(,1 l' ;♦y t � aX:�:t � l�a7TM1". 1, � t ..1 � " � �ct4ir.•i?iii?i[Y � S. 1.: l.: t4 '1i.�. 1 FF�� .a:::i::�- ! :t�':�ti>"�i!';t5i\ \ '\•. _ (•c r..Y° i, 1 � � t. �".�W A... >.. 'tlu'.:t;i.:::?"", r �i t' iutlt�r�'� 4 ` •-\ �>�A1^.� ,�4)4 :�%�'`aY� t•.•rX�` �:y�.t. .:.•:c si ,{,'/•I L.1[0.�11 � v •1 '�t �'.d) :i ' .tf� 1 �= ty��' Sa u,SjSiu, •. \ �.� � � 7 ' tr �[' r �• � { ' tni'� Y V 11,4�ltt 4a r�16 rt� ' vJ R raY l } i .-t?�� ,.' }.��.y�tyF �b'�: w i. •\ � u �t: Yr �t 1} t 11?�•3� H \ yt+ �r t.5 ..,�1 ` o::S 3, � .K � .. 4 `� i:. i• a r l ky t � t.I l •, f - r + 1 t k !J [,_�1/Y" x•t�`:ic;�:41 ar5}t�4 �L ti .r.' I } Jf�i lii \•''� u•.1:::t4r.��F� `,�Jw ;.�v it ,. i + . t _ 4 r';}�. )��,�, � � s .� 'fi. �ga'�t�a •[_?-. ♦, Sit, Pn�� \ .,�/ 3 r� � `[v,:..,t W t �, 1". `}:�:- �:Fh; 4�``n l`i�'�t,,,�lfi,, •. 1rr�-•'+ <. t_ELF � _' �, � 't --ti +`* (i c •:t Cam' •:.. tl r,R� F t � Ott itt )1�11 i�Y IM �G';!• 3' j��x� _ .J"..c� -•, L ��e�-::?:u• t 4n'S a Yt E"8' '� •��' .tll :r� .} a - is..,...r=.t;n=:t'.re,.�:: 1:�•tt:i` � t t � e * ' t'tllc.;t;l:ct tt 4 u IG 1 to r' d y p, t is" l�: t tgitt' ? ti�a rs t" t P r,J`'''>>'• � eL v '¢ • iit:�•�t�i"�i=ilZiltt�5,•1�,�'Stls'..t`,4•thta\t}lt• tt � ;�,1� e•�t f '�qi'�.•r�, A`. �� ..•i}:'•t?tt�5 r 1 i �: �5'F`1?r t:' s'�l -..':"_rr )`�. •�={;5••. �:1t}`;1t4,"rll}� it ♦ 4 _ii',l'tt F A:y\ _..zra,4 '"�� "'}�. \� '��' t.3�t�C•itr'•t:!. .:.tit\tti! . + �tittr 1 Ij ��t 5� z, �c�y�'T+'� •t• '''r, :s`,•��;cJ.`rii �}-`„:U l\'f ���, �y h•t , t y' 11 s. ?'i�•n' r Vr'�' '>, �' �K.�i. , +S'c.. ,yEt.'.:•s(a•1�}•'yt't}l��it�t\ Vet all \�} t5•�nr;,r � r �) �'}4 UCi w a❑ r4-`-�' �y [ �S`••`li�p'il�a4tr�v`it' 1r��\;. :t\ t :./.4Zt'��5�''��1 t r���` •r � ' :;�d+Q� y ° �' .� �L: '115i 11�� �?:l•t \ � p .ter +` �rr r�-s r<t t .:. 1. .� `a� 1 it1 tit l.:i�t''[1�����`. , /i ttr�''�4i�• r /��1L.. r. �1 f r r ,.,{/�. �'F .1t�•r }1' �tt1 �.i. 1. _.a ➢� t: �. �.: h.. R!;`;,�;G'+ ,� w. ,�u,�iltt, ,,1'�v t •� ,' �i. �`tk t,� \,t]�l�t\4 �+�11�t II •V L u� �..� l i'a,Y f t } i { � i. � � r: c :Y 41�lw k t? 1 f�1t Frt J /y 1 i.i w�JQ� .4 � 1�t1t1`Vie�'`tr)A' n fyJ\J - �• IC tie Y' ) t.J.. 1'9III 'tf L V 'u. _•i- '[�-r Y:QF. r i.. �, 'Z�•_ �t a�l y 15tY I � ��'r r I•d,'d I ! "ti � •::� i�13�q S +�- � 1. � .�. '�x''�t,tseYrr •v..::.�' ,�--�-=-.,'"...— s•.� -.c..t K.�i .,,,m- ;-- 'S..,r .._.,,,,, _ �, t,,^•zar+•�i+!,r, ..;F •-�"T�'..wa,�" �z �.3 "'-t ,'�..'`• ., ..j '"zi. "z r it � �c�3..3'.:c.`7$''x {i:.ram•'.-'...'�. - .L:.^_'E:i�C — cn? Y �` f.¢.,. yn.:.arass., - _ s$'•'"4 ..'��— ,.-.--,,,.y,� ,y{. �C'_.�,=i3" bi.��LY Zip j, e i - 1 "v ,"+� v, � P=1'n�N„Itc t - !��l� +pr""•+- l'("ram�TA �\c k's •�'�.ass'. 1 � a:t.- a` \r�-�... M � f��i -•.t t`� v by�d .., r .r,��` $j'"t%ss� ',u� �v�zg1 4 �w�-f7 µs�yfi�\ •� 4� L � .t Yrs�`�` 7�1`t\r4�� �\5� t "'y �ti'�..r'?4 +�t,� `` E ct d +i' w `�i r ka�;1 �.SS• 'j �f� '� ti �r r�.,,�,, `v+ �1.Y �ykb'�,r , �L.. +,+���'J•' h.� -.r �V,4-Cr�����9� v •ry' � -'ram 1 yt," `b \Jlai.�' a _.i,_ \t !.ss •� ��..� ���N =1 ^-� �. �v _"�sE�` ;� � �"t�x�^�?x��a.a+ t ,� t�J b`z�R ° �i t� ��-.p ;E,�f�v�({�'s•� ";! ",.S;� .K, y ,�ti�usi'�` n'yFa.��i.��' �t,�,�3�•'"tTt�'�.�r t'. qg�f��;r�•-'4 �� s }'' '` fr/#+�����(��- -� r� �����?' t\'t 1 '1�... }�. �`}e'- �,rt y`.T,' �y t,•y A- "�'s5�'�'�"F 2r.} 1 �Fry„r`- r - o- 1 '�-:� ati. '.*: ` .c s1 �<��ir' ���•W�k,+r� �F'. .� ''g�c�y��'t� �t}����� t • 1�t �� O�OG�. t. K .>. r, �t,.vt Paaz• �y `a .�ya.t� `r .� ". i -}. F t #�k i,,r, .y .x.]^ '� t Jc �� ��... •c,F s{F � �x r 1i�'.3c � s t 5 � :.n 1 �.�t. J • Y�i .r •y ti �`y,�,.. IM F r,1" ft +. ,g a � ti�� '� 1+5r�'w.t'��tY�� iF•lil 'rf._s y t.' � f_ 1 �1 � -:r't ' I V yr t 1 �r ��'� � � it�,�r a'�-. �`�"F rsy 'g,••,. y{`•�- _� ' .. ")f�f t !�h�a'}�Sj i�f IGti}i 1 fi •��.'S ,®!� 4 R'1 G§,� r,� r �fSJ' ,tFy3 r�i lyi � t�.f"•'J.� e 5 •'r� � '4�° n Ek��x i�RY.lt;� 1'�`,p�! "" 'ax { r �! � •J �':_�;_ t m L ' t tr e 4 k�Uy X"1+}S; 'ft 03M F f of fit 2 YL' �� t.r. 1 r'• •i i`r` �" `✓ F� �:� \ \ 7- W�. ■//�\■ ` � I IaW64i� l�{ � '�,'` '... � �t wt�y�4x•a�'Li��'n�s}ra���� rt 1 �.>�r.t� [R �1� tom-.; g J+ i; ! �k�3;F�'�'�a-tr�is-f � f �L: 1 •�t',�� ': ' � �F' / ----� A+ {�3 '�b� ✓'�r^ t h.ft fl ' T:. } T�NF4 ;�}'' r t h ' �g ,���d�`�ti��•s� (!'yr's��$.�,�t."aa-��,yna�,.� r ' L;t 1 ..� _ 'J '41 e•tljib,}� '. AW Aff Ai �r„Sf�•k t '. . vw@l— i s. RY 7 t tAs �� A �7. - r 3r� f VI N �! ��� �,�xk-;�x � _,%•ar��` ' '�f ��,��. •`• a J l � � _^�1 � ����lf�fff.�. (J t E�+l IL ¢1. SON , + ty 4, - ® ':''� 71 ' ,� Epp, i �*� •t � ., \, `1 l .:+�'�'�� ', t �9 t'. �'�0�-�;� 1 �"ail.. �•? Yt� � - 01 lit lk Ai � . • \ � \`. � I rr \l, Y l a fl ', I i � �� ,.ti •J. x - / ,i 46i1 (r j PV FAT 1 t ` r Lam-- IIUIr Housewares Appliances Electronics Intimate Apparel �s y ® Appliances Lawn& Garden ® geau'��', `u i ensApparelzi Womens Apparel M Exercise s, 4 Womens Apparel Mens Apparel t 17 u l r QSpp Accessories { f l� Eormmre CIIf[drens Appare l r Fine s, Jewelry ' slfoeS seasonal JI •' • of 1 • . x (ryjy `r IX Faa Y +'�ice.. F Las Vegas, NV • Bold and centrally focused design defines the new store image • Curved main facade mirrors internal circulation pattern • Customer entrances highlighted by illuminated red awnings • White Wards sign signifies the all new store inside • Store image reflects advertising and marketing programs I r ' jL MV ' •r<�vas r,i;, N •a4�4 + -f i r I I r: tt r h `` }r3 :tiW3r ' f��t a1 .v �,w.rrw til 1d'.'f';r tit�. �r a IT )� y �" 'r.r •� f 1.- } r J I .t �� ar c ' .)c -'•1l �j. i ? r3� r{ f r✓a< �� AFT Aft. rx' C..y..�,i±�S?� 1 t � w M ® ! r.�.. ;�.:' �.�.tW}:. �.�yo. r+."a.; :`:tom .,�e�+_ y� .,.;.;+: .n, e t•:: ;ti•;.: .,r. 1. f• L 4 { j, �i s 1 • : -� I I'' u-{ � 1 r r r..l+s � :� �;r4� ,����.� !r 1.�F�sa;���i � � . . • • • . ,t <. .. n I z T. ij rat° y u. 1{{FKh', . 1 1 + x f Wf y � y��y�Rtff{���i:yyq��yyU� 1 Il'.fl l ON��gq L'YI 1`'t�y/ 1 !�17LSt1 ti �) i 1tTC!C'cw; ,71i1 Wi14'1A�7f 741. �• } r Is t [i - I }*• +mot ry Wi FV�� i y i �.^N+ �L`5r_An y� t = MW s iia `. _••�tn.'��r,E r+�+Y aw -�2," ,r•3-�`� 'mot.. - t Q 4k J P lM� 1 f I tl ®®®o rem® ®®®o�® a e® ! i H i \ , o 0 ion ��• II i �' a—a �.. L--------J �--- J --- •0 aa0 Hulen,TX • All new construction • Relocation within existing shopping center • Bowed entrance executed in glass • Skylit escalator well centers plan a. 1o, F yy 3!�' L�S'.',:e_.: C.�e.x�l.i...Z-+ Fr`7"=..- "t-` -••`- FIJI 2 ` s 2 :_fir• 1��.�. ,- �tS'i ro�r��}��,�r rya ��'�+„+-� T#sli•�*`�:$�\,�ry Yr'k k.�s��e 3'� s�x�„7s^'•r - - -�3�iii�i'i ��� L��S� �"'�- c r $x^'c�£�i`' t'' _3^Wq,3• } � t. ,;• to ,+ f a A d r r x z s r[Ey�, F�"Aa �{ � < aG' � �t�`'�YS;`M 7�t 2 2� - .�'.t�r�'Y-!�n'T.1 -• 'v Y� 2-•ha �s. y iL"5 a eF>s 'r�5�' ,..?''yra'+. '�i {. , ''" �'�. dr ?'�F.9 '��: t-L3_.,F", +. '.}✓'i -, y -5,.�,y i4, �, -. � rr� F a r r F hie. y >.3i1-�•.S` ?d�d,1^-#1 y„1 �•-'i. �iY a i,y;«7; � hM1 1``�'�v iU"''. �1.,�N:' T��. �.�,�,5y'C yr''�.:� i.. 3L �Y L'A. _ 1 the . rcfs aie December, 1999 h.il f 4 � Yr - 7 Springfield, MO �til�i p - same space Denver (Westminster), CO NEW CE41 47 e On October 29th, Wards took another important step in I . .. w the building of the new Wards with the grand reopening of 21 new Wards remodeled stores across the country. This publication is designed to help you better appreciate how exciting these remodeled stores are, how visually dramatic the changes to these stores have been and how well the stores , demonstrate the new Wards to our customers. The media, customers and our Associates are so excited about the new Wards stores that we have included a sampling of what's being said in the press about the new Wards stores. Sacramento (Florin), CA "I'm so happy with what you've done with ' t the store... I will be back. I'm thrilled. " - + a Denver,CO customer to Denver Rocky Mountain News•October 28, 1999 _ r thenew om I N� I M§1 gs �-�'�F'� .;,'� OEM zigt U r 53, pgi WA-3 h no Lp Em r � M� I —M. �r September, 1999 same space On August 20th, ' new face .Wards took another important step in the building of the new Wards with the grand reopening z: of 19 new Wards remodeled stores across the country. This publication is y designed to help you better appreciate 5 how exciting these remodeled stores are, how visually dramatic ;; the changes to these stores have been Daly City, CA and how well the - stores demonstrate "' µ° the new Wards .,. Shoppers and analysts applaud the new store design!" - to our customers. The Washington Post•July 3, 1999 The media, customers and our Associates are so excited about the new Wards stores that we have included avian o. i a sampling of what's '•"'" �: -- __ being said in the press °" about the new Wards stores. ' t � San Diego (Mission Valley), CA I - Torrance, CA • Ei, tk 759 .._-r-- 1'l .�-� !•�-..•- .Kee _ -• i� i� �t r� � -��j....�'.�'—'--_�� — .._..•.. �'� - .��TEABtI FRESNO ' _.,. t a .I ATTACHMENT 12 ftZOVCA to -20•00 ��rk., $ • G:�,�F-cam DOW 10NES: 79.13 W S&P: 9.79 4W NASDAQ: 65.39 -AP, 30-YEAR T-BOND YIELD: 5.90 SECTION BUSIN - SS www.kcstar.com THE KANSAS CITY STAR. Wednesday, June 7, 200( 1 - r i WEND4YANGRLe Kmm Cry Sur Wider aiales have proved popular with ahoppen,according to Dennis Keefer,manager of the Oak Put Mall Wards store.The store also has much mote ailing apace and a larger jewelry department. Shoppers find a new Wards Better glade of merchandise accompanies store remodeling ' = P g -:: v1►/�R¢;STJtT��[;GLANCE By IOYCE SMITH the culmination of Wards' The K..... City Star strategy to keep its market `' r< fTlOdeled. niche between the discotm- '� `: 4L a bariene Brunts of tern and the upscale retailers. a ,l_119itjphasiaes Osawatomie, The plan included improving -,"59► tfer Kan., expected a merchandise,increasing the -,,1' l 'log: i i-eas routine shopping <effectiveness of marice' ' y- mg `��tq=na�uj�a��' d>2etiayout. experience when and advertising,and imprav- VI/aFdsE' taken she visited Wards in Oak Park ing customer service Mall recently.But Brunts was The company, which =.St@ 5�+ 1 3 CQ1f¢pwmhan- .,. ... stunned at the changes she emerged from two years of - SAadvertis- found. Chapter 11 bankruptcy last '4 In ffiiiCiEt 001ftservice. "It's gorgeous,"Brunts said August.is remodeling 33 of its t A y :�:Vafd �sN'�irFied b GE "I was shocked when I came Wards stores this year,inlud- `�� P f, in. You-can see where you ing the Oak Pads Mall store.It 5trfs�id;Conn., N..i to go,and the prices are also remodeled three stores In O..bank- need . f : run#c�OsNA.-ttization good,too." 1998 and 40 stores in 1999,out *�_; :>. _� Remodeled stores such as IaS AUguS the one in Overland Park are See WARDS C-6 W S: Stores stock thangig'n Continued from C-1 quality and the style,dramatically. is a 3U-to 55-year-old woman with Johnson County is a market that a household income of$25,000 to of the chain's 251. has accepted our furniture very $50,000.She has traditional values, "The (remodeled) stores are do- well." seeks value and quality,is focused ing very well, with 20 percent in- The furniture department takes on family and feels time pressure. creases" in monthly sales, com- up more than half of the lower level The company has a broader base pared with a year earlier, said and is surrounded by related de- for its appliance and furniture cus- Chuck Knittle, a spokesman for partments, including domestics, tomer.That customer could be a Wards in Chicago. window its and lamps. man or woman.age 26 to 65,with a The Oak Park Wards increased its Along with more and better mer- household income of$25,000 to ,selling space by a third by taking chandise; the remodeled Wards $85,000. over the former MC Sporting stores are designed to offer their Montgomery Ward, which is Goods location,along with unused time-crunched customers a more owned by GE Capital of Stamford. stockroom space. Inventory has enjoyable and efficient shopping Conn.,also has stores at Blue Ridge ,been expanded in every depart- experience. . Mall,Indian Springs Marketplace, ,went.The jewelry counter has been Instead of a"jigsaw puzzle`lay- Metro North Shopping Center and moved to the main entrance on the out,the new design has a circular. Ward Padmay Center.Those stores top level and has doubled in size. racetrack design.In addition,cus- will not be remodeled this year.The ..,Wards also is building on its tomers can clearly see across the company has not made its plans fi- •.strong furniture business by carry- store,and various departments are nal for store remodelings in 2001. .ing such name brands as Broyhill identified by large,overhead signs. "Yes, we are,very pretty now," and Bassett.Furniture displays of- Customers previously relied on Keefer said. "The stores are very fer complete living room, dining more-complicated, color-coded bright now and the stores are easier room and bedroom settings.Cus- maps to navigate the store. to shop.And we have an expanded .comers can outfit their entire house The main aisles are twice as large assortment,a lot better brands.But in one style. as they were in the previous design. you have to have the customer ser- "We've been selling furniture Eights have been doubled to give vice,all those things with the focus :over 125 years; it's always been a the store a much brighter appear- on customer service.That's what mainstay," said Dennis Keefer, ance.The store also has increased brings it all together." ,store manager at the Oak Park the number and size of its fitting Wards, who has worked for the rooms and streamlined its check- To reachloyceSmith,call company for 39 years. "We've in- out areas. (816)234-7750orsende-mai1 to creased the brands,along with the Wards'core"fashion"customer jsmith@kcstar.com Z b� P-GE 12 THE JOURNAL RECORD WED.Eso^, V. 3,2000 PUBLIC EYE y Wards innovative in Oklahoma Citygets Aaron Montgomery Ward had a retail- j .�,' „ f -'r -: ,t, g, . •F, �, ing idea in 1872.He would provide quality I *+ r t4 Y __ r merchandise to rural consumers by direct mail. - S. "Satisfaction or Your Money Back"was - '• ` �7r�- - the guarantee that was the cornerstone U,Pik of the philosophy in — the 1875 catalog N It took the com- pany ' Mr �. r � " C more than 50 1 .� years to open its first Q frPp-standing store- .� in Plymouth,Ind.,in � � ..•• a 1926 The early philosophies worked z r David fairly well for Page company for several _ Street decades. __ • Level Then came View changes.And not all of the changes were positive for the company that was then known as Montgomery Wards. In 1968,the company was merged into Container Corp.of America to form Marcor. s. Then Big Oil got involved when the compa- ny was purchased by Mobil in 1976. ' �'•-~ - ' Catalog operations,on which the com- pany was founded,were discontinued in 1985.The retail operations were divorced from Mobil in 1988 in a$3.8 million lever- ��\\ aged buyout led by senior management. That was followed by a bankruptcy fil- tng.After a two-year restructuring,Wards \ emerged from bankruptcy protection in August and under the ownership of GE Capital has developed a plan to put it on ;! o to. , : o = room groups,unlike some other depart- ment stores. successful track. "A lot of department stores de not even In late 1998,Wards launched three pro- totype stores and expanded the prototype to offer furniture anymore,"she said But that 40 additional stores in 1999,including units g is part of the plan for Wards. at Penn Square Mall and Crossroads Mall. " "You can completely redecorate or fur- The latest store converted to the new nish your home from merchandise available concept is at Heritage Park Mall-making s - — on the second level,"she said. Oklahoma City the first market to be com- TOSHIBA —� L Adni i Nelson was named district manager in pletely shifted to the new look in the April.She came to Oklahoma Ciry from Chicago-based chain of 251 stores in 32 ` �_ Chicago where she was manager of a store states near the company's headquarters.From her Carrie Harrison,store manager in new office at the Penn Square Mall store. Midwest Cnv,and Karen Nelson,district she oversees 13 stores in Oklahoma.Texas. manager,say the new concept places Wards Missouri,Kansas and Arkansas.Nelson has between the upscale department stores and _ been with Wards for five vears. the discount stores on the retail map Harrison has been with Wards for seven The new design was developed to be years,starting as an apparel manager.She both enjovable and efficient. has been manager of the Heritage Park Harrison pointed out the wide circular __.•y-� -- ,- Mall store for three vears. Tt As the showed the new store design, aisles providing 2 clear sight line from Y gn women's apparel to jewelry and acces- ��.'�� _ � Harrison and Nelson both stopped to offer cones.Shoppers are easily led into men's ;• friendly help and get comments from shop- and children's apparel and shoes _ pers who were not familiar with the new The soft goods are all on the first Floor design. Y Man of those shoppers of the redesigned store In fashions and _ fit into the core shoes.Wards is offering more brands and customer Wards has targeted. has upgraded its private label merchandise, Harrison describes the core fashion cus- Harrison said. tomer as being a 30-55 year-old female with But there is somethuig missuig from the household income of$25,000 to$50,000. traditional department store layout.The She is family focused,time pressured and different departments are not cluttered with lii i seeks value and quality in fashion areas cash registers and individual payment The core hardlines customer could be areas, �' .�� male or female age 26-65 years old with Harrison said that one of the major ' household income of$25,000 to$85,000. changes is that cash registers are at the r - But even with all the changes for Wards, dour.You pay for all merchandise when there are still connections with the original you leave rather than paying in each retail concept of selling to rural customers department. , p pYEY[�"'({{{ that Aaron Montgomery Ward had when he The circular lavout also is used on the III started the company 128 years ago. _ second floor where furniture.appliances, Areas of rural Oklahoma not far from _ - housewares,lawn and garden,electronics. _ the Heritage Park Mall store provide the and home decor merchandise is found. \. Midwest City unit a market that Wards in Furniture is in the middle of the circu- larger cities do not have. lar aisles on the second floor surrounded by "We sell a lot of tractors at this store," the other departments.Again,there is a Harrison said. clear sight fine between departments to David Page is the managing editor of The encourage cross-shopping between depart- Journal Record.He welcomes your comments ments. and contributions.You may reach him by phone Nelson says furniture is displayed in at 278.2850.by fax at 278.2890 or by e-mail. dpage0lournalrecord.com tans Washiniatan i.Jost -- E Sli t • StOCK- -1E 1 S S SATLTRDAY.,JLLY 3. iggg 71 i le ' - .i _ -i..G,js`;►..,,- '- .moo, er uwntwtrEu�ne".v.cton.os• The renovated Wards store at Springfield(Nall features the e:pansiw new`neetrack"design —? that takes customers on an open.circular path from which each retail section is clearly visibly 1" r Old Store" New Attitude M°M9°fnry Ward HoMing Bammm The largest privately held retailer in the United States; 250 Montgomery Ward Alters Its Entire Strategy operates Montgonwry and Montgomery Ward department Br STEP HANIE STOUGHTON retailer is offering trendy apparel and home stores in more then 30 states. r asn inoon?-t S1af7 Wn te• htmiShings.At the same rifle.it is spending Special stobw.Cur entty operating up to S2 m0on a pop to renovate 40 of its 252 under Chapter 11 bankruptcy LLst a few years ago,Montgomery Ward's stores nationwide. including five of its nine protection.As part of the idea of fashion included elastic-waisted stores in the Washington area Workers are reorganization of Wards. pants(eel)and faux-wood entertainment completing the renovations at Springfield. General Electric is buying centers(nm away.). Falls Church.Annapolis and laurel.A store in all of the company. But the retailers store in Springfield feels Waldorf will be revamped by October. itased;Chicago Like a new place.The name has changed— Executives say they're encouraged by the EmpW =49,000 i Wards. not Montgomery Ward The white results So far,they say,sales at the renovated floor tiles are crisp and new.The building has stores are 40 percent above the chain's been painted Nd The store is stocked with items average.But no matter how spiffy its stores last Sala billions that customers say they re more likely to put now seem and no matter what this retailer 19% on their bodies and in their homes, calls itself,its future is still hazy. S.249 -It's a different place.- said Martha Cor-. Like J.C.Penney and Sears Montgomery 1997 prew said as she shopped at the store earlier Ward has found itself trapped in the mushy $1.16{R'w!,, $4.5 this week"Before.it was lilte.'Why?" middle area of retailing.Shopping habits have 1998 As Montgomery ;,971 Ward&Co.of Chicago polarized, with many customers making �K�53.6 prepares to emerge from bankruptcy protec- tion iater this summer. the 127-yearold See WARDS.E3.Col.3 SOURCES:rM co"p .Hb 'i xcurt� ant C[u.+tV*Camrn+on BUSINESS E_ { At � _ 9 r. - jewelry department atJ - i^ i•3YLf '�1�••e:.�' - yTca :.r;�rt store.B Yw, - employee j Shirley Kregal I inspects I ® apparel aimed at a more stylish ' - customer. � _ �• ^^ y - ltis;-`_ems - Wards, at Age 127, Getsa, Facelift and Trendy Wares WARDS,From EI -- cotton cloths in hues of bronze and smoke. The u same-day trips to Wal-Mart on the low end and :s trendy and easy match On the racks are styles similar to what you'd see at Old Navy or Nordstrom the high end. Others have opted for Abercrombie & Fitch khaki capri pants, short Target and Kohl's—hybrids that position them- A4ine skirts and sweater sets with '.a-length selves somewhere between discounters and de- sleeves, partment stores 'Two years ago,we would have had this...but "The middle has been a tough place to be,"said a year late,- said Martin Nobles, manager of the Stephen Latz,an analyst with the investment firm Springfield store. A.G. Edwards In this environment, it's neither After years of giving Montgomery Ward the here nor there." = cold shoulder. shoppers say they're beginning to Among its peers,Montgomery Ward is definite- t warm up. Corprew, an Alexandria resident, said h•the sickest.And its losses are piling up,even as it Montgomery Ward stores were so cluttered that attempts to emerge from two years of operating _.<. she rarely found what she wanted. But at the under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.Itreport- _ Springfield store this week. she said she was ed a $106 million loss in the first quarter ended enjoying her shopping spree. April 3. Although that's an improvement over a Pamelam •t Cunningha •a homemaker from Alex- $1 l million loss in the year-earlier period,it's still .+ F' andria,said the selection of clothing has gone from a sign that a turnaround is still far away for Wards. "old fo gey and homely"to fashionable."Now look Meanwhile, sales in the ouarter dropped 5.6 at this shirt," said 7 i million Cunningham, waving a gray, percent,to$729 million from$ though � �,',.__, . ,�.faR fitted T-shirt"Isn't this cute?" that decline reflected the closing of 39 stores �•... +f ' Montgomery Ward, the seventh-largest depart. Same-store sales—n industry barometer that .4?� t;' ' meat store chain in the nation. has faced many measures sales at stores open more than a -�_:�'t i crises since it was founded in 1872.In 1985,when year—rose 3 percent duringthe a x�'�r< period. '; �: 4��,��V,t Montgomery Ward was part of Mobil Corp., the Industry observers question whether there will c �+,•. , retailer discontinued its catalogue and laid off be enough money in Montgomery Ward's coffers 5,000 employees.Three years later.Mobil sold the to renovate all of its stores over the next several PN0T0S BY GEOLD h1A1R1NfA°-nE WASHOCTDN P➢Sr company to a management group led by Bernard years.although company officials say they plan to Brennan and GE Capital do so. In the Washington area, the company will Still,the retailer floundered.It filed for Chapter need to upgrade its four other stores—Temple emerge from bankruptcy protection.General Elec 11 bankruptcy in July 1997. Hills,Hvattsville.Manassas and Wheaton. tric Capital Corp.,its largest creditor,will acquire Even as it struggles to win back consumers- Even more cash,observers say,AU be needed to all of Montgomery Ward. Montgomery Ward will have less of a challenge ut market to shoppers who have snubbed the compa Then carrte the new store design-which shop the Washington area, company and local rey ny during the past decade. "If they re not realty Pets and analysts applaud estate officials said.Most of the retailer's stores trr rejuvenated. and if they don't have'a clearly new The new design features wide aisles, with a this area are in strong locations. profile to communicate to the consumer...I'd say "racetrack" design that allows customers to view Said Peter K Fmmm>son,a principal with the real it's all over," said Sonny Seals.a retail consultant most of the merchandise without having to wander estate firm Trammell Crow Co. in McLean: -Nc �%ith A.T.Kearney in Atlanta. aimlessly.And so far,managers have resisted the matter how bad it has been.and in some market, Montgomery Ward,however.continues to sur- urge to awn every available space with sales racks they have completely shuttered their stores. tit: prise the indusm,.In Februan•,the retailer stunned and big signs—a pet peeve of many consumers. has been a good market for theme....They've he''C critics by amouncirg that it would attempt to In place of ordinary towels. there are Egyptian thei ground very well" �theD1 http://www.pilotonline.com _Uirginian-�Iqot WEDNESDAY,MAY 26. 1999 w ..BUSINESS N�P JU,1,11LzJ A NEW STRATEGY. Montgomery Waro inveded a 2rc;:'Lyce store that it says is bigger, brighter and oer-ter-arrangeo. features hipper brand-name merchandise. It receniriv oentea one of those stores at Lynnhaven Mall in Virginia Beacn. 7 nat Wards store is managed by Greg Prisoc. below. 7. F-L • Wards broadens its apeal Struggling chain chain and aimed to give it time to tractions at the 95,000-sq uare-foot reduce costs, cut losses and post- store. The company has doubled tion itself between the discounters the size of its self-serve shoe de. rolls out new store and the department stores Since partment, and features brands such as Bugle Boy,Steve Madden 1997,the company has been trying format in Hampton to entire re-brand Wards as an enre and Bellim Sports. shopping experience The so-called "racetrack for- and Virginia Beach One of Ward's challenges, ob- mat" is designed to guide shop- servers say, has been competing Pers more easily through the with such discounters as Target store. The format has been de.signed to encourage "cross shop- BY JENNIFER GOLDBLATT and Wal-Mart in price and value, and competing with other trade- ping,"the flow of one department tional department stores in brands to another. For example.electron" BEACH — Outside, workers and merchandise. ics such as stereos and TV sets are are treading back and forth on scaf- In April,GE Capital Inc.,the fi- directly across the aisle from tbldinL.cNpping away at the sip.But nancing arm of General Electric ready-to-assemble home entertain- b peek wide revevils Llot Mont- Co.,agreed to acquire all of Mont- gomerymerit Ward & Co at Lynnhaven gomery Ward Holding Co. Inc.. "Everything has been designed Mall Ls&eacly a much different store. paying at least WO million for the with the idea that we have time- As die Chicago-based retailing 43 percent of the company that it crunched shoppers that need fash- giant attempts to emerge from its does not already own,plus the Sig- ion and value,"said store manager financial troubles, Montgomery nature Group, Ward's direct mar- Greg Prisoc. Ward is rolling out its new"Wards" keting arm. GE Capital is one of The target demographic for prototype at 40 of its locations; the Montgomery Ward's largest credi- Wards is women, 30 to 55 years stores in Hampton and Virginia tors. Under the plan,the company old, with a household income of Beach are among them would emerge from bankruptcy in S2S,000 to$50.000 and with family Montgomery Ward, the seventh- August after the reorganization and time pressures. largest department store retailer in plan is approved by a bankruptcy "Hopefully,the new format will the nation with 252 stores in 32 judge in Delaware. A hearing is work for them, provided that it's states, went through a $3.8 billion set for July 15. economically viable to replicate leveraged buyout In 1988.It was the The company unveiled its new this protorAx across the chain," largest management-led buyout in prototype in three stores last year, said Pam Stubing,associate direc- U.S. history. Throughout the '90s, and sales at those stores have in- for of the national industry ser- the company has tried to develop its creased 40 percent over the year vices, ces, retail consumer products specialty retail format,emphasizing before. Montgomery Ward plans group at Ernst&Young electronics and home office goods. to remodel 40 stores this year and "It depends on their cash flow," The company filed for Chapter 11 to remodel half the chain in the and their ability to emerge from barda-uptcy in July 1997 after it failed next two years. Chapter 11,she added. to reach an agreement to extend$1.4 Clearer sight lines, new signs, bLLbon in loans. The filing capped a brighter lighting and additional Bloomberg Business News con. long slide for the department store vendors are among the main at- tributed to this report. Friday,November 5,1999 MONEY & BUSINESSt lie Macumu uauy rays•i u 1 W art& prototypes orab attention ■ County shoppers notice aesthetic changes as company sheds old look. '"` w'A�• y `� By Elizabeth A.Carter Macomb Dairy Business writer +. For Crystal Call, a Clinton Township teen-ager,and her grandmother,shopping at Wards is a cross-generational pastime. I f„ On a recent trip to the new Wards proto- type store in Clinton Ibwnship,Call,19,ex- plained that she likes shopping at Wards as much as her mother, grandmother and great-grandmother have. "My mom shops here and she typically drags me along,but I like it,"she said."It's definitely trendy.They have a lot of styles that I like." 1� Wards is relying on customers such as Call and her female relatives to sustain it as a viable retail competitor into the 21st century. The store even boldly hopes to nudge aside retailers such as Sears,J.C. Penney and Kohl's in terms of sales. The company hopes to accomplish this with the grand reopening of a Wards pro- totype store that features a less mazelike layout,a brighter interior and expanded r departments. "We're impressed with the store, how bright and cheerful it is,"said Call's grand- mother,Joyce Plummer."We used to shop here because my mother likes it really well and it didn't have the variety that it has now." Wards, which was known as Mont- Macomb lady stall photo by David Dalton gomery Ward before its bankruptcy filing Wards emerges hem bankruptcy and tries new,more open look at 43 prototype stores across the country Including the one In Clinton Town- two years ago,has recently recovered.It is ship on Gratlot at 15 Mlle Road.For example,the mess ck*dng department,shown here,Is located close to the home electronics and ap- banking on a rebound with 43 new proto- pliance departments for eaglet shopping across departments. type stores in 11 states including two in following Wards because of the bankrupt- Taking a new approach,Wards now fea- 40 more stores in the prototype image dur Michigan,the Clinton Township store and cy.But Liz Tahir,president of Tahir&As- tures cross-departmental shopping such as ing the first part of 21100. another in Livonia. sociates,a retail consulting company based the appliances department right across the So far,Macomb County customers have Each prototype store represents a corpo- in New Orleans,said Wards needs to repo- aisle from the men's apparel department seemed to notice and appreciate the differ- rate investmentof$1 mWion to$2 million to sition itself in the market and let cus- and the luggage department a few steps ences in the Clinton Township store. implement the interior and exterior im- tomers know what it stands for from housewares. "It's really changcvl,"said Eileen Burg of provements,according tocompanyofficials.. "You have to give the Wards folks credit "We want to offer all the latest merchan- Sterling Heights, who has shopped at "Part of theprocessof reorganization was that they are trying again.America has diseat prices that people are will ingtopay Wards for 30 years and was browsing to look at the picture of Wards for the future;" become so over stored" that it's some and make it a real shopping experience for through women's apparel."it looks differ- said Chris Roffelsen,the Detroit district man. times hard to lustily your existence, the whole family,"Roffelsenadded. ent and it looks nice. I think they have ager for Wards."We had to get rid of the rep- Tahirsaid. In addition to the new store format, some of the nicest stuff and their prices utation of being dowdy and not fashion- "I think the real problem is,where does Wards has hired 50 extra employees at the are good." right.We had to appeal to that female cus- Wards fit in?They're not going to be able to Clinton Township store and expanded its Store managenienl rirognizes the fact tomer between the ages of25 and 50." compete with Target or Wal-Mart in terms shoe and drapery departnients.it also ex. (hill the means to their bankruptcy Sur The new concept store takes the place of of priceorsomeof the more traditional de- pandrd its home decoration department vival was fill uughloyalcusloniers the old store established in 1961 on Gratiot partment stores. with furniture and accessories such as "Wards has a i uslonier base Ihat has at 15 Mile in Clinton Township.The store "They are obviously going to have toed lamps and picture frames just stayol with us and we're so thankful recently celebrated its grand re-opening. it out departments.If they can resist the Wards launched file first threeptolDtype for them because lhat's Why Weexisl•""aid Wards will have to work hard to rebound. temptation to be all things to all people• stores fit September 1998 and upencd an Dave'Lllln11%stole nianagt•r"The loyally Some retail industry analysts have stopped they can make it." other 40 this year.Wards plans to reno"ate of our cuslo nBi's Is sel-mal to none ' l t f� Eta �IC "., '-:r' r I- :' �u,. '•, yeti. �� �� ,y..:r..-C.-.!X• St�..�FJii:1/"�'f)•s".1,"+"N •'� r[. _ �!I'* ' ... -r a -.._ SEcnoN D WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000 Montgomery gets new le As part of the plan, the MANASSAS RXW AL MFss� Manassas store has been total- ly revamped,with all the inte- X MANASW rior walls removed to give the Montgomery Ward in the store a vast,open feeling. ra, r Manassas Mall hosted a grand "We have received favorable opening over the weekend for comments from all of our cus its remodeled store. tomers,"said Tom Kayda, dis- "We got an overwhelming trict manager. The first 1,000 number of compliments on the customers coming into the looks and layout of the store," store Friday and Saturday said Sarah Davis,manager. were given gift bags. The remodeling represents Construction on remodeling a major change in the Wards the 85,000-square-foot store store format to better address began in January and customers'needs. remained open throughout the In 2000,Wards is remodeling process. ' 33 stores to complete all of its "It was a mess at times, but locations in Baltimore, Wash- we now have a much nicer and s' ington,Chicago,San Francisco, user-friendly store," Davis t Sacramento,Calif.,San Antonio said. BOW Saes hLAWASW kxmrvN Mrutx.r and Oklahoma City. VSee Wye I pq Moftomerlr VMard in the Mlarassas Mal hosted a grand ape>*this past crashed for its revamped stare. a. _ tional department stores, the ♦ Wes new Wards features a circu- Continued from Page D1 lar, racetrack design that cre- ates a comfortable, aestheti- She said the new circular cally pleasing shopping.envi- layout provides a convenient ronment. Gone are the com- and enjoyable shopping expe- plicated color-coded maps, rience while promoting cross- replaced with clear sight shopping between depart- lines,warm-colors,bright sig- ments. nage and a customer-friendly "The wide aisles and clear layout,"Kayda said. sight lines give a warm,invit- "Graphics and signage are ing environment and (one) smart, clear and educational where affordable fashions are with touches of wit and highlighted," Davis said. humor, reinforcing the good Shopping carts and strollers taste, value and spirit of are also available for cus- . Wards,"said Davis. tomers. With its 100 employees, The store in Freder-icks- Wards is open from 10 a.m.- burg is also celebrating its 9:30 p.m. Monday through grand remodeling. Friday, 9 a.m.-9:30 p.m. on For generations past, shop- Saturdays and 11 a.m.-6 p.m. ping was exciting, and a trip on Sundays. to the department store treat- Wards has 251 stores in 32 ed the customer to the best states with 32,000 full- and that retail had to offer.Wards' part-time employees. It was redesigned stores take the founded in 1872 by Aaron next step in creating a store Montgomery Ward to provide that provides today's time- merchandise to rural con- crunched shoppers with an sumers by direct mail. The experience that is both enjoy- first retail store opened in able and efficient,Kayda said. Plymouth, Ind., in 1926. "Breaking the model of the • Contact Bennie Scarton Jr. `jigsaw puzzle'layout of tradi- at manassasjm@aol.com THE FREE LANCE-STAR, FREDERICKSBURG, VA. TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2000 A7 -:•m•".,•••,•,�„�1F�e��s�iA13�"b`•�Y'�'-�s��„,;:,,,b,y�rc,,.enre[H,.amc:�siriyasiY�.fr:.�,�?a�:. rf:✓.�-�a,.'v.„,rY?r1Ehi�a4'Stuf�h�s.:uE�,r:e.,s>.nw"<.,.....,,c",;r�".".t..e::•,?�.t.£;ewiasrE.a�,e',ra-,.�.x�,»s::.,s.,:ern 3�:.drt,.".,57YtdtaKtdurr.zsrs119i,,....o:f,t3`s.:. 'New I-ook' Wards .4 to unveil changes � By JOBY NAHAS year restructuring period after V THE FREE LANCE-STAR the company filed for Chapter 11 r' w t � �; Wards department store is bankruptcy protection. The com celebrating the end of four pany dropped "Montgomery" months of spring cleaning. from its store signs at that time. On Friday,Wards will kick off a The department store, which grand re opening celebration has been located at Spotsylvania ll since it opened in 1980, is after remodeling its Spotsylvania Ma .y°"_ • � "" Mall store.Wards will have week one of 33 locations Wards is remodeling Its Man- a ssas year. end giveaways in honor of its new . . .:,,;;,;, �- • ,," store is also on the list. look. ;:; ".: `'r `� '�..•. The new layout means shop More than 70 of Wards'locations will have been remodeled by the '', , pers now can find a bigger selec- end of the year.Wards operates 251 tion of merchandise arranged stores in 32 states. around a circular aisle,called the "., ;; Nelthropp says the revamped K .x ringroad," said Gary '.: 1, ? layout includes more electronics, Nelthropp, store manager. apparel and houseware iterns in "They can pretty much get a an easy-to-find layout. Furniture COURTESY/WARDS view of our entire store and move lines including Bassett and Broy- Wards is remodeling its stores with a circular `racetrack' from one area to another just by hill have been added to the mix of design to make them more'accessible to shoppers. This is going around that ring," living room, dining room and a remodeled furniture section. Nelthropp said. "It makes it a bedroom suites already sold at little bit simpler." Wards. modeled its location last fall. The new look at Wards keeps The Chicago-based chain, now The updates at Wards are the Sears and Belk spruced up their the mail looking new, too, Cham- owned by GE Capital, was found- last of several new looks for stores prior to that. And Pacific berlin said. ed in 1872 by Aaron Montgomery Spotsylvania Mall,said Jill Cham- Sunwear, Motherhood Maternity "It's fresh, clean aixl more Ward. berlin, mall marketing director. and Arornid' Italia all recently accessible to customers,"she said. The remodeling tollows a two- Anchor store JC Penney re- opened here. "'They did a really nice jolt." - BUSI..AN. Ess August 19,1999 THE SUN « Section D Baltimore,MD s• r t, t. by, LIDDA COAX:•O■STA►T►HOTOA Up to date In Annapolis.Janine Fitzpatrick and her daughter,Shannon,shop for shoes in the remodeled Wards at Annapolis Mall.They are from Grasonville. War� Urns spi 00 ends monkey b Retailer rolling out new-Look stores on '— A ' r path out of bankruptcy Montgomery?Forget it 4 By LonaAmx Mra,.aaLLA AVD STAFF The stores are brighter, the aisles wider,the fixtures updated and the depart- ments more logically ar- ranged. A circular "race- track" propels shoppers from hirniture to appliances to window treatments.Just The boss:Howard Parge,vice president of the eastern like at rival department region,pauses in the Annapolis Mail store.Company brass stores,the"Juniors"depart- expect the changes to result in profitability by 2001. ment Is pushing flared-leg Jeans with floral trim. In $180 million.Reopenings in- Jumped 40 percent com- "Misses," the displays fea- clude stores In Annapolis pared with the combined ture outfits in this fall's"in" and Laurel tomorrow and performance of the rest of colors of gray and black. one In Olen Burnie in Octo- the chain,the company sold. Just to make sure no one ber. At another nine stores Just confuses this updated incar- For the 127-year-old mail- completed under the same nation with the old, more order catalog pioneer,it's all format,sales rose 15 percent. cluttered, less fashion-con- about regaining footing in Sale are expected to rise scious Montgomery Ward, the highly competitive world an average 20 percent at re- the Chicago-based retailer of retailing.It's an attainable modeled stores, said How- has dropped the"Montgom- goal, say company officials, and Parge,vice president of ery"from Its name. who expect the chain will the eastern region."It wasn't Starting tomorrow, the turnaproiltby2001. a flash in the pan," Parge new Wards — freshly The retailer has become said yesterday while touring emerged Aug.2 from a two- convinced of this largely be- the Annapolis store. year bankruptcy ordeal that cause of the sustained suc- Some analysts remain un- included closing more than cess of Wards in Towson convinced. The chain has 100 unprofitable stores — Market Place as well as been battered by years of will begin roiling out 40newly stores In Las Vegas and in losses—Includinga$108mil- remodeled prototype stores. Bloomingdale, IIL — all re- Ikon loss for the first quarter The chain plans another 40 modeled in a test phase In that ended April 3—and an by April,and another 40 the September. eroding customer base as next year—half the chain's Average monthly sales at shoppers found alternatives 252 stores—all at a cost of those stores since then have either in ISee Stores,8DI Wards thinlis new look can restore profitabfli [Stores,from Page In] lost hundreds of millions of dollars on the retailer's credit card portfo- mass discounters such as Target lio. or hipper shops such as Old Navy. "At the end of the-day,whether The chain's financial troubles you have people walk in circles, stemmed from its inability to keep squares or tick-tack-toe patterns, up with consumer shifts,retail ex- that does not generate revenue," perts said. Chapman said."What you need is "Wards had a fuzzy image,"said a place in the market." Kurt Barnard, president of Bar- Wards executives say they have nard's Retail Trend Report,of Up- found that, in part by identiwbg per Montclair,N.J."It didn't seem target shoppers: middle-incq:#e to know where it stood. Was it an women between the ages of 30 and apparel store that carried appli- 55. ances or an appliance store that "We firmly believe there is"a carried apparel?" huge opportunity between dis- 'Store remodelings are always counters and department stores," very good, and re-merchandising Parge said. "We've always been is good if you know what you're do- rock-solid on big-ticket (items] ing,but changing an image in itself and appliances. We had walked is not an easy thing,"he said. away from the fashion end of the One of Wards' biggest chal- business. It doesn't work. Today, lenges will be avoiding bankruptcy you have to have a mix." again, said Peter A. Chapman, president of Bankruptcy Credi- Wards has improved and better coordinated its apparel buying tors Service,a publisher of a news- and taken the assortment more letter that tracks bankrupt com- panies. upscale,but still offers better val- Wards pulled itself out of Chap- ue than upper-end department ter 11 bankruptcy lamely by pay- stores, edgeParg said. The chain also ing creditors just 28 cents to 29 has an edge over mass discount- cents on the dollar and thanks to a ere, ssuch offering more of a selection in li- $650 million cash infusion from areas such to electronics, y, he General Electric Co.'s GE Capital ances, furniture and jewelry, he Services division, Chapman said. said. GE Capital had owned half of "This is much nicer," than the Montgomery Ward and acquired older format,said Janine Fitzpat- the remainder of the chain and its rick of Grasonville, shopping yes- Signature direct marketing unit, terday in the Annapolis store for Wards' only profitable subsidiary, athletic shoes for daughter,Shan- as part of the bankruptcy restruc- non,9."I don't like when stores are turing. - cramped. I'm inclined to come GE Capital played a large role more often." in convincing creditors they could "It's easier to find things,"sal recover no more than a third of the Jena Harmon of Annapolis, a debt,Chapman said.If Wards had ing that she was drawn by the ld* liquidated instead,GE would have er prices. Mesa,AZ THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC ° FRIDAY AUGUST 20, 1999 U IN _� STY •� , _ �. -.:C ' 1 Tom Tinge/The Arizona Republic Showing off the retailer's new look is Store Manager Mike Hrabchak outside the redesigned entrance to the Mesa Wards store, across from Fiesta Mall. W, , ..q-r& i*n Mesa Name, image shift mark firm's revival By Glen Creno that name any longer. The name on the stores and by discounters and needed to The Anzona Republic front of the redesigned store is Wards,a restate its case to customers in a way that Just a few years ago, Montgomery move intended to signal a new image. established a clear image. Ward was tossing off its old catalog- "We're trying to tell the customer that Wards filed for Chapter I I reorgan- retailer image and chasing shoppers with we are the new Wards," Wards District ization in July 1997 and emerged from a radical new take on store design. Manager Peter Rodrequez said. bankruptcy protection earlier this month. Fresh from a leveraged buyout led by Wards is spending $I million to The company took a hard look at itself management, the department store com- S2 million per store to remodel 40 stores during the reorganization,chopping more pany was betting customers would warm throughout its chain this year. Its 6-year- than 100 stores and developing a new up to stores sliced into distinct specialty old store at Arrowhead Towne Center in look, marketing and merchandising for shopping areas.Wards figured the format Glendale also is getting the new look and the survivors. better positioned it to take on the is expected to be finished in October. Three stores were renovated to the new superstores that then were the darlings of Wards has seven stores in the Valley format last year, and the company says retailing. and two in Tucson. Another 40 Wards customers responded, boosting sales at Times change though, and yesterday's stores will be remodeled next year, and those locations by 40 percent. Work on hip strategy is today's old thinking. Rodrequez said more of the Arizona the Mesa store started in May,and Store Chastened by a Chapter I I bankruptcy, stores may be renovated though he didn't Manager Mike Hrabchak said sales are Montgomery Ward remade itself again know which ones. up,though he declined to be specific. and is showing off the new look at a Wards' new look was dictated in part The 94,600-square-foot Mesa store grand reopening today of its Mesa store from necessity. Retail analysts said the features a "racetrack" layout on each of Just west of Fiesta!Nall. company had fallen into a rut,was being Montgomery Ward doesn't even go by outgunned by more upscale department —Please see WARDS,Page EJ r �l 4 f ti h. Tom rinoeMw Arizona Republic Electric Avenue salesman Eric Parent, who works in the Mesa Wards audio-visual department,checks out the more customer-friendly design. Wards op ens in Mesa — WARDS,front Page El $25,000 to $85,000. Wards is bombarding shoppers its two floors that routes shoppers in with advertising messages for the a wide, circular pattern. Other aisles redesigned store and flooding Mesa were widened too, and the 19-year- neighborhoods with more than old store was brightened with extra 36,000 videos showing off the new light fixtures and new paint, carpet store prototype. and tile. Hrabchak, who has managed the The changes are designed to Mesa store for about a year, said the better appeal to Wards' two sets of changes have completely altered the target customers: fashion shoppers store's personality. made up of 30- to 55-year-old "It's remarkable, the change," he women with a household income said. "I walk in every day, and I say, from $25,000 to $50,000 and hard- `Wow, how did we do this?' It's a goods customers, people looking for totally different place." things like televisions, consisting of men and women 26 to 65 years old Glen Crew can be reached at (602) with household incomes from 444-7483 or at glen.crerw@pni.com. rp J I M El Paso, TX FRIDAY.AUG.20. i999 Business - -- _ ,. CONSUMER: POPULAR STORE GETS FACE LIFT 1 I I i r I II I I Rudy Gutierrez/El Paso t,mes Joe Friedel, bottom, manager of Wards at Cielo Vista Mall, track"aisle. The store's new, more customer-friendly look Is j walked Wednesday along the redesigned store's wide `race- expected to generate Increased sales. Updated Wards to unveil new looki I By Mike Mrkvicka type." Nineteen of them are Wards store in Sunland Park week,and the store had a rib- _1 Paso T1mes reopening this month, said Mall are integral parts of the bon-cutting ceremony last Joe Friedel,Wards Cielo Vista reorganization plan Wards Friday for its 170 employees, ' Less than three weeks after store manager. filed in April in a federal Friedel said. Montgomery Wards emerged The first three prototype bankruptcy court in "I'm glad it's over," said from Chapter 11 bankruptcy stores—in Illinois,Maryland Delaware. The company CristinaCardenas,a frequent protection, the company is and Nevada — opened in emerged from bankruptcy Wards customer shopping at i unveiling its new image in El September 1998.In the first Aug.2. thejewelry counter Thursday Paso In hopes of improvin.- six months of operation,sales To regain profitability, the afternoon. But she says the sales. at the stores rosp 40 percent company closed more than 100 wait was worth it. Wards will hold a "grand from the same period the pre- under-performingstores.And "The space to look at items reopening" today at its El vious year,the company said. by the end of next year,Wards is more organized than it was Paso store inside Cielo Vista will have redesigned 83 of its before. It looks much more Mall, marking a dramatic Sales for an additional nine 252full-line stores in32states, like an upscale department store remodeling and anaddi- stores just completed under Goddu said. store. It's less crowded. It tion of a broader selection of the same format earlier this For regular Wards cus- seems to have a lot more floor merchandise. month are up 15 percent for Comers at Cielo Vista, the space,'Cardenas said. The El Paso store is one of July, said Roger Goddu, redesign is nothing new. Even though favorably im- 22 Wards stores throughout chairman and CEO of Wards. They've been dodging con- pressed,the redesign didn't the nation that have been struction workers since May, remodeled under guidelines Both the reformatted stores Friedel said. of the new "Wards Proto- and last May's closing of the The job was completed last Please see Wards 7B CONTWUED FROM 10B side to another. elry counter concurs: "Customers Now customers can better navi- love it. It's so bright and open. Wards gate from department to depart- Sales have picked up." ment, Friedel said. Wards,of course,is not the only Continued from US Customers call the new look department store chain trying to "open" and "bright" and laud the ! revive flagging sales and change resolve one of her pet peeves with expanded selection,he said. its image. Wards. "It still takes a long time "Upgrading merchandise and To that end,Sears,Roebuck and waiting in line to pay," she said. the quality of materials make it Co. is ditching its "Softer Side of Immediately upon entering the more fashionable," Friedel said. Sears" advertising campaign in store, the most noticeable change And longtime Wards customer favor of a more value-focused slo- is the path of the main aisle. Ann James agrees. "They carry a gan: "The Good Life at a Great Instead of leading customers in a much better stock," she said Price. Guaranteed. Sears," ac- direct line to the doors on the oth- Thursday while inspecting a shelf cording to Mark A. Cohan, Sears er side of the store,the new Wards of lotions. executive vice president for mar- aisle forms an oval.Friedel calls it Already, the redesigned store keting. a "racetrack design." appears to be luring more cus- The campaign is the final in- "It gives customers a good,clear tomers. Though Friedel couldn't stallment in a series of changes view of the merchandise,"he said. be specific, he said sales have the retailer announced early this Another renovation giving the improved as the construction has year, including a move toward store an airy feeling is removal of come to completion. more trendy clothing, remodeling in-store stockrooms that used to Laura Burgos, a 12-year em- its stores and selling merchandise block the line of sight from one ployee who works behind the jew- on the Internet. -13usmess Munster, IN Post1 ibune a Saturday,August 21, 1999 AOP f9^ e •� 1� i tia F i LA WV AL.BR1rrTWPOST-TRIBUN! Jerry Koontz of Crown Point(right),manager of the remodeled Wards in Munster,talks with shopper Elwyn Studer of Highland at the store's official reopening Friday. i Wards sports new look Shoppers at Munster store's reopening Friday liked it By LwunA PAUL "Across the isle is linen and men's is on Correspondent the corner." Koontz, of Crown Point, said' the �IUNSTER — Ruth Rivera of East remodeling project lasted six months Chicago was one of the first people Fri- and took place in phases so the store did day to visit the remodeled Wards in not have to close. He estimated more Munster. than 5,000 came to the official re-open- The store broke the mold of the con- ing in the morning. fusing jigsaw puzzle layout of older "We have a very loyal customer department stores by going to a circular base,"Koontz said."This store has been layout.And Rivera liked what she saw. in the area for more than 30 years.They "I used to come here before and I did came out to see the new Wards." not care for it," Rivera said. "Before LAmmv A.8Ydrrrf/PosT-TRIBUN! Sidney founding partner their clothes were not good quality and The remodeled Wards store in �Si McMill Doolittle,ol/ttle,a e Limited partner now they look much better. With the Munster on Calumet Avenue. Liabili- ty Partnership in Chicago,said Wards is new layout you can see where you want coming out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy to go right away, and the aisles are Jerry Koontz,the Munster store man- and working on getting in the black. much wider." ager,said the circular layout promotes "That means redoing all the stores Once known as Montgomery Ward, "cross shopping" in which customers that remain open,"Doolittle said."They the retailer is attempting to become can shop for appliances,linens,clothing are looking at their prototypes. They profitable after emerging this month and electronics all at the same time. are quite good and are performing from bankruptcy. To do so, the store "A person who comes in for jewelry well."He used to be vice president of held 19 reopenings across the country can come into the middle of the apparel Wards' international and catalog divi- Friday of revamped prototype stores, floor to look at jewelry and then they sions. including the one in Munster on can see at a glance misses and junior Calumet Avenue. apparel on the other side,"Koontz said. Please see New Ward,Page 86 the back of the store, put the phar- New Wards macy in the back and make cus- tomers travel as much through the store as possible.The old theory was Remodeled Munster the more of the store they see, the more they are going to buy,"he said. store has reopening "The new theory is if you irritate customers too much by making Continued from Page B3 them go through hoops, they'll just leave.They have a lot more options." "The problem with Wards was not Chris Roffelsen, the tri-state dis- that Wards changed but the rest of trict manager for Wards, said the the market changed and it left new store is very"fashion forward." Wards behind,"Doolittle said. "We have the styles and brands Neil Stern, a partner and retail people are looking for,"she said. strategist with McMillan/Doolittle Loretta Jordan, of Hammond, LLP, said the new Wards appeals to bought pants,shirts and ties for her j today's consumers. husband during a shopping spree at "In general consumers have less Wards on Friday. time to shop," Stern said. "They "It's kind of weird when you used want to shop less.When they are at to come to the old one—the layout is the store they are looking to be more different,"Jordan said."I think they efficient in the way they shop. The give more space for apparels and old retail model was put the milk at linens.I think they did a good job." The Record 3 �+� • Monday; November 1, 19% Nation's 1st is city's latest Stocktorfs Wards store =' � r.r completes - �LDL its makeover � .-���:- _i. :: .-,�. �' � 9y I& Remand Stan/Writer Montgomery Wards' Stockton store last week completed a three I month makeover on a sale that }would make make Image guru Madonna Jealous. are the dhn ughn that shore on utsmptd conftnsed mer- chandise. Customers will find wide aisles, more cash registers and dressing rooms, baud-name -i ` displays, bright lighting, and ( { upscale rtherchanhdLse F 11 "U wrd many shopprsuldueto describe the Chiago-based eeuWb*giant, the nation's oldest department store and a retailing snhwart that for deader has defined dry cen- ters and catered to middle-urome families But Wards shopper Joanne Ramrd pcto by CRAIG SANDERS Huber of StorJtoa surveying her SPRUCED UP:The fa de of the remodeled from the Sherwood Mail parking lot.The nation's surroundings last week in the women's apparel kleparrnm4 sees Wards store in north Stockton is seen last week oldest department store is polishing its image. a blatant change in the store she has known for years"It looks like -='"'s' New faces one of the more-expensive stores now lies lovely." These are some of the new Other customers were equally or renovated stores that he" unpressed- debuted in and around It looks cleaner,"said Madeline Stodoons malls in recent years, Young of Galt,pausing nearby in rl - ■ Seers. remodeled May 1995 the girls'departnnenn"It looks like 4, ■ old Navy, opened June 19% they added a little more product, ■ The Disney Stom opened and It's a little better quahty." September 1997 Septe That statement jibes with the ■ Septe's opened October of Montgomery Ward exean- 1997 rives,who are presiding over the ■ Macy&, remodeled Iola 1997 in recent memory f e 1 most-extensive rernodeling� — ■ Gymbon se (chidrens clothing), old companyand they bold +- a ld't Ceokiss,opened 998 aim of attracting more u 1 upscale ■ Mrs. Fle consumers, October October 1998 ■ Bamse 8 Noble Booksellers, The remodeling effort, officials Y -"'- ' say, is part of a strategic plan relocated and opened conceived about � f d a er cuoo oo November 1 998 and precede Wards d ■ Gymboree PW Poop— ficultles. ROOM TO SHOP:The remodeled Wards in Stockton has wider scales. (ac" oenIg„ opened The company filed for Chapter December 11 bankruptcy protection in 1997 pushed forward toward the mail- umes at the Stockton store,have ■ G+ir"y try (computer, and emerged In August after a side entrance and given an airy been positioned directly across software, hardware), opened restructuring effort that knduded look by removing part of the cell- loom each other More merchan- December shutting down more than 100 ling above the counter space dise Is on Albrechtsaid Toys, rertho0ebd stores nationwide.Wards The t is also d R ■ Feb opera[® deQartrnar carrying pointing to a line of door-high 252 stores in 32 states, more-expensive items, such as drapery displays that cover nearly ■ February In addition to remoddurg stores higher-end diamonds. half a store wan- �9 remodeled expanded send and upgrading merchandise, the "It gives a great Impression; The Stockton site is the fifth of remodeled June plan calls for revising marketing Storiton branch manager George Wards'15 Central California stores ■ �a (� � hair salon), remodeled September plans and improving customer Robinette said."this is one of the from Chico to Bakersfield to ■ NQllses Q+IPOK expanded service- first things that got remodeled undergo remodding. and remodeled September Wards executives have defined Since it was put kh,bt►shnem has Though officials wont disclose the stores ideal apparel buyers as been tremendous." financial) details for the privately ■ September 11YondsA (� �), women 30 to 55 years old with Customers entering the store held company, Albrecht said the September mmnd annual household Incomes of born other n will also ■ e dreOOctober( s)' departments Stockton stone is considered one $25.000 to $50,000. Furniture, notice differences,such as trendy; of the best-performing and best- ■ Mfat Sar, and electronics, appliances and other animal-print lingerie and Poled- positioned stores in the region nonapparel items have a some- mon gear it's also one of the largest. ■ remodeled October what higher target: men and "It's really hot right now," While the store's physical bound. aryst e�herbed and rarrgd women ages 26-65 with household Albrecht said arias didn't expand, stockroom Bled October incomes of S25,000 to$85,000. But the least-fashionable ■ Gap, �W* and b�aP, "These customers are more walb and enc�laertes brand-conscious," said Mark h p,,chant. ��Per- wee broken down to expand the opening � laps changed the mast sales Boor. ace for shoe dis- ■ Fl clothing). tiff"e s 11101r, Albrecht, Wards' Northern The store has prominently cis_ Space cloCntng), openeg this mash California district manager played premhum brands, such as plays, for example. Increased by ■ Waves Music., opening Cos One of the fim of theepart- about 70 percent.Robinette said. month shift Is the prominence of the Maytag �t appliance c�yd - "This allows us to keep more ■ crespent jeWswre. relocating jewelry dsymbol feparttment. the ultimate Sion son in the home decronics s� on the floorcavernous uM�u"than arid expancling early � department.Mattress and drapery ■ Santo Surprfsss, remodeNng In Stockton, the section was departments,with high sales vol- Plesso*"WARDS,Baer pass spring 2000 WARDS Continued from Ft Space was a deciding " Spa g factor, because the remodel required aisles to be widened and added a circular aisle that runs through the store. The circular design allows cus- tomers to browse more easily t among departments and therefore t shop between closely positioned, complementary sections, such as girls' and women's apparel, for example, Robinette said. "It opens up the departments. The (previous) aisles prevented (customers) from looking around." This so-called cross-shopping, Record photos tYV CLIFFORD OTO ''ems experts say' is an essential PROUD MOMENT:George Robinette, left, manager of the Stockton part of a department store's suc- cess Wards, and district manager Mark Albrecht admire the remodeling. Sears' long-running "softer side of Sears" ad campaign is an example of the store's attempt to Big changes promote apparel sales among cus- " tomers who go to the store ins p Im rovements to search of specific hard goods such Mont Wards' as washing machines and reliig- Stockton store, which paral- erators. lei those at recently While Sears' underperforming remodeled stores in apparel category has pulled down ` Sacramento and Modesto, company profits for at least a year _ include: and a half, there's some indication ~' ■ An additional 5,000 that the company is turning �. square feet of retail around, said Tom Tashjian, man- space, bringing the total aging director of Banc America to 75,000 square feet Securities in San Francisco. ■ A circular aisle running "In the past two months, Sears through many depart- met and beat sales plans," he meets and wider sec- said. "And the hard-goods side of ondary aisles. Sears continues to do well" ■ Additional, more-accessi- While Sears and I.C. Penney ble dressing rooms and remain solid companies, they, like cashiers. Wards, nevertheless face Wcreas- ■ New lighting fixtures, ing competition from discounters increasing brightness by and upper-market retailers, he MORE CHOICES: Pam Myers of 40 percent said S Prominent displays of "The postwar baby-boom cus- Stockton looks over the individual brands and tomer who's comfortable shopping increased selection of women s stylem in an upscale store and a dis- shoes last week at the newly M Additional, larger signs count box store in the same trip remodeled Wards in Stockton's for departments. would probably pick up basic Sherwood Mall. ■ Upgraded merchandise home goods at Target rather than across departments at Sears and Penney." liom their remodel" including jewelry, But remodeling efforts, while Retail fixtures such as Wards moan's apparel and updating a store's outdated look, also have a longer-term impact on home electronics, are typically expected to jump- a community, experts say. ■ Addition of trendy items start sales, retail experts say. Such In January Santa Maria became such as animal-print lin- efforts, they say, can boost sales the latest California community to gerie and Pbk6mon for the store and vicinity. lose a Wards store W the compa- gear. "It's a major step to have that ny's restructuring. ■ Expanded clothing and store make a major financial "The impact is significant," said shoe depanments• commitment;' said Mike Donaghy, Bob Hatch, president of the Santa M Expanded nonapparel manager of Sherwood Mall. "The Maria Valley Chamber of Com- departments, including success of an anchor store typi- merce.The store,a downtown fix- draperies, bedding and cally means success for other cure, was often busy, he added. appliances. stores. The whole mall does well." Hatch couldn't say why the Weberstown Mall marketing store closed but noted that the director Alexandra Pappas agreed. loss coincided with the entry of was nevertheless a popular desti- Pappas witnessed an uptick in several big-box retailers on the nation for many years, he said. mall activity after Sears was edge of town, including Wal-Mart. "You get used to shopping at a remodeled in 1996. The newer stores are likely fill- store. ... It stayed there while "They benefited tremendously ing the gap, but the Wards store things changed numerous times." I ■ THURSDAY. NOVEMBE 1999 ................ ............ ..18.:........................................................................................................................ 0 Pleasant Hill Record Pleasant Hill, CA /New' W, ards p s orts gpen look By Stephanie Wright Skit(writer ?. [s ontgomery Ward has shin+ n,d its name to Wards j�• J *' E ' and is sprucing up several of its ¢lures nationwide, includ- ing�ls store in Pleasant Hill. CYnverting them into what e,t.o-:. 1 ....the company calls innovative concept stores,'the purpose is `t; to make shopping easier and more convenient for cus- tomm rs. ow+corraw�.n,..� T�e single, most dramatic Wards employee Pernella Duncan welcomes shoppers to the store and offers to assist them with cha ge to the Pleasant Hill setting up a new Wards credit card account. Wanda store is its streamlined imposed by the building's lay- ope4ness. A customer enter- out. ing the front doors can quick- A touch of sophistication I an the first-level depart- Y� P exists in the addition of ments and decide which part attractively displayed,stylish of the renovated store they women's fashions, and light- wa t to head for. colored wood is incorporated r Instead of being squared off into the tine jewelry depart- �+ into separate departments, menl counters and through- the store contains what the out the store. Adding to the company describes as a circu- hook are the ruby and gold lar, racetrack design. This is Christmas banners dangling literally a round path domi- from the ceiling. , - nating the center of the sture -The three main goals of the F with departments in the cell- renovation are quality, value �;+ S- ter• and outside of it. and but looks at prices people Customers easily skirt slung can alfurd," said Debbie l opep, side-by-side depart- McCoy,store manager. + mer is rather than navigating "We're very proud of our � I �� ►t� around cumbersome walls or jewelry department. We have reaping in-stare maps to some nice items at affordable r fig- ure out where they want to go. prices." The only exception to this She said the jewelry line is des i n is the childrens and expanded and now includes aut�inutive departments, lapis, jade and platinum which still remain behind Young shoppers Emily SaIaS(right), S,end Bridnna Guerra,4, McCoy said that in additior Wards to the aesthetic changes, shE and the company are alsc From page I . .......... striving to improve customer service by instilling in new pieces. sales associates the need to Home items, including bed- ding,linens,curtains and photo put customers above anything elbe they need to do in their frames,have been moved down- stairs, so people in a hurry jobs. don't have to trek upstairs for The store remained open dur- what McCoy says are popular ing the entire-renovation, and items. the sales associates endured The shoe department also the process and continued to accommodates time-crunched work hard, McCoy said. shoppers,and the majority of it "Pm more proud of my associ- is on the main floor. Customers ates than anything else," she who see a sample shoe they like said. "They did a wonderful can check the boxes of shoes job." below for their size and serve Wards is located at 2302 themselves, rather than wait- ing for a sales associate to find Monument Blvd., in Pleasant t f Hill. Store hours are 10 a.m.-9 it them. Upstairs, furniture, large DEAN coppowsuff 0,,w. p.m. Monday through Friday; home appliances and home Wards sales associate Joe Curry looks on as Glen Richards measures 10 a.m.-8 p.m. Saturdays; and electronics are laid out in the a coffee table in the newly-renovated furniture department. Audrey 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Sundays. same circular design. Richards observes in the background. Auto Express is open 7 a.m.-8 Furniture, now placed in six And the large appliance sec- instead of just looking at them p.m. Monday through Fridays; different collections, integrates tion is greatly expanded with in a catalog," said McCoy. 7 am.-7 p.m.Saturdays;and 10 living room, dining room and lots of built-in stoves and even "Our home electronics a-m--5 p.m. Sundays. bedroom groupings to give cus- a GE center, complete with (department) is significantly Call Wards at 674-6200 for tomers an opportunity to see built-in ovens, stoves and a different. Before, it was a more information. how the furnishings would refrigerator. dark hole in a corner. Now,it's work together in a home set- "We have a lot of built-ins really open and very interac- ting. that people can actually see tive." BusinessTmies Discountcham' -Save-A-Lot to shut Landover grocery ave-A-Lot,a no frills but cost less.' into 24-hour service locations. appliances,has already com- discount grocery store The stores,which have The new stores will open with pleted the redesign of more chain,is closing its between 14 and 22 employees, regular business hours and will than half of the area's stores. store in Landover and Store ' average about 12,000 square be converted to 24-hour opera- The new Wards stores,sport- selling off two other of feet—substantially smaller tions if customer demand is high ing a different layout,wider its stores in Maryland. IM" than the average Safeway or enough. aisles and in-store signs,have Save-A-Lot says it is"realign- Giant. already reopened five Maryland ing its operations in the Wash- Dontlu De Murco Save-A-Lot officials anticipate stores and six Virginia loca- ington,D.C.,market;'according all hourly employees at the Lan- Xando and COST tions. to a statement by the St.Louis- dover store will be offered Xando Cosi will introduce its The stores, which remain based company. employment at another chain. new brand to the Washington open during the renovations, The stores in Hyattsville and name of the buyer. Save-A-Lot has more than 800 area this month with three new are undergoing a$1 million to O.<on Hill will remain open as The Save-A-Lot stores sell stores in 35 states.The company locations in the District and $2 million makeover. Save-A-Lot Food Stores but will very few products with national owns and operates 150 of them. Virginia. be independently owned.Janet labels.Instead,the stores sell The new restaurants,which Michel,a spokesman for the custom-label products that look are a result of an October merg- New Stores company,would not disclose the similar to the national brands Improving market share er between Xando Coffee and ■IN/sons Galleria has signed Home Depot,the giant home Bar and Cosi Sandwich Bar, leases with seven new retailers improvement retailer,is ham- will offer Xando's traditional —occupying nearly 22,000- mering out plans for seven new coffee and espresso-based square-feet of space.The stores in drinks,and cocktails after 5 retailers,scheduled to open by the Wash- p.m.,as well Cosi's signature this summer, include Bally, ington-Bal- sandwiches,pizzas and appetiz- BCBG Max Azria, Bisou Bisou, timore �� ers. Mayor's Jewelers, New Man, area. The locations,which range Sur La Table and Lucky Brand. The new \ between 85 and 140 seats,will ■Modell's Sporting Goods locations open at 700 11th St.in the Dis- has opened its ninth Washing- will all be trict on May 2,at 700 King St. ton-area location in German- open in Alexandria on May 9 and at town.The 15,000-square-foot before the end of the summer, 4250 Fairfax Drive in Ballston sporting goods and apparel starting with a store in Hagers- on May 22. store, which has about 30 town opening May 18.In June, There are now four Xando employees, is replacing the Home Depot will open stores in Coffee and Bar locations and company's Rockville store. Ellicott City,Md.,and Stafford, one Cosi location in the Wash- Modell's, based in New York, Va.And four other store open- ington area. has a total of 87 stores. ings are scheduled for late ■The Sport& Health Co.of summer in Hyattsville, Fairfax McLean has opened two new Circle,Annandale and Colum- Wards' new look Fitness Equations health clubs bia,Md. Montgomery Ward is rein- in Tysons Corner and Silver The locations will range in venting itself in the Washing- Spring.The 33,000-square-foot size from 105,000 square feet ton-Baltimore area. Tysons Fitness Equation and to I IS,000 square feet and The discount retailer, which 22,000-square-foot club in the employ between 150 and 200 now goes by the name Wards, Silver Spring area opened last people each. will complete the redesign of all month. Home Depot currently has of its stores in the area by the 31 stores in the Washington- end of the year.The company, •Donnu De Marco can be Baltimore market and recently which sells clothing,jewelry, reached at 2021636-4884. Store- converted 11 of those stores housewares,furniture and fronts runs every other week pS . .MQNl)AY,'MAY.1,.1_000 THE WASHING[ON TIMES APRIL 29, 2000 BUSINESS & FINANCE THE DAILY RECORD 9A .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. RETAILING Baltimore, MD Giant Offers Osteoporosis Testing Grocer, Kaiser Permanente Provide Screenings at Baltimore/D.C. Stores n a partnership with Kaiser Permanente, Giant Food will offer osteoporosis bone density screenings at select Gi- ant pharmacy stores in Maryland,Washington and Virginiia. The screenings are being offered in recognition of Na- tional Osteoporosis Month, which begins May 1,and as part of Giant's and Kaiser Permanente's commitment to women's health.The screenings began April 24 and will run through June 12. The screenings involve a bone density measurement of the heel,which is a quick,non-invasive and painless procedure that provides information about an individual's risk for developing osteoporosis.After the screening,customers are provided with two copies of the results to share with their doctor to use in de- termining the need for additional testing or treatment. Wards Expresses Its 'Oneness' at Security Square Montgomery Ward has unveiled a"smart new look"for its store at Secu- rity Square Mall. As part of its 2000 plan,Wards is remodeling its 33 stores located in Balti- more; Washington; Chicago; San Francisco; Sacramento, Calif.; San Antonio, Texas;and Oklahoma City,Okla. The store at Security Square is one of three stores already remodeled and will host its grand re-opening celebration between April 28 and May 20. The retailer says the new look represents a major change in the Wards store format and emphasizes the merchandising unitiatives Wards has undertaken to reinvigorate its stores and better address the needs of its customers. New features in the new look store include a circular layout geared to prompt truss shopping to other departments, wider aisles, clear sight lines and inn-store signage. The retailer says that all design elements are integrated and consistent to conununicate the"oneness of Wards." — — Chute Miller G;rrillert�rrulrlu it yrecurd.ruru PUBLISHED APRIL 28, 2000 SAN ANTONIO BUSINESS JOURNAL More details about Harcourt emerge campus e p � Clayco Construction Co., the St. Louis- Ward remake New alliance based design build contractor building the new corporate campus for Harcourt Inc. on Montgomery Ward is rolling out two of CB Richard Ellis, Jones Lang LaSalle the city's North Side, announced more de- its revamped San Antonio stores this week as and Trammell Crow Co. announced they are part of its national effort to reposition itself forming an alliance to develop e-commerce following its emergence from Chapter 11 initiatives focusing on procurements, trans bankruptcy proceedings. actions and support services. The three com ,V;t N; Real Estate The Chicago-based retailer is holding panies will have equal ownership in the new grand "re-openings" at its stores in McCre- venture, which will likely operate as a sepa- Roundup less Mall and Crossroads Shopping Center to rate business and brand. show off its new format and design. These The companies wield significant weight in 9'H t MEGAN KAMERICK elements include new facades,a circular lay- the commercial real estate industry, with out to promote cross-shopping between de- more than 1.2 billion square feet of space un- tails this week about the project. Trammell partments, wider aisles, user-friendly sig- der their management.Last year they execut- Crow Co. is developing the campus for Har- ed a total of 6,400 sales transactions, and court at 19500 Bulverde Road,just north of 30,800 lease transactions nationwide. To- Loop 1604. gether they spend more than $5 billion for Clayco's Dallas office has begun work on "We Will be goods and services. the three-building complex, which will total 558,000 square feet on 77 acres.The campus much more Vogel joins Kennedy will house The Psychological Corp. and active in the g Harcourt Educational Measurement, both John Vo el has left Grubb & Ellis Co. to subsidiaries of Harcourt Inc. The develop- market. take on the job of marketing director for ment will have a 144,920-square-foot, two- — John Vogel Kennedy-Wilson Inc.Vogel will manage the story office building in an L-shape and a firm's industrial portfolio, and handle acqui- 413,000-square-foot operations facility, sitions, dispositions and build-to-suit oppor- linked by a 120-foot-long covered walkway. tunities. Kennedy-Wilson plans to beef up its It will have a mezzanine level of almost nage and enhanced product and apparel activity in build:to-suit work here, as well as 50,000 square feet where up to 1,000 em- lines. _ . . buying and selling property, Vogel says. ployees can score and grade tests, as well as These are two of.the 33 stores Wards is "We will be much more active in the mar- 12 loading docks. remodeling this year.The other two San An- ket," he says. The construction will be-with tilt-wall tonio locations at Windsor Park Mall and at Vogel brings with him leasing for Freedom concrete panels.*The campus will include a Westlakes Shopping Center, will be com- Center and Wetmore Business Park industri- full-service cafeteria, outdoor patio and pleted later this year, says Kathleen al properties, as well as 2049 Babcock. 1,500 parking spaces. The new campus is O'Neill, spokeswoman for Wards. The re- Kennedy-Wilson, which bought SynerMark scheduled for completion in early 2001 tailer, which is owned by GE Capital, Cos. last year, has about 1.25 million in in- and will house 700 full-time employees launched three prototype stores in 1998 and dustrial properties it manages here, Vogel and up to 1,500 employees on a seasonal remodeled 40 stores last year. The average says, in addition to its office properties. basis. Development costs were not avail- Wards store is about 95,000 square feet in "It was a tremendous opportunity," he able. size. says of the move. ATTACHMENT 13 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jun. 16 2000 02:25PM P2 TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 30TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90010 PHONE 213.385.8000 - FAX 213.385.0595 June 16,2000 VIA F CSIMI .F (714)374-1648 AND U S MAIL I Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Attn: Gerald Chapman Re: In re Burlington Coat Factory City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Hearing on Tuesday,June 20, 2000/Agenda Item Unknown Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-1 Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-2 (The Crossings at Huntington Beach) `. Our File No. 9956 Honorable Planning Commission Members: We have read and considered the letters of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter& Hampton letters dated June 8, 2000 and June 13, 2000. Please note that Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach,Inc.joins in each and every one of these objections contained in these two letter by Sheppard, Mullin,Richter& Hampton. 1 In addition, we have read and received the letter dated June 13, 2000 from Montgomery Wards Corporate:Real Estate Department. The letter is signed by Loren Hohman. Please note that Burlington Coat Factory joins in the objections and responses of the letter from Montgomery Ward dated June 13,2000. i In addition to the objections set forth,we reserve our right to further object to the meeting on June 20,2000 on other grounds. It should also be noted that Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach,Inc. expressly objects to any plans,proposals,blueprints or any concepts which exclude Burlington Coat Factory from the Huntington Center project. The actions of the City of Huntington Beach, the Redevelopment Agency and the Economic Development Department of the City of Huntington Beach and the Planning Commission must take into account the rights of Burlington Coat Factory FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. 2133850595 Jun. 16 2000 02:25PM P3 City of Huntington Beach June 16,2000 Page 2 in consideration of any proposals or SP's that are submitted. The actions of the June 5,2000 memo,which were previously objected to by our offices are incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth. The actions by Mr. Silver directing Mr. Zelefsky to change the applicant on the plan to the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach were illegal and will be the subject of separate litigation against the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach. 4 The exclusion of Burlington Coat factory and in particular the actions taken relative to the June 5 memo constitute essentially a precondemnation,a taking without due process and a taking without just compensation. We will attend the meetings and intend to raise these matters,as well as additional matters verbally and in writing. Very truly yours, TUC AN ASSOCIATES AVIV L.TUCHMAN ALT:rehm j cc: David Biggs Howard Zelefsky Ray Silver ! Murray Kane i i I i I ATTACHMENT 14 0xv v t'd oil' TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES TG kdAxm ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW 'ZC) -CD 3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 30TH FLOOR {'( LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010 PHONE 213.385.8000 • FAX 213.385.0595 June 20, 2000 Planning Commissioners and City Staff City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Burlington Coat Factory y. Huntington Center Associates, LLC City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Hearing on Tuesday, June 20, 2000/Agenda Item Unknown Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-1 Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-2 (The Crossings at Huntington Beach) Our File No. : 9956 To the Honorable Planning Commissioners and City Staff: The following are simple questions with simple answers: Q: What does Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc. want? A: Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc. wants to participate in the redevelopment of the project. Burlington Coat Factory wants to discuss the Specific Plan and the development in terms of its building configuration and is willing to work with the developer and the City and the Redevelopment Agency to come to mutually agreeable lease terms and conditions, including capital improvements. Burlington Coat Factory encourages redevelopment of the Shopping Center. Burlington Coat Factory was induced in 1995 to move its premises to the dying Shopping Center,and landlord's predecessor agreed that when redevelopment would commence,that Burlington Coat Factory would be a part of the future. That is one of the reasons that the lease contract is for a long term, until the year 2025. Q: What is it about Burlington Coat Factory's lease that allows it to participate in redevelopment? A: There are certain customized provisions in the lease which state that if the landlord wants to raze the structure, then landlord has an obligation to submit conceptual site plans for City of Huntington Beach June 20, 2000 Page 2 agreement to Burlington Coat Factory; and in the event that there is no agreement, to submit it to a binding arbitration before an architect. Q: Why was Ezralow/Huntington Center Associates sued in early March,2000? A: In early March,2000 it was clear that Ezralow/Huntington Center Associates would, not negotiate in good faith with Burlington Coat Factory. The purpose of the first lawsuit, which is Case Number OOCCO2479, was to initiate the arbitration process. The hearing took place on March 31 to compel arbitration and that relief was denied. Douglas Gray of Ezralow submitted a declaration indicating that no plans had been submitted which would cause the Burlington Coat Factory store to be razed or demolished. Accordingly, the Judge ruled that this was premature. Ezralow and Huntington Center Associates, however, failed to identify that SP12 was, in fact, submitted on March 20,2000 to the Planning Department. SP12,of course,included proposals that would raze the Burlington structure. Q: Why was Ezralow/Huntington Center Associates sued again on May 24,2000? A: Ezralow/Huntington Center Associates were sued in State Court for several causes of action. It was determined that,in fact,Ezralow/Huntington Center Associates clearly did submit plans which the City Planning Division had designated SP12 and then SP13. These included provisions which clearly contemplated the razing of the Burlington structure. Q: What happened to the Temporary Restraining Order that Burlington Coat Factory brought against Ezralow and what was the origin of the invalid June 5 City memo? A: This question is perhaps the most interesting question to date. It was clear that the City of Huntington Beach via the Economic Development Department staff were less than forthright with documents which had been requested in April of 2000. They were not forthcoming until mid- May. This caused a delay in the process of Burlington Coat Factory learning the truth after it was determined that its Petition was premature. The following is a time-line of events which lead up to the invalid June 5 Silver to Zelefsky memo: 1. May 24, 2000 suit filed against Ezralow. 2. Thursday June 1, 2000 Ex-pane (Emergency) Notice given to Ezralow/HCA attorney indicating that a temporary restraining order will be sought on Friday, June 2, 2000 seeking to restrain Ezralow/HCA from submitting any plans that contemplate the razing of BCF's structure and restraining any further proposals from being submitted to the City or the Redevelopment Agency. City of Huntington Beach June 20, 2000 Page 3 3. On June 2, 2000 the court continued the matter to set it before Judge Gould, who had heard the previous Petition. Judge Gould was not in, and the Ezralow attorneys requested that the hearing be set for Wednesday, June 7, 2000. 4. Unbeknownst to BCF, a memo dated and allegedly written on June 5, 2000 changed the applicant retroactively from the Ezralow Company to the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach as co-applicants. 5. June 7, 2000: a hearing is held before Judge Gould. Attorneys for Ezralow do not present the allegedly written June 5, 2000 memo on June 7. They provide supplemental declarations of Mr. Gray (of Ezralow)and Mr. Shipow(Ezralow's attorney), but no supplemental declarations in opposition to the ex-parte from the City. 6. June 7, 2000: the judge puts the matter over until June 13, 2000, to allow supplemental briefing by Ezralow,including City declarations. Only after that hearing is the June 5 memo produced. 7. June 9, 2000: a Friday, after 5:00 p.m. a Declaration of Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning authenticating, inter alia a June 5, 2000 memo materializes. This memo is essentially invalid manufactured evidence by the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Huntington Beach calculated to destroy the restraining order which is clearly contemplated by Judge Gould. 8. June 13,2000: after a two-hour oral argument,Judge Gould indicates on the record that there is a"foul stench"to these events and that this June 5,2000 memo is quite suspect. The Judge,however, denies the temporary restraining order by finding that since Ezralow/HCA are no longer the applicants for the Specific Plan, the temporary restraining order is moot. Thus,the illegal and invalid memo of June 5, 2000 served its purpose: to defeat the restraining order against Ezralow/HCA brought by BCF. Q: Why will the City and the Redevelopment Agency be sued? A: The City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach tortiously interfered with the contractual rights of BCF. In particular, this June i City of Huntington Beach June 20, 2000 Page 4 5,2000 memo was manufactured for the clear purpose of torpedoing the contractual rights,and more specifically the restraining order, which was contemplated by Judge Gould. The memo was dated after the ex-pane notice and while the temporary restraining order relief was pending. The memo served its purpose, however, created exposure and potential liability of the City and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach by interfering with the contract and, in addition,to taking away numerous rights which BCF had. In fact,the Judge referred to the actions of the City and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach as "an act of pre- condemning." Q: Where do we stand now? A: BCF will not go away. BCF wants its contract vindicated and, in addition,will have its day in court for the tortious acts committed by the landlord and for the unconstitutional acts committed by the City of Huntington Beach and/or its representatives. Burlington Coat Factory is willing to negotiate and willing to discuss in a meaningful and businesslike manner all options with all parties,however,based on the continued actions which are contradictory to the rights of BCF by both the developer (Ezralow/HCA) and the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency, BCF is forced to pursue all remedies in the courts and vindicate its rights through court action. Very truly yours, TUqftVMj& ASSOCIATES A L. TU'CAB N LA N ALT:rehm 13, )C VIA Mt 2 U PGA IMPLEMENTATION •� 2.0 ADMINISTRATION The City's Planning Director shall administer the 'Text Amendment and action by the Planning provisions of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Commission and City Council. Specific Plan in accordance with the State of California Government Code, Subdivision Map Act, the 2.1 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PHASING Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and the City's PLAN General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan project is anticipated to The Specific Plan development procedures, occur in one (1) phase. The existing Village Retail regulations, standards and specifications shall (Barnes & Noble, Staples, and Circuit City) and "fHE supersede the relevant provisions of the City's Zoning remaining Department Stores ( = s, Burlington Code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Coat Factory, Montgomery Wards, O�Niervyns) will Ordinance) as they currently exist or may be amended receive major exterior renovation, new enhanced in the future. Any development regulation and paving, and landscaping. The demolition, building requirement not addressed in the Specific infrastructure and utility work of the new Flan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations construction, will be scheduled and built such that the in place at the time of an individual request. remaining center remains in operation with minimum inconvenience to the remaining tenants. Construction The Specific Plan may be amended. The Planning is anticipated to take 24-36 months from start of Director shall have the discretion to determine if demolition. requests for modification to the Specific Plan are rninor or major. 2.2 METHODS AND PROCEDURES Minor modification is a simple amendment to the The methods and procedures for implementation of exhibits and /or text which does not change the the Specific Plan shall be on a project by project basis. meaning or intent of the Specific Plan. Minor The adoption of the Specific; Plan alone will not modifications may be accomplished administratively require infrastructure improvements to the project by the Director with a report to the Planning area. Physical improvements will only coincide with Commission. Major modifications are amendments to the commencement of the first project and approval of the exhibits and/or text which are intended to change a Site Plan Review. ' h'I Specific Plan is a regulatory the meaning or intent of the Development Concept, docurnent and is not intended to be a Development I.)esign Guidelines, or Development Regulations. Major modifications require a Zoning Agreement. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 15 June 7, 2000 r ' • Is consistent with objectives of the Specific Plan in achieving a project adripled'to. the area and compatible with the surrounding environment; and • Is consistent with the goals and policies of the W��, ho� City's General Plan, and comply with State and �aJt Federal Law. �ft�`1�,� `�ar 2.8 SPF.CIFIt....P.:..,_..-..-�--..,,....�_.,.��._......w__..._�...__M_.�_.....��...._.__.....__ LAN AMENDMENTS Specific Plan Amendments, other than a Minor �'�yti� Modification as previously described (Section 2.0), S� �' V,a Y shall be made through the Zoning 'Text Amendment process; subject to consideration and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Such Amendments may include changes to the Development Concept, Design Guidelines policies and the introduction of alternative Development Regulations. 2.9 SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this title, or any future amendments or additions hereto, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this title, or any future amendments or additions hereto. The City hereby declares that it would have adopted these titles and each sentence, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion or any future amendments or additions thereto, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, portions or any future amendments or additions thereto may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 19 June 7, 2000 x <� tip. �, 1�, ,�•��^�-:r��,r�- :,,. _.r.r � ;��� .� �I I I. '�. ..._.� �'I; � _.I' �Pt1J i{.L3+ ;,� :5' w+ � L`i � '�, — � � ��- ,. ;�•. 5'rJ,. � r r • 9 LLP_1!._P'ri lr i( ,•\" r '�i, '.tJ �.1 �j' \`�\� /� I} t"S IPI_ — 'V � •�� `r��• ���,��rJ ._._.. -'1 _ ' i '/� � rrtnn yr � •• a c .1 I j rMrrll►s 6. j - _.._ - - - .:4 1w.�uw 1 '»i lb5r �'Y.:;:;;lacrn•>`'.� ,F,,'r"J\�'�\ v,,,, t r i 1 r , tI Illustrative Concept Master Plan L Exhibit 3A Note: 777is illuslrelive shows a h)pothelical development scenarl he project site. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 21 June 7, 2000 u � - f 4Yyrr��r n � .Y I 7�' __ _ _L- ,:�'�1 __ •.�. . �!,/ , tilt 10 lip fV, Nk41, H cr� _ - Flssg atc�ymrn..xJf.i 77 r � �� ��t,.�. � � � .� � /r� 7� � k� rf � �// y� Qom,}.: • 2 r. i I!II�. ....1"„'>.1?� u�uiK"V�.��tir_W� ..�:%..x'Y1ml�iKiA1:�.;/�u::'.�,•tL' „r v .' .� ,,', I i' Et)INGFR AVENUE s...._. - Illustrative Concc ptual Master Plan Exhibit sB Nolc•: 77u:, t/itt.slc;tltrl Wic tit r.'lopmLvrl sr c tt:Irw oll 1/1c`pro c't•l.41c. The Crossings at Huntiricttar Beach Specific Plan 22 June 7, 2000 GENFKAi. DI Vl;l,i'IPNII:RTI' I'L' N The Crx�gsirr,,s at i hinlington It-icli ;rwc'ific Min Tlrc' Crossings ,it 1=lunt inSton Ljeach prov►d(-, fcrr a deve.lt-)pment com.e.pt prrnridcs fol- :i pia.tmed retail, ranee of cml-loyment cW. ortunities in profession-0, dining, and en1crtninirrent complex in the northerri retail, .service, food ommricc, and enterlainrVrit.- and pv,rticm of thc City of Itirnlinstton RotL-h. 'Ilie Specific will hroaden Ilse employme�nl base of the community. Plan esf;xblishr- the general tvpc, Icv--aIion, 'I'lic Specific; Plan establishes :t clear dc�vclo l)n[enl architectural style and character of all clevelofwrienl coneepl to assure the facilitation ofa cohesive: regional within the site'.5 houndarics, while allowing for shopping center. Design measums, erxornpassirrtg, site creative tie-sign ideas on individual pmlec:t.s consistent lilannin<g, area landscaping, building, architecture, with an overall c::nu;ellf. streetscarx: , jx�degtrian linkages,seltrercks and signagc have teen established. Adherence to these details ,and The Crcxsings al limitington Reach will he a (33 ac-rc to the established Design guidelines will r.remt:' a master platined mgkinal commercial retail, dininng, unique and inlegrated develeprrrem. and entertaimneril facility with suppciriim) "'emkccs. The Specific.Flan is designcd to allow for development 11>Ic illustrative conceptual masler plans (Exhibil in a manner that is ccmrpalible with the surrounding 3D) depicl scenarios utilizing the variowy guidelines community and City of Huntington Ueach. The deg.-rilaed in the. Specific Plan. The plates provide Crtminye at Ituntingkm beach Specific Plan prtiovidcs pofentml layouts identifying building urien191s��n arxi rrn oplxirtunily for a variety of quality regional serving placement, panting design and .4ccess. rimlw;ty cornmewisl u.sc s' consistc-nl with the Citv's Central coil figuration, entryways and land.aping. The plans Plan_ are not intended to reflect an ultimate design wftiation 1r3c:ausc a large variety of other development patterns '111c CrexsingS at Huntingion Beach Spcc•ilic Man and ;activities may evolve which ;pro- also o-Nnsistent provide the• framework and guidelines necessary to wAb—lbc Specific Plan polic•ic-%, �,iiideline.s and c�reatr a unique, lr4gh quality, visitor servim> , �rcgulation 1he project statistic:al s'tmtmary is shown rrlail/olininK/entertriinmenl complex. •tire site's on Exhibit $A-and 4B and hypcdhetical conceptual proximity to regional transpc"idion systems make the floor pl:rns are slk)wn in rA.IHIs e5�;wgni iirv-a ideal for a variety of compatible users and ar-tivit.ies. The development concept is deigned in conceri urith the area's history of commercial activities and the eornmunity s need for a stnmg u-If-suffro•ic:ni. economv. J�+wa :.'' i lk�►" i�'�..`'� L.....l� �s �f�- �0+�' r� �,o !tit yw�,.•,f t,,,;Jta .'..JI �,, d�sa w„(,,,,9 �--.-k.�,w The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Pian -- - —_ - -- June 7, 400 4 --cot e�� =TH�,A: K. A�'�TC.H��R.5:, RFTI. >41 <RFSTA N`TSw, OTAI< 7ir hc cletn h,;hed h4/, 719 NT W CONS TPLTCTION 777ealer 100,000 Retail — — -- ----- - 170,1 87 Reslaur.rnt; 46 flc7clili'011 h?.S'/riPConle !- ------ 71 ,800 894 233 '00 TXIS777 IG TO:RTMAIN �IlTC11c1:,' 82,000 ,Strip C enler 06,000 Re.ctaur rrnt.s AO 7,300 RaIIk-,; —-- 8 240 2037540 SUBTOTAL 1 Q T A Lr 1.00 0;00. 5T000` 6' 7.;: x 84- '097}r7.' .3 Nolc" (fe'Pc'/(yk.d. Proje escription tistical summary) / ' Exhibit 4A Yoe; The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 25 June 7, 2000 U. u. fo he demolished 517,231 I L)0,LX)0 1.7 5,000 34 3,5 56 77,246 AaWhon loVfil)Center 7 J,wc) 767,617 suncyrAl. U) Kestewrawls 7,,A 0 0 Ikinks 6,2 4 0 33 3,02 8 SUBTOTAL MOMM flo vvw,","r amn 'MY ea"lMl",my 2d"tcc Avthe pAvell i k vlojftf -T r t1 P cli C C t De.SCf' JA 'Ofl 'SALffiSttiCal SUMMary) Exhibit 4B 0 The Crossings at Hunthil glon &,lach 6t, Plall 26 ti Jurke T. 2000 is r.'II ; ! - i (``.,,;,C•;K - i it , ON 11R A%'(MA I rix •y�s;cap :,t.:�s �r �i$�a 5 �',. �Irl�v,nN?. �r IA. "'r?Jr.. I "�.:1;`.J:'R'<;k.:yk d;lklwl w.npr,fi�el rr.^',z;`r-�.�3:''� 1::`,ie"':.'",,; �♦}w,E. $:P`.1ai. ,.,..:.::'` v, ,,�. i n:.'''d`' � 40 V ss ::.4.n.� r 1��'{•,,N�1 ..I\„ I .i ,:>E.- ?§:nr,?. ,is-, .1.• �vi .�. ti b_I '�,�I I i : �� ",�:,e,•',., (yii'� 1t' ,�F j f 3)"(r'i.f�nl`+6J�...rrwo ar I' I ��� (y", I � _ z ) II ;�.7� t 1::i I I •--� :� Lim" EDINGER AVENUE: , Lok, Of C.OnC. tip ,d Floor Plan Exhibit 5 kevel 1 The Crossings at Huntington Buac,h Specific Plarn 27 June 7, 2000 ' I it i! 'I' - �n rrrm�rmr}_rrIrtirrrrminmTrTMI117fi r' 1+ I -:��,� ti, ! Sk.;,y '�,c;g.•i' ..t�.�...;._; I I i " C.F i�IiK 4\'I NII! ���� - ��'; . � I � ,; 1111LI1.111li.lillllll,lllllll:alll � f', "1 � j I '`If. 4us„ �,� � "�:e�:`� W• �pSx.rr3 N 'a'��t�M'i��.'jG't:4�.i,'.��.• i. Qt�.�1'. '� .� 1 � �..4dY T r•'a � .� '. '. :i •1 �. � aka� 1�ti e Ar,'. "rn.�b s..� u w. i ao ieP ,..�, I, i, I I ii I I _. _. t;4 tc a -� AF. At7S4+b 3T1}°: ^f�t.ia;�rt 6b su x•r {ai ^I i, .. Iw,.�.,. >,� li Ij I. LQ I: TJ h r I rhirv�TI?A Loncc .-,t U[al F oor Plarl t;xiijbil 5A Level 2 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific; i''JIn 28 junc-, 7, 2000 Fllil"`ia'il'IPI?:1''T'�1`f7TF7?7?TiTTiT:TT'; . . - ' A*7 It _ ��.- •� - � � � � � - � f....lf� .I•..t � ' , J-, r.. � ._ ......... .._�....... � .'.. ni �//fl�'��._.•���` � #1 /�/f� 'i � '' � it r ' , .'l ypy iYrf .t:.� HIV /?t.:lo sv//fy' i✓ �r-FM+Nf \\�, 1 / v , � I' {' '1 rLij :y .I _1 r r 1 r t , �.t EDiNGER AVENUE Conccptual floor Plan EXIIlhif 5,13 1 cvcl 1 The Crossings at Huntington Beech Specific Plan 29 June 1, 2000 I • "�. '.I TiFffllTf7iit?lltf?11TifliflTTfTt!flTTF'IJ11T* ..�i .. . A I � — — \''--^ .—�.� �° i !• ���'+5q 4fPtT.4e.ef'37. : .. I. � 1 I � I I. %//� ` � � � —',r-.t• 1 eG�!'i!I I is I t• "m i.n::. i1141;1ti1;11)!'tNH.1I11114iiMl dt ;; y,q+;`,"C:; .. *2A Li MJY 1 � I II 11i 1 I i cc ' • I I ' I i J i : EL">INGER AVENUE Cot iccl:>f.ual Floor Plan Exhihit 51)' l cvcI The Crossings at Huntington Bf:.,ach Plan 30 Jung 7, 2000 - — ------- - ---------- - -------- -- �OdWd••dM9••d :• . .,......, .- I wd�lsd ewsd � .�• ••• ee1100•edwwO• • w �' i...l� ��h ,I-,I ,�r, _ I �eded90dd I I ,.� i i CFNTf R AV!NOF . NseoN•awwosoe I eww•wwwdr �NN•A••ew �L �ltd•ltdT,z d edit ' .I 'lJll..1. I'T►� N (���� l' I i III I � log. •�� I � � I�-. �, I�� �swN6ww I I. � III',' l ,•,. � I ll I � � I. I ;,, I II- CIO ' �Nd� �dNOO•NdN•• e•eeNpedd OdwA • •N�•'••d•••�ed•N AN•11•iiM••Ne� �M••dNONeAA Oe�eie,.X Is •�' ' Y N EDINGER AVENUF- Pedestrian Plaza alkways Plan Exhibit GA The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 32 June 7, 2000 .._. ___._._''-fib i,A"AiBNOONNOWisAONgAAi " : - �✓i►R '' BOA 7sOO4�FW'O413°A964tlK1Oa9EeM4Oa•1 tpi O I � (' NNOA ANTI A � i t ff ,1 ._ WNNN.iOAON�AwfNr>�bi�N�"'•�W.�i�oiaiieoau�►uNN -`V ;r �,,� � j • m: .•A+'iNAAiA� ad 'WNw►ps�.NN�1100 AAOA�, h'`�leWWi'►.NlriNrWWIBWwi M.IWi1Nwi�8W�s�WNrr�- NNAB�WAri�N�NA1A, N`�N OA .•:' ,� FI11N(;ER AVLNUE Pedestrian Plaza / Walkways Plan Exhibit 613 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 33 June 7, 2000 REGIONAL 0,711MMERCTA1, I.TSE F(-)}.IC}F;,S: Strada, the Plaza and the Colonnade. A pedestrian ,3.1.1 Any expansion beyond the initial site plan walkway system is also used to connect the Crossings approval, ~hall be flit-c ,%di the silt, pl.►st review process at . 1-iuntinglon tieach with public transportation (see sec•tio1l2.5,). facilities an_d jurrounding network of ptthlic streets (see Exhibit and 611). Xor :;. 1.2 Retail, dining, ellte'r'tat11111a('llt, and related nu•s (K` drawing front a rc:,jotm1 cu►Tu1u rc ial/mark; t area PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AND Wn1,KWA1'S POLICIES: shall he the primary intended awtivity w1111sn the• p►•o,jed are,,. ,1.2.1 Individual developments and activity areas within the specific plan area shall be linked through a 3.2 PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AND WAi KWAY'S series of pedestrian walkways which culminate in an interconnected system of pedestrian plazas creating a The Crossings at iuntington Beach Master flan variety of open spaces. identifies ol-en space areas which can acconantodale ;3.2.2 A pedestrian walkway system will link or outdox-ir commercial activities, seax�nal recreation and entertainment activities, and casautl pedrtitr•iaan connect all future developl�lcrat pads to the central ntcelirtg places. 'These pedestr•iarl plar:s� hecortte the portion of the Crossings al Flur�tin,�ton Beach. cent-al focus of a number of commercial nodes 1witJtin the project area. In addition to the major• plaza areas, .L.:; all pedestrian walkways shall be designed and Ihcre are .t m►mber of entry nodes which serve as the landscaped consistent with the overall Theme of the interfacing links between the vehicular and the Crossings al lltantingion Beach. pedestrian ar•rts. 3.2.4 Pedestrian walkways as shown on uhibit and The clustering of' open space plazas are connected 613 shall be incorporated on the La dsca.& and through pedestrian walkways. These walkways also Technical Site Flans and shall comply with American serve as a link helwccn the var•iely of Village Disabilities Act requirements. The Walkways shall Coln tile rcial facilities .and the hnt►•y Plaza, the village include shade trees, seating every 200 feet, decorative pavers,and li,&hting (see cross section on page 41). The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 34 June 7, 2000 -- -�.. -------- ------------------------—--- - -- ....... . ......_------ _ I �' 1, '�:.;._..._..—I�•,!: I::IIi��,:��::1�-.. 'Ir JI(Xi• ',_ -.�. _. _� ." .. _. .t. � .`� ..e,�.._.�.',�c.a, I N'illffllil!Ti?i'ii;pl(Tf!iT^Tf1TItTTiTTY1T!TT[-�IIIU4 f_ C 'J H fill;I!lJ111 111.11llll!I111t1f3111U11111 •Ufao ff ',yam 't-' i ' j: •; 'I �+?43« 's. q� �, �ii �rrm4�t; '•w4dr ' 3�� ` j. , �1F I, --r--..r-._� .rl a ��� _ 0 !, ftl l f - 'I ! :!Ill 111 ltl "'•' •.:^:I I: II II�IIII I!!.�I::'�I;:I::1!I;!I!II!:I 1:1'li!� �t _............it I '' LDltli AVCNUF Lu 60 ' MM i ........ ... :. .... ... O Circulation Plan ---------- --- — Prropo ,d Ncw (..'c idcr Ave . Privew,lV f:�i�tirr ti ott -Kt III The Crossings at Huntiogton B(,,act( >t�ecil(c, f'11_lli ;5 June 7, 2000 1 �d{!411i!AVENUFi 1 '111rillI11111IfI(IIHiIffplllr111111111piUrill ��� ��lfl�4ff►f+Hff fl IiN�fNffTH l ,4 UNUR .I flDr—d k'm. �i, �ilSltilltl111iL!111:�1lllalllt!JlillL1_.'llll '` � �' i j j I ! ! [✓ : .'-.-_--- 0-1 .r -�u w i j 1,1 aaa n'" - _ ua r-- nns•xr mu'd'.I��:�� sy. .• j�",�I�s, 1' i � Zt 1 qV I�, I Iili �` : r ,f r .,If..sa cry c.i ». i �l_�v�'>•t,..l IYn•uu� - III r, : �;� i�i �.. 7 a'' � f ii I i ;;;:."•�:: j II i li I � � 1. I ' I 1 � 1 I �i .� ..:� 7 t �, 111i �I•` Ir �K4:� "?f� 1 f •{ r1A::.i.� I ' k '_ ""f .. fill.: : V I � ; .. :.. ._ .•..... 1�; _"' - Ii� LL)ING I:R AVLNI II (x�, i (. l Ic . I f icon Flan Exhibit 7A - t't•�������s��� ��t�t'_Rcttt��� The Crossings at Huntiligton f3cauh .'puciliu Plan 36 Junc> 7, 2000 j �( Rf1 I` I-' � ! ! �' SnN L)IECiO f KEEWAY 40� i' - C. W�:,�,'( I - - '""P"r"'419,°.teCRti�;:lerE): : k{IfLi4Sfd�ll1L11L1kI11YL1{.L{I21YL1RIt{{1}IA wall � I- ,.YTAI-n�.:, ,�"� t/t• /�t'�' :z � "SaTi' �G):",A�1 -I _ ��./�y . ��' ,Moos,:'.`., �'� � t fF:�t•,�.iY i�,� �r �'?;z�; "�"� 'i �'�� ' ✓�n�i • ' ; � T 'x� ,:ffi q 1 � we UA art j sit! I ,� AC)! W NMI 1 I EIDIN(,FR AVCNUI ! Circulaf.ion Flan -— ------..._... - - ----- -.._._------------------- Exhibit 7b' The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 37 ,June 7, 2000 ? �,- �- - .. .__...,_ (X� CFNFFN:'1VI•MIJF,r i ... �®) dOO7 j ul ! 1 � i)YIIII�III'll'lllllll11111111'lllil!III!If'llllilll.,� '1j;1.•,II ...I �i I' XX all - F!I+'I�If!il Ifl;'1!II tj{i'!I�Ij{{{t��luulrM-' I I I n Ill, I' .• .,.:.: ": FTI11I�n�i a: � � /. SA�. I)IL�,r) II.[E�^d;11' -1O5 I I _ill'.t1;_1a1:l;1..LiL'!1;_L1Lili1'1LL1t11llL'lbsit � Y r� �: ' j jl � �/� ./ _• 1.fy,.,, f� " ..`";•,� .__.. ,' �' ..' �-"" ;rr' ��' �'���� � • ;i ,I _ .., .. . �jy'rr/;r ,,T.:.;1 1: 'C= 1.� � /✓; �� ���..,.,I�� � �\ �i -'-_- . , '.k;'''i. 'i.; ,I .��/. ,y�i" r1 j ,Y��n.m u.i 'roxa sr.�.1H✓,• d'-� Ij w � ;if�,r,-' i.:.! :�e, �/..c.r .,tr''v ;"l' ((��� ) n i i;i/%/i`.�;i'�• ��' l 14... ' . � r. j j �! ! !: � /!V_/ r•. /':i•�.'.., �� '�.. near.; i '•'' "� .. r:I� ' t S. !sir :I I • j Fj.)IN(.r!Z AVI NI IF ., . C11V elation Plan ------- --- --'-- - f 1 OIN-)SC',LI of f -K,'11111) The Crossings at r-lunli0(.'Orr E3000) SF)c.Cfic Plan 38 June 7, /000 1 L C'1RC l NATION MAN by a rturttbcr of si;�rtaliicd entry drives ;Ind public transportation facilitics (i;xhibil'' "mcl 710. Tile Cii_ctilatiorr Flnlr illustra!Cs flit; m;1Jor :rnd_mrnor- drivew av_entr allces to tlt_c ,Itch n_l�l/t(� I_ilic 1 e i:l Il?!1�� The circulation Flan relies on a hierarchy of bus stops and bus vads slipportin�tile �.i�� 101)1»��rrt Circulation features ratl;�in;5 from ntajol, arterials to '111d surrc�t�ndin�Z arc_is, and f}te_ ,til�lic-sfl'c�l syst�itr local streets. The system is dcsi�grred to acc•oitultociate - within fiie Specific flair bo uridar.jcs. Tile ('ix_'clil;ttioll cr)slonter, employee, ;utd delivery Irrtffic to atld Elan is consistent with the Ilu11t111y1��11 IicYlcat Gc�uc►_al around the project area while discotlra" illy, t}trott;�}1 -. . .. ---- - —- Plan's c.:irc111"Itiorr_ Fleflictlf and tl)cI'diriyer Averitrc traffic from hisceting the project site. I'rccisc I'I m of_st'cct All"'I iirclll. _ _. In order to efficicnlly fucilifatc new development on- Primary access to the City of I1u111in<;ton ltcuc_h artd site, primary :recess will be from inferior drive ;tisics. the Crossings at Ilmili►igton Beach is provided by Direct access from ad,jac:cnf arterials will be subject to Interstate 4n (tiara Dic�o Freeway). The c'itv's General review an p ii al of file Director of Public Works. Plan desi,gnales the intersection of peach Boulevard Primary access locations into file project area will be . and k:din,, cr Avenue as an infernal mode and a prim:I-y located and designed to provide fall turnip entry node to the City. Access to flee pro.jecl site is movements. The locations rclate to cxisting driveways provided by a System of at'fcrial hi�{hways i1whi limo: and ntediart designs, and are 3111icipated to adequately serve the projected t'atTic vohnncs for the project area. • i;cach l;oulcv:trd, :t north-soufh principal :rrlari;rl Specific future development proposals pray require slreef fool ri ;l►I of way), cicsi;:rr;lted ,Is ;r stafc modifications to these anticipated access locations. Iri�ltw:ty, ;t prirnnry p:tfh/inur�;e corridor, rnujor urb;m scenic c'or'riclor, and fr;tnsit service route. Alternative forms of' t'artsporlatic?►t should also receive careful consideration. The cm-rend OCTA bus -route • i'dinoer Avenue, ;m cusl \vest major arterial st'c c l passes the project area on Avemtc ;md Ceutcr (I2o fool w;lv), dc:;i, natcd ;is ;I frock rotrlc, Avenue. The prollecl CiI,(,I11:111o►I I'lar► identifies pr'irtlary path/ilna;�c corridor, uncl miner tub:rr, cxisfim� and proposed btrs turnout locctliorls along scenic corridor and Irrtnsif service route. lk in(�er nventte and (-'enter nventrc. As n supplentcnt to vehic:idar access to 1}1e project area; potential future • Center Avenuc, an cast-Nmest secomiar'y ir1crial street access such as a li�'Zhf rail system ;and stop shall be (80 root ri;tilit-of-way), d'csi";rtafM ;ts� .a fr;resit pursued if av;tilablc, from the existin ,. rail line on the service route. wesfcr'n houndary Of'.11tc site. httcrn;.tl circulation is ctn'rcntly provided by a network h1 addition, the Developrncnt Concept cnr0trra1scs the . of' priv:tic drives/streets servin,y ns access to individtr:tl creation of a Pedestrian w:dkw,ty system. As a means portions of the project ;urea. Circulation is ftlrlhc r of acllicvifv� a stroll'~ I:utdscape ima;�c, pedesirian walkways a'rc rcqui-C.d and Shull be provided throt.r��hout the development to fncililnle pedestrian The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 39 June 7. ?000 4 rl'llc• Crossill"'s a1 I ltilllin";lotl I34"'Ic l is rlividerl illf" scvcr;ll tmiallle sp�ac cs. r611C it.11iall Vill"lge settill, will ITc� carried hill throll, It clistirlclive arcllitrc 111- Il afa si,�ll c'ta•Itl,•llts irla hlllill,l, lowers' i10rnCN, atltl tlrcl►cs, cobblcstoi-ic streets and walks, water fealures arld site a111Ct1111es Illat refle('1 Il1C c11110111 and 11tlt-11wllla,ll.s llfa^avic (-)f' all Italiall Vlllagc. A wide (vicir palefle with coilfrzistli1,g occc i Clellicills will c rCatc tl lively f(')' VINHOI-s tc) III-c C,rosslll;tis of I llitlllil,{kill Beach. (Scc sec hail 4.5. ). Ale, C.FNTFR A\lr jijF 1, =— ubI' i, Ph' '�. Ar I I T . : cot ion- :,.Public,Ag"{ r i I )l,dtl it --•`1"- 'f 4:c:7 S'.M tY�:I It.U. r�marl"inv ssa' l . Pub _rt; t'`r f le'bt„ ..tc Colonnade Courtyard Villa-' ge Strada Village � s co i 11 (.ER AVCNt I[ Common Area. Locations Exhibit 8A The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 51 June 7, 2000 I IN 11 H AVr Nl)r' (1rHTlTii(i'1!1T(1(II'III'�ICilTlil(�1fGTr�T1rllli1';i " � � ' � - H �#Tiii�ili' Fl. �HlUlail!11Ui;'�i J.--It! IJI''ll!;1'(4 /i 1 - Public Art_j � Plaza Entry Plaza Pedestrian I \ Public Artyx ' l.•"J / �:���11 5 � Y.y 1 y� 1 /f/� 'rL_luY' �I .. <. �."'�i :..z '/i r // �f, ';'/. � a�w ici f✓ iz�si i..I' W r. Colonnade ;.Courty2irtl `= Village Strada' d..i,%'%,a�:,' m �oZY 17 ( 1 # villa i a`"e"RetailLLI I. �; I .,; � I y r�l+cci1� .l •I at.,l.l,,,;.. _T-":.1"'_! ',� '�1�� ! Cfl i I .� �, 1 , � � Alin pf•? l'ku SX w4�Y ICI? ..I'...�I L. ..ili �. II 1 EI)INGER AVI:7�IUf: Cornn2on At,cLt Loc tiorls Exhibit Sh The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 52 June 7, 2000 (A7, JA Thc [Tjz;l (L)I. TOwti S(3LIJY,(:) I,; III(: (,I' 111r. 11mliall VIIN:;,r, If t-rc-.alc-.N the kwcground k- Ific flicat-cr cory and is the k,enlral pt(1(-:,;vi:III .I(.( 1-'>% (1-offf III(- Strichi, am I Ow S,101i :t i ic I Norl If I),I, ;jit(, Ow Accciticd I i-' A'14f.. v"aftj- fcaluvc'l- and Aw ar-clwo' ctilry :wd dovic of OW I,, dw hut; kA, tilt "O;2jor- d1cmpi cwi'�qq;; wc)-v hVY ,at ItA;.im Arclok:.*C!� SUC)i as Pi.wi.i.filt, aikJ 01:11 in ('odcrt it) file Bea,11. 111C dowc,JW I I 'd v':I I idows.ch xm,wav::' ral I mnsage-w-'w", j I l'i f1c.orativ": Slat(,.- '!I CI JI-ld CLIV!• !t 10;:0 Jl'ZS a I Z' of rmfi!Ion a I I taliai A v.-hilec I it rt. E. 'IT IF, CCM IKFTA RD AND COLONMADE 011(,(-- pall the iffcbed entry to H-w theater,the Courtyard expands to pivvidc smalleY-3hops iind nwrchwil,;aloe-I' wills kk)sk.,Lmd 111C L111CIPn:� arra for the flicaler. Beyond the domed theater entry is, the crarjuct, tv the Colotinadc, "Aich dw rr(All t"KI*W-rienix I v !hc Visitor '111C condfilvition of 11!o ItAliall Villa tll�lfnc will follow 01C C.,owly,tr(I 11f1d ("A"111"adc 'wI411 Jfic-vs of 1111d Se4i.1111f, lrcv-"Imid In JI(Alit I I.t. WUI:11V l I',; 01O!J I'!0f-C'M.0 the C-akisings at Hurayrigton Specific Ju 11(2 7. 2000 3 :•.i.�tn Nl'��' Sfc11'CS all(} '1�}lc',1tC1's ;�.).4 AN,(A I1'1'f C'l'[lRA1, CAL t[[?f:f,1N}:S Impletllclltatloil of the Specific Platt will X1:I1Iy of, Illy eIcIllent.s of file C vosi 61'gls :if I Illnlill 'Jon gellel'ale C011MI-11Cf1011 01 1lunterolls new in-line retail beach ,In lIfeclnre I f1ccf 1I1;11 of :III W111arl Vill:r:;e and anchor stores and will likely include a multi- livin;s envirotlmc•r11. The Archifccfurd c;mdclinrs .1rc screen rllovie ttlealer. Dcsi,{n and sifc layout of arly inlcndcd to esi:lbllsh :I c•haracfcF ., style :Intl (111:.11ity Iol ly 11ro1)oscd sirtictures shall conl111y with file c,lc•ll ,IrchitCCftn•al cnlc;tiorv. 'I'l1r ( afegc rics JIV: followill'g policies. Ncw Anc}lor Stores anti 'Theaters NEW ANCHOR STORES AND Tl• EAl"ERS Genct-A Tenant Storefronts k;zisfin ti -1:rjor I l( 11:n 1lllelli Stores and Villa:Ic Retail POLICIES: • I N C(- v OC ( c,f— "' f IA. I I;t.11lcilll massing and a lictllallC�l1 Shall ,..�. 'I'lte descril,fion elf, these ;.;1lidclines is not inlen(1ed h1 � `� discoura,4c individual innov:diem and civafivity, brll to possess a balance in form and composition; large simply 1)rovidc a I'rmu work within which an ovcl•all flaf tmarticu1,11M bllilding elevations shall 1101 be sense of {,{ace will he r Illf'orccd. Buildill:z (Icsi "ll s11:111 I)ermiffcd. The large 111ancs of, the fhcater and conll,ly with file follmvin;', archilecfllr:ll 1lolic'ies. major 1e11,111t walls Should he enhanced with lrlflerlls and gral-)hie:s consislcnf with the overall design theme of file Cetltcr. Y 7 ?r, r .,of c Z`� .� re9 _..� ..� m.• .�x•;4•e - -n •1 �:... r T ��' II1 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 60 June 7, 2000 3 5.412 Existing Major Deradmeril 'Sstorcs and Vilki"(- I Coffirilete fitcade I m rrvve I tic ri Us of -all Retail t-cnriainity& bgtluin s shall cx:cor if CX renovations,or, reuowl FLICA*k)n to all rt _"he 1 r)re'A't:In t,[It '111c Cxi i i ac ar- viorxm-,J. Al: J. St L),jr1ment Mores it-<, sh-Al suh;,-ut Ic wjk Olc-� 1CAIfiC A-1cr IN Wirlit n ct)al I'Ackvv, and MouNount yyj Ward 01c Silla t.j I k.I trii. luAcs III,, OM Sidt, A nd-Nob��, Cimlit. Di ,_i and jn line 4 C. The facadc It'll �l 1rn is with the ltall.'111 �_e r,(-vA3hzutioI1,-- W1d m-W construcion flcsj:4n Giiii-Ichoes W01 an Italian villiv theiric 11-ti-ow?hout the G3 acrc -)rc tlkc Collowiny, rolicics flial; Eh Nah ccl to the :rc ma i d Anil thc. Vj LL� c if Ili, Ct'OSNIIIY'e at 11LA1111nXiOn Rctaill center at th': time Ill bI ld* j( 10. pLrtL1A y� mann ,c!m-:11 ill),] Ow Clivof i1millry.till -yi Buildin", tn'ttcr -11" alld (viors Si:all FXISTING MA OK DITARTM F k4OKC AN] LTV., brat not tv^Ir-icicd bv, tf)A:, Hppfi,�ved CkIlTIFIlOn VILI.AGE RETMI. POHCIL,�: Ama ItilclIc. National Yvisil and m (.-O]Ors will atLso be. or.sklcvcrd. 7 L F-T- -T- -T i 4- ---------------- U The HuidktQtori Bead; Speu,,'ic Plai) 65 , urie 7, 2000 E Lk LQ i II� � ! �i ��� � 'f1 � "'� .tom � aj. �J. .� 4,. :.J' � •.IJJJ i�!� J !j�^� �� 'l ;i, , i:� I' i i � `� `� `./ L'1 � 'J '� 'J 'r ;:! '11 ,,�d�•�R iJ � ��.. ;� I 6i ICI" ry� � P ,�.. �' ,*�; d ,.�iV•_..i"'✓�:.�d'�=.TF.a,�y �, I' � �"W , ',r`x �`. "' .< ..r �, .�,S,st• �.�1+�.. ,fir �, 4i If {t� .-' „7 '.[... � © li 1 :, dA•� ;j;� � .� �, -r ""� j `IY PP,� yTj �`•E�?d�{ � � p� i '®" �'' °�' - }ji� r`j.3' � � °�:Y �i � � u �.�'- ,J '� �• •� S' �z;' 4}i' cry rj' '4':i Pr,J' 4'l' � '� , QJ RAVEN1,j('- 7-- �t (..,ancisc,,ipc Concept Plan I' 000, }:x}lif:�i1 1 1 A The Crossings at t-tuntingtvri Beach Spocitic Flan 66 June 7, 2000 --- --- -- - — -- ---- ------ ---- --------- �- ..... .. ._ . ...CTNTiR AVENUE% _ - - i, ,r � I!I i I' i � '�:i;�%-_ ./:::,. .�jr'' .r �'" ° - •ar:n• i� lLy�.��ikk11 �?"e•� �,.�' _• I The Crossings at HootioY too Lk,:,ch Sp(,c:itic Plum 67 June 7, 2000 ISSUE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Mll1iIIIUlll'.ITo'ccI Arc,,i ....... milliIIIIIIII Lot Size (A(') None Alillifillim Lot None ---------- NlaxiIIIIIIII I fcj,(r,Ilt 75 fCCI Maximmil Nimil-wr of Stork:: I storics Maximum Addifioti.,d IIci,,,,hI for parapct w;I11's, owch;I111'';11 15 feel Cc.IIli I)IIICIII., collillitillicMioll �,Illlcllruls,etc. Maximum Architcchlrad 120 fcef M"Ixil-1111111 I'M Covcra',tiC 50'Yo Al.iximmu floor Area RMlo 0.5 Minimum Scthack Street side (Fdjn,,,cr Avc., K;wh Blvd. and Ccntcr Av�'.) 50 feet, or 25 feet if setback is fully Lindsc.,q)cd Interior side (West ProP.(,ONI Lilic) ....... I OJCC I 8% of total site; joyo of common 111,C11 Minimum Pci-Mictcr Sh-CCI side Wdirl�Cj' AVC., Blvd. :111,1 Ccwcl- Avc.) 10 I'CCt Interior side (West Proj-� Iy Line) 5 feet minimum Stamdm-d P,,tvkinl,� Stdl Sine x 18 I'c c t j\1immmu Comp�icl I%ii kM',,,, Sl:dl Size (S 1'(,c I x I?S fret Mlimmim PrIvc Aisle VVidih 25 feet for 90 si"Ills Alminitim Rc(Imrcd Sluircd kiscd iipoii .jomt iisc ;m,,dysis \vllll SlIC Pkm Rcvi(,\v M"I'milmill Colllpawt Sp;i(-V.,; 20"% of total sp;lccs ...................... Ullil'OtIll 111111(hlllti JIld Till Stnicturc I)csj,(,,,ii will] Zollill".", mid sithdivislo)l OrdillMICC I'liblic AIIICI minillitilli OfSix public '1111CIIIIICS I'C(IIH At Ic;tsf 1"70 PLINiC 11.1 CIC111clil's mid Iwo ('0111)'11011 ;I1,CJ Wil-clk""s COPIIIIIII-IiC:Hloll Comply with zollili'; "llid stil-Olvisioll 01-ClIll"HICC 111SI)OOLItIoll I)CIII'llid C onlifly with Zonis"', and Sill-division Ordilmlice Pmlldlw,s cxcecdill" fiCh, (5 I'Ccl ill llci�jll S11:111 h)crc'ls'(' 111C ";c k - ( 1 b y i --(!.) I'vt fw c:lch ()IIC ( I) Coo I,o C hilildill" lici-Ill f1l't Iccl. C r(l-,L kCL- (FX Dcvelopi-ricyit. Reoulations Chart Exhibit 14- The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 80 June 7, 2000 • I!.:p for vaiuc` v-big cvx" sl;res. ift"a IS W-L-�4- Inowledge-based retail and entertaPiment- fbrftta4dn retail USC3:anI P"*? • Ilion silks t:-x producing bu<mcsseE. Cjvmir;vyjt Htwliggtov :h S W scekv to 4-.,Jplai.e "WeIv �.MVIV-tjj w!rw tor jvid e -0 Com-ruemal de mck-piner-i -vider vi m Uri! e.� r Ald;'riovalli-, the Ian prv!iie., t, -x a trge vi �7mplqpner oyIf , yt prc SeMee fir.kL 'A-UJ vusmxW i4e empLyce 1mve. ffft,,, commumtv. Ke,'ir A)-xviv. 4.0 Vvve;*opmer?4 XtjrYdr&i Ji)r a FD,2.2.4 Incoi4rajou tlhe ex amor of 01t: 14j1}gc and- scrvicc3 prcvldW, in Ifunting-on r-,v-ac!i is Jc%;IIIr1modatethe eedsof all resid�-nl3in -Hufflingfon Beach and the market area. Hvrdr,,?tov ,vcoura,,,es Me :%lqunmim e.P.!Jzc- run,';,-C vomtv W-.svrl ind:7novurag.;1,Lv %7";al de v.nt unaia-,w expeuAled S;V�-itc iyyn 171-cr,XACS-It'ri, d M-rkge ;A�Vnlrnt opporteudlie.,: it pri,fix �kmd,'ivto.i md xr,ie f;eldn-ibu.4 binviev ovpvrIut7jNv"id 02111 v.?k;7ILjtrrNz.e of t;x commurt.1y. Reter k-A-aim- AO Armelopmvit StandanIs h�, penKtre4l T'"Comr-axe the evelopment ,y, a -big *�shop for value" busincsses, especial!Y along rdirgeT Avenue.1 - The C) s Hunt&,W Ion Bean Spwiflc Am encmr.Wa the exjumAm 3(the ragge tv- 8MV. RegiviiV .I L-011.1mr cA7-vd*d owitle-mevi 6. GROLV ill MAINA MMENT ELFAIENI the .�rrxth Management Element, adop-,ed in Apil 1992. is a pit-requisitt; to establish ard con'-inue eligibility to receiw monj0x'I.,,*,Anct'aIcI by the saki tax whdch was approved Iy Orange County vL*r., in Noven*er 'I`9eO,a4'Measurc M (Rcvm6d Tra- Wic hnpromment an"J Growth h13- nagement Ordinance)..Inic 100posc and in terif of the CAN-,%vth Management Element ii to establish goals, ivlicies and pe-,tVws that will prordot6 powth and development hased ..pen the Caty's ability w !:ro--IJ4c an adNuatc -,Irculaton system and public Facilities and GI-OWth NjVUZCjZUent h:ltlTtC11 are t0: 8!0 0 : IS /� i '.�I V�eT�T 1O0AdH:lGsewl jWnMM WWI MOpUtbf NI(teed 4"1"haft �= fl1, � � 199f 7 p.�G Oita'Tnitk MS Q I ':a }eLa�s t nawc Rm c ram•,-i^i�.fl.. t � I pl'11.`I�'>fi6��1!l(�:'1,;'::.�i•1''f �� p�, ,� ,�.t I`..�a'S1 1. � svi Dew MEWRY-, �� HCDNCwPInpl�TN1WSk71 ffm 4w, E(11 L on ir � ;I� l�/ �iwr`•-••�'J',' (�'J«i: '!il � ,'„ ��'� y'«Tnt�i�i.�,-•.� �� � 1 / l �.' .4-t." .71 U� i l nw' %''. ,{''.; ��ji' �%�"1 ayL!�l�r��'•.%i���.�y }:. J, -r t _ � •'EVIL,_ - '%k a 4tl '::;.�L+''-' '�, � i _ EN, BID F4h •? �-�' ° Em ��-�'��. '�.�tugow NOW all ti rA , IPJIVAY f �I R O i 11'IY :`I"r'i2K`i;;•. IYI'[ (;(',i PIPTww I Pk 2•r,.yPr;�.:, • A,rl I°'"PIP ik � 1IU!"VA,40•..rd;r" i1k41{'(III,7NI!•J^,I.R.III:11 !,P u1t'-1 t{lti, '!Iq dti,e',;nYfk, IY.:L4' �i�YVA I.6'M1 M•",I'n,:prI'.,ru •Ir rl.1,.i.. ,w ..,.o.. (lMt►Ivun.�•v.l•µ;C,l v,�ur,vk,,l:, ;, l LDa l lrlkle u$11,­,-r►r • ` tIJR I MK MI ;,lm.l,u�/ i11Vfr+ I,...,lIW 11w1?10 I(V• L. ..: r r t t._: h ;'• �~ +):�•'�hJ.E.!t,< :11".^in.1"Ti ,,�:�+, .,S(,,.., .��'`'4:. --.2 '` .J •-'. r � Y �i;�„j!<_ 1t- ''. • .'.ell •t 1. Y' cl; { �1Wb� S; A, A : v1N fNii;OfRFf1VAl' _ ,- !; mil' ~: •.. �"� E0b r/ twb ,i! J: Ewa J: t ,f r, •'r/l,�r. r '> r -- f:•IGC:.:J' tryy EL) .'`I�;.•' .u.i:u.,_.Jla�.�• �.:�:.: 1. ., r '' � t•' � 'r I 7 i r •i;, �,, .,m 1 v �' i E" ti. ir: ±•F: -.- `. ... .- �/J,�,1r�"i: r 'f; 51 Et EWb '` Aw 13[ ' ���_. v"' i 411 . •: '�. 'n:' ssl�w8 sir ��}tl I `._,' k :j . ., Fi17:2' ��� ,;: j•` _-t• ,- -- -iffl � '-"" - .j +f1J1,j j tit. '\'' �.t =�•a:'.�;�1.a_.;,•,(�.)...��-:•�I r. r;l !u i� :k.•. t� it .CUa� ..�� .i�l'S'• �' _. :�._ait[ ,��t'.'. ..E[)a�y ., �. .f:� .s: `�.. ,i 'CUa '-_- -a-t: %f ;y,.�r _�: . . x;Q,'d Jr. t ! '� •I-: �t= :_F, 4i -F ,F` K_ it •�"i `� - E4)�) IL CDINGEk .A-T1'tili I i EjNb�.. . EMir {FMr rt r cz a � ATTACHMENT 15 �;2�Y��. � • 20 •D o Conrad J. Moreno 15262 Stanford Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (H) 893-0485 June 20, 2000 Planning Commission Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Honorable Commission Members: Tonight your commission will be taking testimony from several interested parties regarding the reinvention of the Huntington Beach Mall located at the intersection of the 405 freeway, Beach Blvd and Edinger Avenue. When I first heard of the redevelopment project I spoke with City staff to get information regarding the project so that I could share some thoughts with the original development company regarding the consideration for a"live music"venue such as the once famous Huntington Beach landmark,The Golden Bear, on PCH at Main Street. The executive who responded to my correspondence remembered the Golden Bear and said they would keep the idea in mind. Now, I find that the project is under the auspices of a new company and that the "the intent is to establish a regional commercial type retail, restaurant, and entertainment complex, to enable the creation of an `Italian Village." I am certain that the marketing experts did all of the preliminary studies and polling of consumers looking for an upscale shopping and commerce center, however I have the following questions for your Commission to ponder: ♦ How does an"Italian Village"concept mesh with a community called Surf City? ♦ What was the reasoning behind the conclusion to use this theme in a.seemingly `.`All American community that has such a great diverse population? ♦ Has there been consideration for other themes that could be a greater attraction than the one chosen by the developers? ♦ Does the City Council, as well as the Planning Commission, have any further input, or opportunity to "change the theme" that has been outlined by City Staff? ♦ Has the developer.looked at the other successful commercial venues, such as the City Walk at Universal Studios, Main Place in Santa Ana,The Block of Orange,the recently completed Towne Center of Long Beach and The Promenade in Santa Monica? Planning Commission Page 2 If you note in the examples I provide of the regional commercial centers, there is no identification of an ethnic theme,which in my view"locks"in a concept that could stymie commercial growth or influence large segments of our community to seek entertainment and commerce at facilities designed to attract business with youthful and marketable businesses and products. An example of such a complex is that of The Block of Orange. I would suggest that the success of the Orange facility speaks for itself, and should be replicated if possible, but with a Surf City connotation. As a private citizen and a father of four daughters that appreciate good entertainment and a safe shopping environment, I ask that your Commission ponder the questions I have submitted and take the proper steps to recommend a high quality product for the City Council's consideration. Respectfully Submitted, eadd oreno c: Honorable City Council Members Director of Planning ATTACHMENT 16 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication ~ Planning Department TO: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning FROM: Tom Livengood, Planning CommissioneAr DATE: June 22, 2000 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 13- CROSSINGS The Planning Commission deleted Exhibits 4A and 4B (Project Description— Statistical Summary)by straw vote: I believe the attached revision of Exhibit 4B provides a better description of the overall site square footage. New and existing construction is combined. The revised summary provides more flexibility and provides some protection for the three (3) existing anchor stores. This is a request for you to review this and include in the staff report to the City Council. The 4A summary was not acceptable. Only 80,000 square feet was allowed for existing anchors. Mervyn's store is 80,000 square feet. The message, no room for Burlington or Wards. TL:kjl Attachment xc: Planning Commission Shirley Dettloff, City Council Member Scott Hess, Principal Planner Herb Fauland, Senior Planner Jane James, Associate Planner G-\KWVARD0C100WKIA028.doc ;S Recommended change by Commissioner Livegnood to combine two categories and delete "To be demolished" ....:..:.::.:... • Y. , .:..,...... ..n .tom... .....: �:�"3.:.. .........nYC.'C.: :.:..:.............................: .,:.::.::.....,.»,....:....'y.,:,,..�vo,.....:.: .35\.:::•, t»��'++\ l3. .nX. ��' rSG.,. ^ai�'.5.. u.,6:,bxi �.St.. c�3. R::k;C:63.ih '�rT t:+�.,:; ..t.'/x+.xv`n.5."� .� aR..S•�; ;C:` ra£:t q '+'�Yi. : ..w,t.. 3 :n`:vxCNv:.r,:r:.:�a>.:an.. ..;;.r��f nY:':..C:nn,.v0t:.,t.:").: 5� `.`m.'`�tS:J,t+•C" n,'t.a :.,x`�*>..,_.Theater 1002000 Anchors 1 5 000 386 488 Retail 3437556 Restaurants 7-7-7246 84 546 Addition to Strip Center 7 i 7900 177 800 SUBTOTAL 100,000 386,488 656,227 84,546 1 1,100,640 A n..lrGm 21�v C'Fr..n CM fa r .2-�ii-QtiA Resmuran RnnLn r�r2 /1r�Q SUBTOTAL c: •:a�^ �tY� , a. Note: Area Vtributions are approximate and may chanse as the project is developed Project Description (statistical summary combining new construction and existing to remain) Exhibit 4B GA KINWARDO00ML0028.doc ATTACHMENT 17 ........... . ......... _:: : ::::::::::::::::::::............::......::Ci o Huahn ton:Beach P a nu ::De .ar merit.::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::..:::.:.:::::.....:. • ..................::::::: :::.:::::::::::::::::.......::...... .:::::::::::. ::...::.:...:::....:........... ..... .............P.......................................... ...........,..... ............... g €€ . `- HOMNGTON BEACH ....... .. ............ ....::.:.... :.....:::.....:::::...... TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Jane James, Associate Planner DATE: June 13, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 00-01 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-02 (The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach PROPERTY OWNER: Multiple-The Ezralow Company, Montgomery Wards, and Southern California Edison LOCATION: 63 acres generally bounded by Beach Boulevard, Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue, and the Southern Pacific Railroad STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 request: - Amend zoning from CG(General Commercial) and CG-FP2 (General Commercial-Flood Plain) to Specific Plan No. 13 Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 request: - Establish zoning, development standards, site design, and architectural guidelines to govern future development and to require Regional Commercial uses at the 63 acre property Staffs Recommendation: Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 to establish Specific Plan No. 13 based upon the following: - Consistency with goals and policies of General Plan Land Use Element for Regional Commercial Specific Plan- allows for creation of a development compatible with and sensitive to the existing land uses in the project area. - Consistency with the goals and policies of the Economic Development Element- stimulate business opportunities within the City by allowing for and encouraging development consistent with the Specific Plan under an expedited entitlement process. Additionally, the Specific Plan provides for a range of employment opportunities in the professional, retail, service and entertainment fields, thus stimulating business opportunities and strengthening the employee base of the community. - Design standards and architectural guidelines consistent with the intent of Subarea 5A for the mall property and the Urban Design Element. HJV39 AIOI DMIbAWH 90,11IJ 3HI ZO-00 'oN IuauzpuQUIV IxaZ SutuoZ 10-00 'ON IuouzpuourV drys Ou* FMTiy ' At M tl0 • ' I •.•r.• ••rr.•.: ' ';i:•rr.}{{{{. ,{�r}Y{'Y%.�:ti'fi i:•.•ri rr•f f {.•'fi.•.r:;•}...'r,':.••: r. 1 r?:•},:%rti�r. d.•• r{},.;•:..rr f•r.•..•iti.;:.•r'},'r :•.•.•.;r.•.}•:.}•.,::.,•:f r.;} '•:�Syi+I;J6GYASC{n} •r: %•:.f.•:. r r:•}:•:•.•:•:•::•:;.• ••.{h{{%}•;.}rfr,.}� cl %ti.;. f... ,.•,r.•. v..%.• •ti iti✓j:•::.:•:•i:• 1 =P' +f::rr.%•:%:ii>sa��sc�• :a'>,'igr}:}•�dov�:•}x��c::•} �asc••• o ;fir{,.;. };.•%i:;::;:��:' •:o.Y:•'•:::;};{{•}:s.;;:;:;;{;.•::.{,•:}h' o n ••'f iti{;r.,'Y:: v•}: .;:;:r f{;:jy i:%'r'�''r':+'%::{.^'.}•:{�::'{ti;.}'';';:,;,;'{ r•� •+},••v:••{••{i}{✓.• %rv,:::•:}:•::i::{:;'iti?•:•••;•?�} }:•:�:•Y.•::•'�'•:•'r'r: -- r I � a ep r tt�mw. 4r vcutntmv r i �`� �` r r a.v. r ""'EERDA r r � crane: � warm sm Z��02Id � s ,m a ,) 4S - Infrastructure improvements (circulation, water, sewer, storm drainage, and communication facilities) necessary to accommodate future development of the site and in compliance with Circulation, Growth Management, Public Facilities and Public Services, and Utilities Elements of the General Plan. - Design and Architectural Guidelines stipulate implementation of an exciting, vibrant, and high- quality architectural style and design theme(Italian Village)for a future regional commercial shopping and entertainment complex. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Recommend approval of Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption (Attachment No. 1 and No. 5)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 with modifications (add drive through restaurant uses)with findings and suggested modifications" (Ezralow's Request) B. "Deny Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 with findings for denial." C. "Continue Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 represents a request to amend Sectional District Map No. 14-5-11 by changing the zoning map designations on the 63 acre site from General Commercial(CG) and General Commercial—Flood Plain(CG-FP2)to Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 pursuant to Chapter 247 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Specific Plan No. 13 is a request to master plan the 63 acre site by establishing the planning concept, design and architectural theme, development regulations, infrastructure needs and administrative procedures necessary to achieve an orderly and compatible Regional Commercial shopping complex. The specific plan shall implement the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. With the adoption of the specific plan, all future development consistent with the specific plan shall require analysis through the Site Plan Review process and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. Staff Report—6/13/00 2 (OOSR41) Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 represents a request to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by adding the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 pursuant to Chapter 247 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The specific plan shall be the zoning for the 63 acre site and include the development regulations, design and architectural guidelines, and administrative procedures to implement the general plan designation of Regional Commercial. The specific plan will render all existing development legal, non-conforming. The objectives of Specific Plan No. 13 are to require revitalization and improvement of the mall area and to facilitate development of a cohesive mix of regional commercial uses with a distinguishable character for the Huntington Beach mall site. The Specific Plan accomplishes this by establishing a planning concept, design theme, development regulations and administrative procedures necessary to achieve an orderly and compatible development of the project area. The Specific Plan development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's Zoning Code(Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist. Subsequent development plans, parcel maps, and other entitlement requests for the project area which are consistent with both the Specific Plan and City of Huntington Beach General Plan shall be subject to Site Plan Review procedures and approval by the Planning Director. The intent is to establish strict architectural and design guidelines to ensure the development of a high quality regional commercial shopping and entertainment center without impacting the City's circulation and infrastructure system. As applicant, the City and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach have indicated that the specific plan is necessary to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan, which designates the site as Regional Commercial and requires adoption of a specific plan prior to new development (Attachment No. 2). The specific plan implements the City's desire to create a regional commercial shopping center with an Italian Village architectural theme. Background: Huntington Center, the original name of the shopping mall complex, was built in the late 1960s. History indicates that the development was the first enclosed shopping mall to be constructed in Orange County and was very successful for a time. The property thrived through the 1970s and 1980s but became functionally obsolete in the early 1990s. The center began losing tenants in response to competition from newer centers in adjacent communities and began deteriorating soon after. Redevelopment Agency staff indicates that JC Penney left the Center in August of 1994 and Broadway closed its store in August of 1996. The replacement store for JC Penney(Burlington Coat Factory) only occupies two of three floors in the building and the Broadway building remains vacant. The City has seen its sales tax revenue from the site decline from over$1.5 million in 1990 to less that $850,000 in 1998. One of the existing anchors has seen its sales volume decline by 30% between 1994/95 and 1998/99. The gross assessed value of the site, which has dramatically driven down the Redevelopment Agency revenues, has declined from $94 million in 1993/94 to $45 million in 1999/00. In addition, there are property owner initiated assessed valuation appeals now pending. Staff Report-6/13/00 3 (00SR41) During the update of the General Plan in 1996, the City designated the property as Commercial Regional with a 0.5 Floor Area Ratio, a Specific Plan overlay, and a Mixed Use Overlay(CR-F2-SP-MU [F9]). The new General Plan Land Use designation required adoption of a specific plan for the property and also described design and development standards particular to the mall property. This specific plan is intended to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan for the subject property. ISSUES: Subiect Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Designations: LIICATIOh1 .... .._. .. _ LPLAiI SEGENESA .G.......L _ ....Subject Property: CR-F2-SP-MU(F9)- CG-FP2(General Huntington Center Regional Commercial-0.5 Commercial-Flood Plain) FAR-specific plan overlay- mixed use overlay North of Subject M-SP (Mixed Use-specific North Huntington Center Old World/One Pacific Property plan overlay) Specific Plan Plaza (across Center Ave.): East of Subject City of Westminster City of Westminster Vacant Property(across Beach Blvd.): South(across Edinger CR-F2-d(Regional CG-FP2 (General Retail Ave.) and West of Commercial-0.5 FAR- Commercial-Flood Plain) Subject Property: specific plan overlay) General Plan Conformance: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the 63 acre shopping mall project site as Regional Commercial (FAR 0.5) with a specific plan and a mixed use overlay. The proposed specific plan allows for development of the site with a variety of regional commercial type uses, such as general retail, restaurants, movie theaters, and entertainment oriented businesses. These uses and the development standards in the specific plan are consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. In addition, Specific Plan No. 13 addresses future infrastructure needs, such as circulation, water, sewer, storm drainage, and communication improvements necessary to accommodate future development of the site. The goals and policies of the Circulation and Public Facilities section of the Specific Plan therefore, complies with the Circulation, Growth Management, Public Facilities and Public Services, and Utilities Elements of the General Plan. An analysis of how Specific Plan No. 13 achieves consistency with the General Plan is included as Appendix B to the specific plan document(Attachment No. 9). The Consistency Analysis describes the goals and policies of the following General Plan elements: Land Use, Urban Design, Housing, Historical and Cultural Resources, Economic Development, Growth Management, Circulation, Public Facilities and Public Services, Recreation and Community Services, Utilities, Environmental Resources/Conservation, Air Quality, Coastal, Environmental Hazards, Noise, and Hazardous Materials. Staff Report-6/13/00 4 (OOSR41) Zonin,y Compliance: The City and Redevelopment Agency are pursuing zoning text and map amendments to amend the existing General Commercial (CG) and General Commercial—Flood Plain (CG-FP2) zoning designations to a Specific Plan (No. 13) zoning designation. Appropriate zoning modifications would be made to Sectional District Map No. 14-5-11 for the 63-acre site. The Specific Plan development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's Zoning Code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance). However, standards and/or criteria for development and activities not specifically addressed in the Specific Plan shall require referral to the current provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code. The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the proposed Specific Plan with the development standards of General Commercial: b CROSSII`1.- SECTION_ :ISSUE :.:<, ::;:<: GENERAI:cCOMMERCIAL, PROPOSE...:. GS... CODS PROVISIONS AT HUN'TIhTGTON :B EACH SPECIF>1 N 211.06 Lot Area Min. 10,000 s . ft. Min. 50 Acres Lot Width Min. 100 ft. None Setbacks (F) Side West P.L. Min. 10 ft. * Min. 10 ft (E) Street Side(Slater) Min. 50 ft. or 25 ft. if fully * Min. 50 ft. or 25 ft. if fully landscaped landscaped (F, G) Building Height Max. 50 ft. Max 75 ft. Architectural Features Max. 60 ft. Max. 120 ft. Floor Area Ratio Zoning Max. 1.5 Max. 0.5 General Plan Max. 0.5 No Change (H) Site Landscaping Min. 8 % of net site Min. 8 % of net provided at exterior/prkng lot plus Min. 10 % of common area (0) Building Design Distinct Design and Architectural Guidelines requires Italian Village theme 231.04.B Off-Street Parking- Varies per use(retail, Requires submittal of Shared Number restaurants, theaters, etc.) Parking Analysis to determine appropriate number of parking required Other Parking Structure Must comply with ZSO Staff Report—6/13/00 5 (00SR41) ... .......... . .. SECTION` ISSUE`'`::..: :!;* .:' GENERAL COMMERCIAL. PROPOSED CROSSINGS; CODE PROVISION S: AT HUNTINGTON B EACH SPECIFiC:P 232.08.C. Landscaping Imp. Min. 10 wide planters at Min. 10 ft. except Min. 5 ft. streetside property lines width along SPRR 230.78 Refuse Storage Required Required to be Integrated Public Amenities None Min. 6 Public Amenities consisting of at least 2 water features and 2 Public Art elements *Buildings exceeding fifty (50)feet in height shall increase the setback by one (1)foot for each one foot of building height above fifty (SO)feet. Environmental Status: Adoption or amendment of a Specific Plan constitutes a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Guidelines. In this case, since an EIR has been prepared for the City's adopted General Plan and the Specific Plan is included within the umbrella of the General Plan and associated Certified EIR, the specific plan does not require separate environmental review. The General Plan EIR anticipated approximately 1.4 million square feet of development on the subject property. Specific Plan No. 13 allows up to 1,100,640 square feet of development, which falls below the square footage considered in the General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan, therefore, is considered covered under the previously certified EIR. Subsequent development proposals, however, shall be subject to environmental review as mandated by CEQA Guidelines. Any applicable environmental mitigation measures, as specified in the future environmental analysis, will be included as conditions of approval on individual Site Plan Review applications. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: The project is located in the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, Huntington Center Commercial subarea. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach is co-applicant with the City for adoption of the Specific Plan. The Economic Development Department has reviewed the request and supports it because the Specific Plan implements the goals and policies of the Redevelopment Project by requiring revitalization, renovation, and reconstruction of the project area. During review of the Draft Specific Plan, Economic Development recommended language regarding conformity of existing buildings, expressed concern with unsightly communication antennas, recommended that no regular grocery markets be permitted, recommended that health clubs be removed from the list of permitted uses, and recommended that permanent auto sales and auto repair be disallowed as part of the Specific Plan. These issues have been addressed and included in the Draft Specific Plan. Staff Report—6/13/00 6 (00SR41) Design Review Board: The Design Review Board reviewed and analyzed the Specific Plan at a Special Meeting on June 1, 2000. After discussion regarding the overall development concept, implementation procedures, design guidelines, architectural quality, landscaping standards, permitted uses, and signage, the Design Review Board recommended approval of the Specific Plan to the Planning Commission with the following modifications. The modifications recommended by DRB have been included within the Specific Plan document and are indicated by section number in parenthesis after each comment below: ❑ Require the parking structure to be"safe, clean, and bright." (Section 4.3.9) ❑ Require 8% of net site area to be landscaped with landscaping. This landscaping shall be provided on the perimeter of the site and throughout the parking lot but not within the interior common area(Section 3.5.5.3) ❑ Require 10% of the interior mall common area to be landscaped with potted plants, vines, trees, "and in-ground planting areas (Section 3.5.3.6) ❑ Include policy that future development at the site shall be reflective of the architectural quality as depicted in the artist's renderings and graphic displays throughout the Specific Plan document (Section 3.5.4A.4). Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Police, Economic Development, and Building and Safety have reviewed the Specific Plan document to ensure the goals and policies for future development adequately address their respective concerns. Modifications recommended by each department have been included within the new zoning regulations. Public Works has addressed infrastructure needs, on-site and off-site circulation, water, sewer, and storm drain facilities, and has included comments to improve the overall readability and implementation of the Specific Plan goals and policies. The Fire Department's and Building and Safety's comments will be incorporated and implemented in association with an actual development proposal.. The Police Department has recommended numerous crime prevention strategies and implementation policies regarding design of the parking structure, public restrooms, landscaping, lighting, and building orientation, which have been included within the document. No conditions of approval have been applied to the Specific Plan document because no development is proposed at this time. As individual development proposals come forward for Site Plan Review, specific conditions of approval will be applied by various departments as deemed necessary. Staff Report—6/13/00 7 (OOSR41) Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on June 1, 2000, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 1,000 ft. radius (city policy) of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), tenants at the commercial center, applicant, attorneys representing Burlington Coat Factory and Montgomery Ward, and other interested parties. As of June 8, 2000 staff has received two letters regarding the proposed specific plan. One letter from The Ezralow Company expresses their desire to include drive-through restaurants as a permitted use within Specific Plan No. 13 (Attachment No. 3). This issue is further discussed in the Analysis section of this report. The second letter received is from Jonathan C. Curtis, representing Montgomery Ward, requesting a one month continuance of the Planning Commission public hearing (Attachment No. 4). Application.Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): June 8, 2000 Not Applicable (Legislative Action) ANALYSIS: The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 was prepared at the direction of City and Redevelopment Agency staff. The following analysis introduces and the main concepts and intent of specific plan and gives a general overview of the issues covered within the document. The Ezralow Company, the majority property owner within the 63 acre site, has communicated their concurrence with all aspects of the Specific Plan, except one issue. Ezralow objects to the staff recommendation that drive-through restaurant uses be prohibited at the site (Attachment No. 3). This issue is discussed further under Drive-through Restaurants below. Concept The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan has been prepared to achieve an orderly and compatible development of the 63 acre project area. The intent is to establish a regional commercial type retail, restaurant, and entertainment complex, to enable the creation of an"Italian Village" setting, and to achieve high quality in individual building design. In order to accomplish this, the Specific Plan includes Design/Architectural Guidelines to establish the character and style for the development of a regional commercial shopping center with buildings and streetscape that have a distinctive visual identity. The overall guidelines discuss architectural, landscape, and signing guidelines proposed for this area. Staff Report—6/13/00 8 (OOSR41) The Specific Plan also includes development regulations and standards that will be applied to future development projects within the Specific Plan area in order to achieve and maintain this cohesive, compatible design theme. The Specific Plan establishes the alignment and design of a circulation system and sets the framework for all public facilities and infrastructure necessary to facilitate a cohesive future development. The Specific Plan discusses infrastructure and public facilities necessary to adequately and efficiently support any and all anticipated land uses and activities. Staff believes that the Specific Plan policies and permitted uses will accomplish the intent to establish a regional commercial retail, restaurant, and entertainment complex. Development Regulations The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan incorporates provisions and regulations which differ from the traditional commercial zoning standards used in the remainder of the city. The first and primary concept is to create a"sense of place" through consistent and compatible design standards. Architectural theme and image regulations will be applied to future development proposals to create an Italian Village atmosphere. The Italian Village flavor will be repeated in a common landscape theme and reinforced with consistency in building orientation, design, and materials. Further regulations are proposed for signing, building materials, and uses in order to assure that the variety of individual components can be assembled in an overall compatible manner. The application of the regulations on future development proposals will result in a total development which will express a unique aesthetic theme. The Specific Plan has been drafted to trigger improvement, renovation, remodel, or reconstruction of the existing shopping center in compliance with the new regulations of the zoning document. { l .. Staff believes that the Specific Plan policies adequately requires creation of a unique"sense of place" as an Italian Village and a successful regional commercial shopping and entertainment complex. Amendments The Specific Plan is intended to be the city's regulatory standards for this portion of the community over the next twenty years. Therefore, anticipating a need for some flexibility in the document, a method for minor modifications to the text and content has been proposed. Minor modifications should be limited to items which clarify the intent of the Specific Plan. These additions and deletions should relate to the overall planning issues and should not be applied to individual development proposals. All other modifications will be considered major and will require the processing of a Zoning Text Amendment, subject to Planning Commission and City Council review and approval. Staff believes that the language in the Specific Plan adequately addresses future implementation of the zoning regulations. Staff Report-6/13/00 9 (OOSR41) Administration In an effort to better facilitate and expedite development within the Specific Plan area, the Site Plan Review process, as established within the Boeing Specific Plan, is proposed as a method of securing future project entitlements. Development which complies with the Specific Plan regulations will only be subject to a Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Director. If approved, the development project will be subject to no additional analysis or public review, except for appropriate environmental analysis as mandated by CEQA. In addition, the Director's actions are not subject to appeal, except by the applicant. The proposed process will provide the property owners an opportunity to market the property with a distinct competitive edge over similar sites in Orange County. This upfront planning effort and approach will significantly shorten the processing time required for a large scale commercial project which benefits the property owners, the Redevelopment Agency, and the economic base of the community. Staff believes the Administration policies and the Site Plan Review process will allow for efficient review of future development proposals consistent with the Design Guidelines while still requiring environmental analysis as mandated by CEQA. Planninm Commission Study Sessions As part of the review of the Specific Plan, two study sessions have been conducted with the Planning Commission on May 9, 2000 and May 30, 2000. The intent was to provide the Planning Commission and other interested parties with an early look at the proposed planning concept for the site and to begin reviewing the major issues. Although not mandatory by State law or the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, a courtesy notification of the May 30, 2000 study session was mailed to all parties listed in the Public Notification section of this report. A summary of the issues discussed by the Planning Commission is listed below. In addition, the Specific Plan attached to this report (Attachment No. 9) is a Legislative Draft version which depicts new or revised language (added after the May 22, 2000 document) as underlined text (Note: minor spelling, grammatical, and format changes have not been underlined). The Specific Plan page number for each of the following issues is indicated in parenthesis after each bullet point below: Summar oLMay 30. 2000 Study Session Discussion 1. Add Pedestrian Walkway cross-section(Page 40) 2. Clarify City acceptance and maintenance of water system from public right-of-way to meter(Page 42) 3. Clarify that"no ponding" may be satisfied by underground water storage(Page 44) 4. Consolidate Communication section and include fiber optics discussion (Page 46) 5. Add screening requirements for rear(street side) of Village Retail (Page 49) Staff Report—6/13/00 10 (OOSR41) 6. Increase to minimum of 6 public amenities consisting of at least 2 water features and 2 public art elements (Page 49) T. Add truck circulation policy to ensure safe and adequate truck maneuverability(Page 41) 8. Clarify"public safety features" to include fire hydrants as an example (Page 59) 9. Completely revise discussion of existing major department stores and Village Retail (Page 65 and Attachment No. 9 to this staff report) 10. Add tree removal and replacement discussion and requirements (Page 68) 11. Revise plant palette to reflect Italian Village theme (Page 70) 12. Add additional wall or fence material choices(Page 77) 13. Revise Permitted Uses chart (Page 78) 14. Add handicapped parking to Development Regulations (Page 80) 15. Clarify maximum building height proposed at 75 feet, not 65 feet (Page 80) 16. Add compact parking location discussion(Page 81) 17. Add landscaping requirements for perimeter and parking lot versus landscaping required within the interior common area (DRB comment) (Page 59 and 69) 18. Add policy to require architecture reflective of the quality of building colors, materials, and design as depicted in the artist's sample renderings and graphics throughout the document (DRB , comment) (Page 61) 19. Add standards to require safe and attractive parking structure design to match Italian Village architecture and landscape screening (DRB comment) (Page 82) 20. Drive-through restaurants (see discussion below) (Page 78) Drive-Through Restaurants The Ezralow Company has requested that drive-through restaurants be included as a permitted use within the Specific Plan (Attachment No. 3). However, staff believes that drive-throughs are not an appropriate use for this particular location and therefore, has not included the use within the new zoning regulations. Planning staff recommends the prohibition of drive-throughs from the mall property based on the following reasons: Staff Report—6/13/00 11 (OOSR41) ❑ The subject property is designated as an Entry Node, an Internal Node, a Primary Path/Image Corridor, and is part of the Edinger Commercial Corridor in the General Plan. A Node is defined as a conceptual anchor point for a community and is a significant focal point that acts as a center of movement and activity. The mall property is both an entry node that should function as a point of identity between Westminster and Huntington Beach and an internal node that should function as a focal point of high activity within the community. The General Plan states that Huntington Beach currently has weakly defined points of entry from surrounding communities and the San Diego Freeway. Staff believes that drive-through restaurants are not an appropriate use for the gateway and entry to the City of Huntington Beach. ❑ Drive-through restaurant operators are typically fast food restaurants that do not contribute to the Regional Commercial uses stipulated for this site by the General Plan land use designation. ❑ Drive-through restaurants are typically fast food operations that would detract from the high-quality, high-end uses and premium restaurants that are desired for the entry to the City. ❑ Drive-through restaurant operations are typically chain or franchise businesses which are normally unwilling to deviate from established corporate design, architectural style, color, and building materials and therefore will have difficulty complying with the overall Italian Village design guidelines dictated by the specific plan. ❑ Staff believes that drive-through restaurants and their typical architecture, type of food and beverages offered, and negative aspects of noise, visual aesthetics, and air quality impacts associated with vehicle queuing, will not positively contribute to the desired up-scale atmosphere for the mall property. ❑ The Ezralow Company indicates that a drive-through restaurant use allows acquisition of a long-term ground lease with Southern California Edison (SCE) and thus provide for a parking structure on the north side of the property. However, staff believes an alternative type of revenue generating use should be pursued so that the stated goal of a ground lease with SCE can be obtained. ❑ Although trendy and currently popular drive-through uses may be initially established, there is no guarantee that the actual restaurant will not be converted to a less desirable type restaurant in the future. Staff Report—6/13/00 12 (OOSR41) Legal Non-Conforming Uses Adoption of The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 will render the existing structures and some uses as legal non-conforming. The existing structures will not comply with the Design and Architectural Guidelines, which stipulate an Italian Village architecture, and the site itself will not comply with numerous landscaping and site design requirements. In addition, some uses, such as the Montgomery Ward Tires, Batteries, and Accessories will no longer be permitted uses within the specific plan boundaries. It is important to note that the intent of the specific plan is to generate revitalization, renovation; and reconstruction of the deteriorated property resulting in a new Regional Commercial shopping center. In order to address these non-conformities, staff is drafting an amortization policy to require upgrades and replacement of the non-conforming aspects of the property. The amortization language is anticipated to amend or supplement the current language regarding Existing Major Department Stores and Village Retail in Section 3.5.4C of the Specific Plan No. 13. A draft amortization schedule is attached for review and incorporation into the Draft Specific Plan (Attachment No. 8) for consideration at the public hearing. SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 for the following reasons: • The zoning map and text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which designates the site as Regional Commercial. The Specific Plan will allow for the creation of a development compatible with and sensitive to the existing land uses in the project area. • The zoning map and text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan. The Specific Plan will stimulate business opportunities within the City by allowing for and encouraging development consistent with the Specific Plan under an expedited entitlement process. Additionally, the Specific Plan provides for a range of employment opportunities in the professional, retail, service and entertainment fields, thus stimulating business opportunities and strengthening the employee base of the community. The Specific Plan identifies design standards and architectural guidelines consistent with the intent of Subarea 5A for the mall property and the Urban Design Element. • The Specific Plan identifies infrastructure improvements (circulation, water, sewer, storm drainage, and communication facilities) necessary to accommodate future development of the site and in compliance with Circulation, Growth Management, Public Facilities and Public Services, and Utilities Elements of the General Plan. • Design and Architectural Guidelines stipulate implementation of an exciting, vibrant, and high-quality architectural style and design theme (Italian Village) for a future regional commercial shopping and entertainment complex. Staff Report-6/13/00 13 (OOSR41) ATTACHMENTS: 2. Memo from Ray Silver, City Administrator and Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director, dated June 5, 2000 3. Letter from The Ezralow Company received and dated June 8, 2000 4. Letter from Jonathan C. Curtis, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter_&1-Hampton received and dated June 8, 2000 I P�esc�l���en XTs-- �fl� N� MWUA 111115 — ExisA-ing Zoning Map Ad � jkD� MMd 9. �6egislalive Dr-aft Gr-essings at Htinfington Beaeh Speeifie Plan No. 13 dated June 7, 2006 =d7receivqd Atne 9, 2000 (Not ftttaehed to staff report repredueed aq a separate doettment) — SH:HF:JJ:kjl i Staff Report—6/13/00 14 (OOSR41) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TO: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning FROM: Ray Silver, City Administrator/Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach .44P SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13—HUNTINGTON BEACH MALL PROPERTY DATE: June 5, 2000 As required by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, adoption of a Specific Plan is necessary to establish zoning and development standards for the 63 acre Huntington Center property. The Specific Plan allows the city to establish unique design and architectural guidelines to govern future development of the site. Adoption of the Specific Plan requires processing of a zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment. The Ezralow Company is the property owner of the majority of the site; while Montgomery ... Wards owns approximately 13 acres, and Southern California Edison Company retains ownership beneath the high tension wires on the north side of the property. Although an application for a zone change was submitted by the Ezralow Company on March 30, 2000, it is more appropriate for the city and the Redevelopment Agency to be designated as actual applicants for the proposal because the Specific Plan is a city-initiated project. Therefore, this memo and my signature, as City Administrator and Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, serve as application authorization for the processing of Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 (Specific Plan No. 13). Please update the Planning Department records to this effect. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning Commissioners David Biggs, Economic Development Director Gus Duran, Housing and Redevelopment Manager Scott Hess,Principal Planner Herb Fauland, Senior Planner Jane James, Associate Planner cgj►1_--ings\autnorizat;-, ATTACHMENT NO. .___2__ 20u0 4 °,ri TF r..�D'iJ CO:ur �ti�' P. 2 r THE23622 CALAYASAS ROAD,SUITE 100 a TT JT CALABASA;.CALIFORNIA 91302-1549 EZRA�tO�! TELEPHONE:818-21.3.3500 COMPANY FACSIMILE.- 616-223-3501 WRITER'S I.:RrcT DIAL NUMBER: VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL June 8,2000 City of Huntington Beach Planning Deparbment Jane M.James Associate Planner 2000 Main Street,Third Floor PO Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Fast Food Drir`e-ihrough Restaurants The Crossings at Huntington Beach Dear Jane, This letter is in response to the planning staffs recoaunemdation to not allow fast- food drive-through restaurants at The Crossings at Huntington Beach. I would like.to inform you and the Planning Commission of the reasons why the two proposed fast food restaurant sites are beneficial to the overall project: 1. The fast-food site that could be located undo-the Edison high Tension Power lines has been strategically placed in that location in order to acquire a long- term ground lease(30 to 40 years) with Southern California Edison Company. The only type of tenant that has been willing to be placed in this difficult location in order to acquire this lease is a fast-food rest.aarant. This lease will cover the entire easement located within the project a:ez The majority of the lease area is a vital parldng including the parldng smxcture that could be located behind Mervyn's, Without this fast-food site,we would not be allowed to lease the area, but be limited to a revodable.parking' license... This license, would be a maximum 5-year term and need to be reaenred aficr each terns. Furthermore,Edison reserves the right to revoke the license with a 30 notice. As you can see,without this fast-food site, the posslbil-ty of loosing such a large amount of parking would be detrimental to the project and to the City of Huntington Beach. Additionally, it would be impossible to finance a multi- nlillion dollar parking structure without procurir-g a long-term ground lease. fiffACHMENTNO- .44= i:�4 p7P, .;,'� + �t,111 '3I:1'v ., P. 2. The planning staff has indicated that fast-food restaurants are not regidual in nature,and therefore,do not belong in a regional mall lo�:.ation. The second of the proposed fast-food restaurant sites ;s a concept known as "Krispy Kreme". "Krispy Kreme" is regional in nature and draws approximately 800,000 people per year from a 5 to 10 mile radius. Addition0y, "Krispy Kreme" draws people to the mall area during the early morning and late evening hours, which are typically low periods of activity for a regional-nall. If this type of use is not allowed at The Crossings at Huntington Beach, "Krispy Kreme" will be forced to move to a different 405 freeway accessible location. Thank yyoou, for your consideration, Scott Dinovrtz Authorized Agent 4.. ATTACHMENT NO. �?.. 06/08/2000 12:55 FAX S0 LOS ANGELES L0002/004 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER OI HAMPTON LLP w arr rose a.Jrar. wr,«[a:wr•I«Cau OrrC w OTC:SOrwa GOe«w..0«: ATTORNEYS AT LAW FORT'-EIGHTYI FLOOR 233 SOUTH HOVE STREET LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA 90071-I449 WRITERS DIRECT LINE TELEPHONE (2131 4520-1760 OUR FILE NUMBER (213)617-5565 FACSIMILE 4213)620-1396 100-92503 jcurtis@smrh.com June 8, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE and HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Mr. Gerald Chapman Re: City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Hearing on Tuesday, June 13, 2000/Agenda Item No. 3/Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-1/Zoning_Text Amendment No. 00-2 (The Crossings at Huntington Beach) l Honorable Planning Commission Members: We represent Montgomery Ward,LLC("Montgomery Ward"). We request that the above-referenced hearing on the proposed Specific Plan of The Crossings at Huntington Beach ("Speck Plan") for the Huntington Center be continued for a minimum of one month, without public comment or testimony, for the reasons specified below. Montgomery Ward requests this action to, among other things, allow time for Montgomery Ward to study the proposed Specific Plan. Montgomery Ward is interested in the potential renovation of its store and the entire Huntington Center. However, for whatever reason, neither the City of Huntington Beach ("Ci ►") nor Huntington Center Associates, LLC (or the Ezralow Company or any affiliate of the Ezralow Company; collectively hereinafter referred to as "Ezralow") contacted Montgomery Ward in connection with the development of the draft Specific Plan. It was only after Montgomery Ward received a request for proposal frorn-theRedevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach("Agency")that it had any knowledge that some type of"planning" for the Huntington Center must be in process. Montgomery Ward thereafter only found out about the draft Specific Plan after receiving documents from the City and the Agency in response to a Public Records Act request. These documents (including the draft Specific Plan) were received at or about the time that Montgomery L 0 S ANOCLES ■ ORANGE COUNTY ■ S A N 0 1 E G O B S A N F R A N C I S C O ATTACHMENT NO. 06/08/2000 12:56 FAX SHRH LOS A`GELES Z003/004 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON City of Huntington Beach June 8, 2000 Page 2 Ward received the official notice of this Planning Commission hearing on the Specific Plan. Certainly, this is insufficient notice and time for Montgomery Ward to study any proposed Specific Plan. Based upon a brief review of the current and prior drafts of the Specific Plan, Montgomery Ward also has serious concerns as to whether its store and automotive center are proposed to remain at the Huntington Center. This Planning Commission hearing also cannot be held at this time for viola- tion of Section 247.02 of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("Code"). Code Section 247.02 provides as follows: Amendments to the zoning provisions, standards or map may be initiated by motion of the City Council or Planning Commission,or any other person or agency. If property that is the subject of an application not initiated by the City is in more than one ownership,all the owners or their authorized agents shall join in filing the application. (Emphasis added.) Ezralow submitted an application to the City for the draft Specific Plan (zoning map and zone text amendment), and the application was signed by Ezralow but not by anyone else,including not by Montgomery Ward. Since Montgomery Ward owns in fee a substantial portion of the property covered by the proposed Specific Plan and did not sign the application, the application was improper and void under Code Section 247.02 and,thus, any hearing or other action thereon by the Planning Commission would also be improper. This violation of the City's Code and intentional exclusion of Montgomery Ward from the planning process is quite shocking given that (i) Montgomery Ward has operated its store and automotive facility at this location since approximately 1965, (ii) Montgomery Ward owns the fee interest in a substantial portion of the Huntington Center(the Montgomery Ward store, automotive center and related parking areas), and (iii) Montgomery Ward has easement rights over the balance of the Huntington Center pursuant to that certain Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement dated July 19, 1965. ATTACHMENT NO. q 2 06/08/20,00 12:56 FAX SHRH LOS AIVGELES WJVV4/VU9 SHEPPARD. MULLIN, RICHTER 6 HAMPTON LLo City of Huntington Beach June 8, 2000 Page 3 Assuming the economics of the renovation and remodeling are reasonable taking into account the requirements of the proposed Specific Plan, Montgomery Ward believes it is in a position to discuss with the City,the Agency and Ezralow the renovation and remodeling of its store and automotive center. However, additional time is needed to study the proposed Specific Platt and discuss the intent and requirements thereof prior to any public hearing. Please note that by merely requesting a continuance,Montgomery Ward does not waive any of its rights. If this Planning Commission hearing is not continued with respect to the Huntington Center, Montgomery Ward will not have an opportunity to have these discussions and, rather, it will be forced to object to the draft Specific Plan and take appropriate actions to protect its rights. Please let us know as soon as possible whether the Planning Commission hearing relating to the Huntington Center will be continued. zVe y y urs, Jonath C. Curtis for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER&HAMPTON mp LALCMC1\100\70169891.2 cc- Mayor David Garofalo Mr. Ray Silver Mr. Howard Zelefsky Mr. David C. Biggs Ms. Jane James Gail C. Hutton, Esquire Murray Q. Kane, Esquire Mr. Douglas Gray Mr. Spencer H. Heine Mr. Loren H. Hohman Corey E. Light, Esquire l ATTACHMENT NO.�; ATTACHMENT 18 ................ .............. ....................... ........... ........ .............. ........... - LID")................................. ......... . .... ..............- -. ...... ..................O.................N... 14n� ... d........o.................F...........n.... .:.........v..k.R hE..i.i....... 1...a.:X..A:.4.0.;. n: WW ent .............. ­: . .; ::: ::;::. : . , ,:, ....................... ......................................... ........... ....... ................... .. ............. ............ .. ............................................... ..R ... ....... . ...... ... ........... . ........ .. .................... .. . ........................... ..............F H1 . ......... TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Jane James, Associate Planne DATE: June 20, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 00-01 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-02 (Continued from June 13, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting without opening the Public Hearing) (The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach PROPERTY OWNER: Multiple—The Ezralow Company, Montgomery Wards, and Southern California Edison LOCATION: 63 acres generally bounded by Beach Boulevard, Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue, and the Southern Pacific Railroad STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On June.13, 2000, the Planning Commission heard the staff presentation on the proposed Specific Plan No. 13 but continued the item to a Special Meeting without opening the public hearing. The Planning . Commission continued the request because they had received lengthy letters from attorneys representing Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory on the day of the hearing. The continuance allowed for the Planning Commission to review the communication and for staff to respond to the letters. The City Attorney responded to the letters verbally at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff concurs with the City Attorney's response. In particular, the Specific Plan process complied with the Public Notification requirements, the Specific Plan complies with the regulations mandated by CEQA, the Specific Plan complies with the General Plan, and the zoning map and zoning text amendments were initiated properly. The letter received from Montgomery Wards suggests numerous amendments they feel appropriate for the Specific Plan. In particular, Montgomery Wards suggests that conceptual site plans and floor plans should include the Wards building. Staff does not believe that Ward's suggested amendments are necessary because there is no development proposed as part of the Specific Plan. Wards may propose development on their property at any time and would be subject to compliance with whatever zoning regulations are in effect at the time development is proposed. The proposed amortization schedule does affect the Montgomery Wards buildings because the Tire Battery and Accessory use would be deemed a non- conforming use and the Wards department store building's architecture would not comply with the Italian Village design guidelines. This is also true of all the other structures on the 63 acre property with the exception of Romano's Macaroni Grill. All non-conforming uses shall be terminated and all non- conforming structures shall be made to comply with the required design theme through fagade remodel or new construction within three years of Specific Plan adoption. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Specific Plan No. 13 with findings and forward. the document to the City Council for adoption. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Recommend approval of Zoning Map Amendment No.,00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption(Attachment No. 1 and No. 5)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S)• The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 with modifications (add drive through restaurant uses)with findings and suggested modifications" (Ezralow's Request) B. "Deny Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 with findings for denial." C. "Continue Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly." ATTACHMENTS: -�.�s�ed- dimes€er, �T�va1 Nb� PC`�A�2� 2. Letter from Jonathan C. Curtis, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter&Hampton, received and dated June 13, 2000 3. Letter from Aviv L. Tuchman, Tuchman and Associates, received and dated June 12, 2000 4. Letter from Loren H. Hohman, Montgomery Wards, received and dated June 13, 2000 a r,. 2000 and meeeived Rme 9, 2000 (Nott-aftaehed to staff report available ffem Planning Depa.—..ent) `1 n SH:HF:JJ:kjl Staff Report—6/20/00 2 (OOSR41c) f SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP .L6.,,, 0".,,�,....—CPS—P,"«�o,.. Co,.aP-10 , R E C E I V E D _ ATTORNEYS AT LAW FORTY-EIGHTH FLOOR J!1 N 13 2000 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90071-1448 a WRITER'S DIRECT LINE TELEPHONE (213) 620-1780 Departmoent of PlUR aNlni B'kR (213) 617-5565 100-92503 FACSIMILE(213)'620-1398 jcurtis@smrh.com June 13, 2000 Planning Commission HAND DELIVERED City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Mr. Gerald Chapman Re: City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Hearing on Tuesday, June 13, 2000/Agenda Item No. B-3/Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-1/Zoning_Text Amendment No. 00-2 (The Crossings at Huntington Beach) Honorable Planning Commission Members: This Firm represents Montgomery Ward LLC("Montgomery Ward"),which is the owner of approximately 13.47 acres of real property (the "Montgomery Ward Pro a ") located in what is commonly known as the "Huntington Center Mall" ("Huntington Center"). Our client has requested our assistance in connection with the proposed approval by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") of the draft Specific Plan No. 13 (the "Specific Plan")which would govern future development of the Huntington Center. We requested by separate letter dated June 8, 2000 that this hearing on the proposed Specific Plan be continued for aminimum of one month,without public comment or testimony to, among other things, allow sufficient time for Montgomery Ward to study the proposed Specific Plan. Montgomery Ward is interested in the potential renovation of its store, -automotive center and the entire Huntington Center. However, for whatever reason,neither the City of Huntington Beach(the "City")nor the Redevelopment Agency of the City("Agengy")nor Huntington Center Associates, LLC,the Ezralow Company or any affiliate of the Ezralow Company (collectively hereinafter referred to as "HCA") contacted Montgomery Ward in connection with the development of the draft Specific Plan. It was only after Montgomery Ward received a request for proposal from the Agency that it had any knowledge that some type of"planning" for the Huntington Center must be in process. Montgomery Ward thereafter only found out about the draft Specific Plan after receiving documents from the City and the Agency in response to a Public Records Act _ request. These documents(including the draft Specific Plan)were received at or about the .XTAOKMENT NO ? ► _ L 0 S ANGELES ■ ORANGE COUNTY ■ S A N 0 1 E G 0 ■ S A N F R A N C I S C 0 - SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LAP Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach. June 13, 2000 Page 2 time that Montgomery Ward received the official notice of this Planning Commission hearing on the Specific Plan. The draft of the Specific Plan is also under a constant state of change, with new provisions and proposed changes, including with respect to amortization provisions for nonconforming uses and the remodel/renovation of nonconforming buildings. Certainly, this is insufficient notice and time for Montgomery Ward and other businesses to meaningfully study and consider any proposed Specific Plan. Based upon a brief review of the current and prior drafts of the Specific Plan, Montgomery Ward will submit directly to the Planning Commission preliminary comments on the current draft of the Specific Plan,but the information available concerning the true requirements and implementation of the Specific Plan is vague and inadequate to fully evaluate the Specific Plan. Based upon the foregoing, Montgomery Ward objects to the proposed Specific Plan on, among other things, the grounds specified below and requests that you require the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report("EIR")under the California Environmental Quality Act("CEOA"). SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS I. The Planning Commission Hearing Is in Violation of Municipal Code Sections 247.02 and 215.08. H. Proper Notice of this Planning Commission Hearing Has Not Been Given in Accordance With Municipal Code Section 248.02 and Government Code Section 65094. III. The Specific Plan Is Not in Compliance With the General Plan. IV. The Specific Plan Does Not Comply With State Law and Municipal Code Requirements for Specific Plans. V. The Specific Plan Constitutes Unlawful Discriminatory Spot Zoning. VI. The Specific Plan Violates Government Code Section 65852 Concerning Uniformity of Regulations and Violates Established Law Prohibiting Arbitrary Interference With Private Business. _ATTACHMENT NO. 2 .2. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP ' Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 3 VII. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Will Violate the California Environmental Quality Act; An Environmental Impact Report Must Be Prepared. A. The City Must Prepare and Certify an EIR for the Proposed Specific Plan. B. The Specific Plan Is a Project Under CEQA. C. The City and the Agency Must Undertake CEQA Review Before Proceeding With the Adoption of the Specific Plan. D. The Elements of Tiering Are Not Met. E. The City and the Agency Have Unlawfully"Split"the Project for Purposes of Environmental Review. C F. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Would Unlawfully Defer Environmental Review. G. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Will Result in an Unlawful Failure to Undertake a Cumulative Analysis of the Project's Environmental Impacts. VIII. Conclusion. I. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING IS IN VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 247.02 AND 215.08. This Planning Commission hearing should not be held at this time for violation of Sections 247.02 and 215.08 of the City's Municipal Code ("Code"). Code Section 247.02 provides as follows: "Amendments to the zoning provisions, standards or map may be initiated by motion of the City Council or Planning Commission, or any other person or agency. If property that is the subject of an application not initiated by the City is in more than one ownership, all the owners or their authorized agents shall join in filing the �. application." ATTACHMENT NO. 2_. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 4 Similarly, Code Section 215.08 provides as follows: "An amendment to reclassify property to a SP District may be initiated by a property owner or authorized agent, the Planning Commission, or the City Council. If the property is not under a single ownership, all owners shall join in the application, and a map showing the extent of ownerships shall be submitted with concept plans and materials." HCA submitted an application to the City for the draft Specific Plan(zoning map and zone text amendment), and the application was only signed by HCA,not by any other owner, including Montgomery Ward. As of last Friday, June 9, 2000, we learned that Ray Silver, City Administrator and Executive Director of the Agency, unilaterally declared by memorandum dated June 5, 2000 that the City and Agency were the "applicants," because it was a "city-initiated project." Given these events, it is now uncertain as to who is the true "applicant." . However, since Montgomery Ward owns in fee a substantial portion of the property covered by the proposed Specific Plan and did not sign the application, and since Mr. Silver is neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council, and since Mr. Silver has no authority to make application in his capacity as City Administrator (see Code Chapter 2.08) or otherwise, the application by HCA and action by Mr. Silver were both improper under Code Sections 247.02 and 215.08. Thus, the Planning Commission does not have jurisdiction and any hearing or other action thereon by the Planning Commission would be improper. IL PROPER NOTICE OF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 248.02 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65094. Code Section 248.02 requires,among other things,that the form of the notice for this Planning Commission hearing include "[a] general explanation of the matter to be considered, including a general description of the area affected . . ." Similarly, Government Code Section 65094 requires "a general explanation of the matter to be considered." �. Under the current circumstances,these notice provisions are being violated because the Specific Plan is not merely a specific plan specifying the location and density ATTACHMENT NO. 2•4 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 5 of uses and other matters typically contained in a specific plan (as provided in State law and discussed below), but other provisions of the Municipal Code are being amended or waived. For example, there are new provisions for nonconforming uses and structures (amortization requirements) without any notice whatsoever, including mentioning any amendment to Code Chapter 236; design review is not required for plans for the redevelopment of the Huntington Center as normally required for all other specific plan and redevelopment areas under Code Chapter 244 and many other provisions of the Code will no longer be applicable if the Specific Plan is adopted. Specific notice of these and other provisions should have been given rather than a complete lack of notification to the public with certain material provisions being added or proposed to be added to the draft Specific Plan or proposed in the staff report just a few days before the hearing. III. THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. The City's General Plan requires that"development be designed to account ( for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and in accordance with the Development "Overlay" Schedule (Table LU-3)." See Policy . LU 7.1.2. General Plan Policy LU 15.1.1 requires "the formulation, adoption, and implementation of Specific Plans for areas designated with a "Specific Plan Overlay" (-- SP)." The Huntington Center is designated with a Specific Plan Overlay. Table LU-4 of the General Plan specifies the land use category for the Huntington Center as"Commercial Regional (CR)." The Specific Plan does not comply with State law and the City's Code requirements for specific plans,as explained in Section IV below. As a result,the Specific Plan is not in compliance with the General Plan, and no major redevelopment of Huntington Center can occur until a proper specific plan is prepared and adopted by the City in accordance with the requirements of the General Plan. The "Commercial Regional (CR)" designation under the General Plan permits, among other things, anchor department stores and automobile sales facilities and similar region-serving uses. The Montgomery Ward store and automotive facility are integrated facilities, and there can be no dispute that Montgomery Ward is an anchor department store. Given the foregoing and also the consistency of automobile repair with region-serving uses and automobile sales, certainly Montgomery Ward's store and . automotive facilities are permitted and consistent with the General Plan. These facilities should be expressly permitted and depicted on the Specific Plan. We also note that permitting car stereo and alarm installation under the Specific Plan, but not permitting ATTACHMENT NO. 2•2 - SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP ' Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 6 Montgomery Ward's integrated store and automotive facilities, would be impermissible discriminatory zoning, as discussed in Section V below. IV. • THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOES NOT COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC PLANS. Section 6545l(a) of the California Government Code provides in relevant part as follows: "(a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: (1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. (2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. (3) Standards and criteriabywhich developmentwill proceed,and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and(3)." The Specific Plan does not meet these requirements of the Government Code because it does not specify in detail the distribution or location of any uses of land. Rather, the Specific Plan has two different"Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan" exhibits which specifically note the following: "This illustrative shows a hypothetical development scenario on the project site." The location and distribution of the uses and other essential facilities (including utilities and other infrastructure) are not specified (they are only "hypothetical") and are merely deferred to another day through potential future environmental review under CEQA and an improper site plan review process under Section 2.3 of the Specific Plan, which process is done solely by the Planning Director ATTACHMENT NO. 2.4 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP ' Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 7 without any requirement for public hearing or notice. This could result in any and all of the uses and other essential facilities permitted or required under the Specific Plan to be constructed anywhere, which is not consistent with Government Code Section 65451. By delegation to a future date of an essential element of a Specific Plan, as required by law, General Plan Implementation Program I-LU4 and Code Chapter 215 will also be violated by not having the Planning Commission and City Council consider the location and distribution of uses. Section 2.0 of the Specific Plan similarly violates this Implementation Program and Code Chapter 215 by allowing modifications of the Specific Plan by the Planning Director when determined by the Planning Director to be minor. By allowing this, all notice and hearing procedures under this and other Chapters of the Code are ignored and violated for amendments to the Specific Plan. In summary,the Specific Plan should be a tool to provide certainty regarding the location and distribution of future development in Huntington Center in compliance with State and local law. However, as currently proposed, the Specific Plan would create complete uncertainty regarding the development of the Huntington Center in violation of law and unlawfully delegate the authority to determine the location and distribution of land uses and essential facilities to the Planning Director. V. THE SPECIFIC PLAN CONSTITUTES UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY SPOT ZONING. Spot zoning occurs where a small parcel of property is restricted and given less rights that the surrounding property, thereby creating an "island" in the middle of a larger sea devoted to other uses. Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino 29 Cal.2d 332, 340 (1946). It can also occur where the zoning amendment may appear valid on its face, but the circumstances surrounding its adoption,the purpose of the amendment and its ultimate objective are found to be an unlawful exercise of the legislative power. G&D Holland Construction Co. v. City of Marysville, 12 Cal.App.3d 989, 996 (1970); See also, Arnel Development Co.v. City of Costa Mesa, 126 Cal.App.3d 330, 337(1981)["A City cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land and the courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance.] Here, in preparing the Specific Plan, the City and the Agency have unfairly discriminated against Montgomery Ward. The Specific Plan establishes planning concepts, design and architectural guidelines and other development standards for the Huntington .,ATTACHMENT NO. ?�? SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 8 Center. In so doing, the City and the Agency are proposing to unreasonably narrow the uses normally permitted in a commercial regional center, including, without limitation, Montgomery Ward's automotive center and other uses, but allow other automotive work to take place (car stereo and alarm installation). These restrictions essentially limit the rights of a property owner to develop the site in comparison to the rights of owners of surrounding property similarly situated, both on-site and off-site. See, e. ., Ross v. City of Yorba Linda, 1 Ca1.App.4th 954 (1991). Given the actions of the City and the Agency, it is apparent that the real motive behind the implementation of the Specific Plan is to attempt to remove Montgomery Ward and certain other businesses that are not desired by the City, the Agency or HCA from the.Huntington Center by making it improbable for Montgomery Ward to comply with the Specific Plan. This is discriminatory spot zoning and not a legitimate governmental purpose for which the City and the Agency can exercise their police power. VI. THE SPECIFIC PLAN VIOLATES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852 CONCERNING UNIFORMITY OF REGULATIONS AND VIOLATES ESTAB- LISHED LAW PROHIBITING ARBITRARY INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS. Government Code section 65852 governs the uniformity ofregulations within a particular zone by prohibiting unreasonable discrimination against particular properties within a similar zone classification. Section 65852 provides in-relevant part: "All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout each zone, but the regulation in one type of zone may differ from those in other types of zones." Cal. Gov. Code section 65852. The Specific Plan is in violation of Section 65852 in that, as noted above, it restricts the uses and manner of conducting the use (must be Italian theme) generally allowed in a regional commercial center including, without limitation, a retail store with an integrated automotive center. Moreover,the Specific Plan provides for amortization of alleged nonconforming uses (including building design) which have not been applied in other commercial retail centers throughout the City. ATTACHMENT NO.?S SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP ' Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 9 Furthermore, the Specific Plan is in violation of California case law in that by establishing very limited design and architectural requirements for the Huntington Center which must be implemented within three years, the City and the Agency are attempting to unlawfully restrict the type of businesses allowed to operate at the Huntington Center for the benefit of one adjacent property owner. "The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations." Lawton v. Steele. 152 U.S. 133, 137 (1804). See also O'Hagen v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 19 Cal.App.3d 151 (1971); McDonald's Systems of California. Inc.v. Board of Permit Appeals, 44 Ca1.App.3d 525, 548 (1975). The design and architectural guide- lines are being established to promote an"Italian"village atmosphere for the benefit of one adjacent property owner. The conceptual plans and rendering submitted to the City and the Agency do not include Montgomery Ward or other tenants currently on site. Basically, by imposing the planning concepts on the future development and/or rehabilitation of Huntington Center which are required to be implemented within a very short time period, the Specific Plan is imposing unusual and unnecessary restrictions for the purpose of unlawfully limiting Montgomery Ward's business on its own property. VII. THE ADOPTION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN WILL VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MUST BE PREPARED. A. The City Must Prepare and Certify an EIR for the Proposed Specific Plan. 1. Overview of CEO A. CEQA was enacted in response to the well- documented failure of state and local governmental agencies to consider fully the environmental implications of their actions. Selmi, The Judicial Development of the California Environmental Quality Act, 18 U.C.D.L. Rev. 197 (1984).1� The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that CEQA must be interpreted liberally"to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. The Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights I"), 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 (1988), quoting from Friends of Mammoth v. Board of SWervisors. 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 (1972). The Office of Planning and Research has promulgated guidelines to implement CEQA. 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines"). -ATTACHMENT NO. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 10 Two of the central purposes of CEQA are to inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project and to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. Guidelines §§ 15002(a) (1) and(2). The EIR is the heart of CEQA. Guidelines § 15003(a). As noted by the California Supreme Court, the EIR: "is the primary means of achieving the Legislature's considered declaration that it is the policy of this state to 'take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state.' (§ 21001, subd. (a).) ... Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees. [Citations]. The EIR process protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." Laurel Heights I, su r at 392.2' CEQA provides for a three-tiered environmental analysis. First, the lead agency determines whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. Guidelines§ 15061. If the lead agency concludes that the project is not exempt from CEQA, the lead agency then conducts an initial study to ascertain whether to prepare an EIR or a negative declaration in connection with the project. The lead agency may only adopt a "negative declaration" when the initial study concludes that"there is no substantial evidence ...that '-' An EIR serves "to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has in fact analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." No Oil,Inc.v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68, 86 (1974). An EIR also allows the public to "determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials,thus allowing for appropriate action on election day should a majority of the voters disagree." People v. County of Kern. 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 842 (1974). "The report ... may be viewed as an environmental'alarm bell'whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." Cou=of Invo v. Yorty, 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810 (1973). ATTACHMENT NO. 240 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON 4LP Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 11 the project may have a significant effect on the environment" and further CEQA review is unnecessary. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(1). CEQA applies only to "discretionary projects." Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(a) and (b)(1); Guidelines § 15268(a). A discretionary project is one which "requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations. Guidelines § 15357. 2. Fair Argument Test Requires an EIR. If the administrative record contains substantial evidence that any aspect of a project"may have a significant effect on the environment," the lead agency must prepare an EIR. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100; Guidelines §§ 15002(f)(1), 15063(b)(1) and 15064(a)(1).3' Put another way, ( "... if a Lead Agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. (No Oil. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Ca1.3d 68 (1974))." Guidelines § 15064(g)(1). (emphasis added). See also Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hay Ward, 106 Ca1.App.3d 988, 1002 (1980). A trial court is entitled to independently review an agency's determination that there was no evidence upon which a fair argument could be made that an EIR was required. As the court stated in Friends of"B" Street, supra: "if there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact,evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a Negative Declaration, because it could be 'fairly argued'that the project might have a significant environmental impact. Stated another way,if the Professor Selmi pointed out that one of the reasons that courts are permitted to closely examine CEQA decisions is that public agencies"are subject to political pressure to avoid the full EIR process" which is certainly the case here. Selmi, supra, at 227. ATTACHMENT NO. 2.11 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON .LLP Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 12 trial court perceives substantial evidence that the project might have such an impact, but the Agency failed to -secure preparation of the required EIR, the Agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed 'in a manner required by law'. (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5.)" 106 Cal.3d at 1002. (Emphasis added). Under the fair argument standard, deference to the lead agency's determin- ation is not appropriate and its decision not to require an EIR can be upheld "only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary." Sierra Club v. Count v of Sonoma, 6 Cal.AppAth 1307, 1317-18 (1992). The fair argument standard requires the reviewing court to employ "a certain degree of independent review of the record, rather than the typical substantial evidence standard which usually results in great deference being given to the factual determinations of the agency." Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas, 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1602 (1994). The Supreme Court has concluded that the interpretation of CEQA"which will afford the fullest possible protection to the environment is one which will impose a low thresholds requirement for preparation of an EIR." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, at 84. Given the magnitude of the proposed development under the Specific Plan and the anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts associated with demolition and construction, the Specific Plan is a"project" under CEQA that will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR, B. The Specific Plan Is a Project Under CEOA. Public Resources Code Section 21065 defines project as ."an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical activity which is directly undertaken by any public agency." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065; Guidelines § 15378(a); see also, Goleta Union School District v. Regents of the University of California, 37 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1030 (2d Dist. 1995). The enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances has been determined to be an activity undertaken by a public agency that are subject to CEQA. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea V. Board of Supervisors, 183 Ca1.App.3d 229(1986). Here, the Specific Plan is seeking an amendment to the zoning of the property from CG (General Commercial) and CG-FP2 ATTACHMENT NO. Z_..! . SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP y Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 13 (General Commercial - Flood Plain) to Specific Plan No. 13. Accordingly, the Specific Plan is a project for purposes of CEQA review. C. The City and the Agency Must Undertake CEQA Review Before Proceeding With the Adoption of the Specific Plan. Public agencies shall not undertake actions relating to a proposed public project that would have a significant adverse effect on the environment, or limit its choice of alterations or mitigation measures, before complying with CEQA. Guidelines § 15004(b)(2). Under this standard, agencies may not make a formal decision to proceed with use of a site without first completing the.CEQA review. In the instant case, should the City approve the Specific Plan,or the Agency take any action based thereon, it will be in violation of the aforementioned provision of CEQA. The Specific Plan establishes a master development plan including, without limitation, planning concepts, design and architectural guidelines and other development standards for the Huntington Center. There has been no review or analysis in accordance with CEQA of the impacts relating to,among other things, changes and limitations of uses, new permissible heights,utilities,traffic and circulation,and the effect of removing the site from the Flood Plain Overlay District. This and other analyses are all left to another day after the new standards under the Specific Plan are adopted. This will also preclude any consideration of alternatives. Moreover,once approved,any future development will only be subject to site plan review by the Planning Director,rather than a public hearing process before the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Furthermore, the Planning Director can even make amendments to the Specific Plan without any public notice or hearing if he determines they are "minor." Thus,by approving the Specific Plan before undertaking the appropriate and required environmental review,the City is essentially limiting its ability to have any further decision-making authority in connection with the future development of Huntington Center. This is in violation of CEQA and should not be allowed. D. The Elements of Tiering Are Not Met. Tiering is a process provided for by the Legislature in order to allow agencies to avoid repetitiveness,wasted time,and unnecessary premature speculation. See Cal.Pub. Res. Code §§ 21065, 21093(a); Guidelines § 15152. ATTACHMENT NO. 2-. 13 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON 1LP z Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 14 To qualify for the use of tiering, later projects must: (1)be consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance for which an EIR has been prepared and certified; (2)be consistent with applicable local land use plans and zoning of the city,county, or city and county in which the later project would be located; and(3) not trigger the need for a subsequent EIR or supplement to an EIR. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b). In addition, before deciding that tiering may be used with respect to a later project, the lead agency must prepare an "initial study or other analysis" to assist it in determining whether the project may cause any significant impacts not analyzed in a prior EIR. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21094(c); Guidelines § 15152(f). Here, the City and/or Agency have not prepared an initial study to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts of the Specific Plan. Accordingly, before the City can approve the Specific Plan, an initial study will have to be prepared. In fact, to date, there exists no complete or legally adequate environmental analysis of: (i)the proposed conceptual plans contemplated by the Specific Plan; (ii)the development of these specific acres or analysis of the proposed design and architectural guidelines;or(iii)a program of mitigation which if implemented would eliminate any and all potential for adverse environmental impacts. Thus, before any further action is taken on the Specific Plan,an initial study will have to be prepared and the proper environmental review under.CEQA must be performed. E. The City and the Agency Have Unlawfully "Split''-' the Project for Purposes of Environmental Review. As noted above, the term"project" has been broadly defined under CEQA. "Project"means"the whole of an action,which has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment,directly or indirectly. . . Guidelines § 15378(a). All phases of project planning, implementation and operation must be considered in the initial study for a project. Guidelines § 15063(a)(1). The term"project"refers to the activity which is being approved and which maybe be subject to several discretional approvals by governmental agencies. The term "project" does not mean each separate governmental approval. Guidelines § 15378(c). Under CEQA, a project must be fully analyzed in a single environmental document. An agency may not split a project into two or more segments with mutually exclusive environmental documents. Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo, 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 165 (1985). Similarly, an agency cannot ATTACHMENT NO. 2. t SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 15 overlook a project's cumulative impacts by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole. McQueen v. Board of Directors, 202 Ca1.App.3d 1136, 1144 (1988). In Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo, su r a county split a shopping center project into two segments, the first part consisting of general plan amendments and zoning classifications, and the second part involving a tentative map approval and road abandonment. The public agency prepared a separate negative declaration for each project segment. Because the project applicant had requested related discretionary approvals at different times, the county had failed to understand that it was dealing with a single project. The court overtured the negative declarations and the project approvals, holding that an agency cannot prepare mutually exclusive environmental documents for a single project. Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area, supra, at 165-67. The project description in a CEQA document must include: an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1)it is a reasonable foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and(2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects." Laurel Heights I, supra at 396. In Laurel Heights I, the Regents proposed the relocation of a biomedical research facility to a portion of a building located in the residential neighborhood. The EIR for the project failed to analyze the cumulative impacts of the anticipated full use of the building as a biomedical facility within a few years. The California Supreme Court rejected the Regent's argument that,because the proposed expansion had not been formally approved, the EIR's analysis could be limited to the project in its initial form. Evidence in the record indicated that, despite the lack of a formal approval, the Regent's ultimate plans were clear. Therefore,because the expansion was reasonably foreseeable, and was likely to change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects, the EIR should have discussed at least the general effects of the reasonably foreseeable future uses and the anticipated measures for mitigating those effects. Laurel Heights I, su r at 396-398. "The fact that precision may not be possible . . . does not mean that no analysis is required." Id. at 399. Another. case that illustrates this principle is Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, 88 Cal.App.3d 397(1979). In Whitman. an EIR was prepared in connection ATTACHMENT NO. 21- 157 r SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON I-LP Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 16 with an application to drill an exploratory oil and gas well, which omitted discussion of a contemplated pipeline if the well proved productive. The court found the EIR inadequate and explained that"[t]he record before us reflects that the construction of the pipeline was, from the very beginning within the contemplation of[the] overall plan for the project and could have been discussed in the EIR in at least general terms." Id. at 414-15. (Emphasis added.) Under the current circumstances, the Specific Plan suffers from the same problems that occurred in Laurel Heights I and Whitman. First,there has been absolutely no environmental analysis performed in connection with development requirements, permitted uses, location of uses and exemptions from City procedures and requirements and all other matters that are set forth in the Specific Plan. Second, any potential analysis, . actions and mitigation measures that may be associated with the actual development of the property are deferred to another day, which is an attempt like Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Ingo, su r to split the general plan and zoning classification i.e the Specific Plan)from subsequent required approvals(site plan review by the Planning Director, etc.). This is an egregious violation under the current circumstances because of the attempt of the City and the Agency to say that the Specific Plan was covered by a very general General Plan EIR. As a result, in accordance with CEQA, the City and the Agency need to properly prepare an EIR or other environmental document under CEQA prior to the approval of the Specific Plan. F. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Would Unlawfully Defer Environmental Review. CEQArequires that environmental review and the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures occur at the earliest feasible state in the planning process. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21003.1. CEQA also provides.that any proposed negative declaration should only be prepared for a project when "revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to. a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. . . ." Cal.Pub.Res.Code§21080(c)(2). The case of Sundstrom v.County of Mendocino,202 Ca1.App.3 d 296(1988), illustrates these principles. In Sundstrom, the public agency approved a use permit for a motel and restaurant that included a private sewage treatment plant. The initial study did not analyze the environmental impacts of the treatment plant,but instead required that the ATTACHMENT NO. 2.1 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 17 developer prepare a hydrological study after the approval of the negative declaration. The study was to provide a basis for establishing additional mitigation measures for the project. The court held that the public agency violated CEQA by including a condition that contemplated revisions to the project after the final adoption of the negative declaration. The court further held that the deferral of environmental review for the treatment plant ran counter to CEQA policy, which required environmental review at the earliest feasible change in the planning process. The court also noted that any mitigation measures added by the administrative staff as a result of this study would be exempt from public scrutiny since the public agency had already approved the negative declaration. The entire Specific Plan and the procedures set forth therein are an unlawful deferral of environmental review. First,no initial study was prepared for the Specific Plan to analyze potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures incorporated into the project, since environmental review would only be done with site plan reviews by the Planning Director. As a result, neither the impacts nor the proposed conditions for mitigation are analyzed, including those for or relating to uses, light, glare, noise, aesthetics, traffic and circulation, geotechnical, hazardous waste, air quality, parking, flooding, construction and utilities, and each are deferred to another day. This "Alice in Wonderland" type of deferral of environmental review and mitigation is not permitted under CEQA or the Guidelines. G. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Will Result in an Unlawful Failure to Undertake a Cumulative Analysis of the Project's Environmental Impacts. An environmental document must discuss "cumulative impacts"when they are significant. Guidelines § 15130(a). However, even if a cumulative impact is not deemed significant, the document must explain the basis for the conclusion. Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 429 (1985). "Cumulative impacts" are defined under CEQA as two or more individual effects which, when considered together,are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b). By failing to prepare an Initial Study and undertake any environmental analysis under CEQA there will be no analysis of potential "cumulative impacts," which is not permitted under CEQA. ATTACHMENT NO. 2• SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach June 13, 2000 Page 18 VIII. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing,on behalf of Montgomery Ward,we request that the Planning Commission indefinitely postpone the hearing on the Specific Plan to address the matters set forth in this letter. Montgomery Ward has expressed to the City, the Agency and HCA its desire and willingness to work together to'have a successful redevelopment of Huntington Center. Notwithstanding such efforts by Montgomery Ward, the City, the Agency and HCA have moved forward in an adversarial manner towards Montgomery Ward. If the City,the Agency and HCA continue along this path, Montgomery Ward will be left with no choice but to exercise all of its rights and remedies to protect its property and business interests. 1, LIN, y ur l C. Curtis for SHE RICHTER& HAMPTON LLP LA:LCRV.M 00\70171404.1 cc: Mayor David Garofalo Mr. Ray Silver Mr. Howard Zelefsky Mr. David C. Biggs Ms. Jane James Gail C. Hutton, Esquire Paul D'Alessandro, Esquire Murray Q. Kane, Esquire Mr. Douglas Gray James C. Hughes, Esquire Mr. Spencer H. Heine Mr. Loren H. Hohman Corey E. Light, Esquire R ATTACHMENT NO. z.�- FROM TUCHMAN 8 ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. 2133850595 Jun. 12 2000 11:28AM P2 TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 30TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90010 PHONE 213.385.8000 - FAX 213.385.0595 June 12.2000 RECEIVED VIA FACSIMMF, (714)375-5087 AND U.S.MAIL J U N 1 2 2000 City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Attn: Gerald Chapman Re: In re Burlington Coat Factory City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Hearing on Tuesday, .Lune 13, 2000/Agenda Item No. 3 Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-1 Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-2 (The Crossings at Huntington Beach) Our File No. 9956 Dear Mr.Chapman and Honorable Planning Commission Members: As you are aware,our offices represent Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc. We request that the above-referenced hearing on the Proposed Specific Plan of The Crossings at Huntington Beach("Specific Plan")for the Huntington Center be continued for at least one month,without public comment or testimony,for the reasons specified below. Late Friday,June 9,2000,(approximately 5:00 p.m.)we received a copy of the Staff Report, which is undated,and attached to the Declaration of Howard Zelefsky,the Director of Planning. In addition,we received an unsigned memo from Ray Silver,City Administrator/Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach,dated June 5, 2000 to Howard Zelefsky,the Director of Planning. The actions of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Huntington Beach are precipitous,unfounded, unconstitutional and invalid. Certain due process notices have not been implemented,and,furthermore,we had no knowledge of not only the May 9, 2000 meeting,but apparently there was another meeting before the Design Review Board on June 1,2000,which we were not aware of,because we were not given notice. Burlington Coat Factory requests this action to, among other things, allow time for Burlington Coat Factory to study the Proposed Plan and to work out its diffcreaces with landlord Ezxalow. As you know, there are lawsuits that have been filed against Ezralow and Huntington ATTACHMENT No. 3..1 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. 2133850595 Jun. 12 2000 11:29AM P3 r City of Huntington Beach June12,2000 Page 2 Center Associates styled Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Brach Inc. V. Huntington Center Associates, Case No. OOCCO2479 and Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach. Inc.V. Huntington Center Associates, Case No. OOCCO6309. Burlington Coat Factory is interested in the potential renovation of its store and the entire Huntington Center. However, for reasons which are unknown, neither the City of Huntington Beach-C City") nor Huntington Center Associates,LLC nor the Ezralow Company nor any other affiliates of Ezralow, collectively referred to as"Ezralow"contacted Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc. in connection with the development of the Draft Specific Plan as it is required to do under your own codes and ordinances and under the contract with Ezralow. It was only after Burlington .Coat Factory received a request for proposal from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of.Huntington Beach that it had any knowledge of some type of"Planning"for the Huntington Center must be in process. Burlington Coat Factory thereafter only found about the Draft Specific Plan after receiving documents from the City and the Agency in response to numerous demands. In fact,the most recent Specific Plan was only received several days ago on May 30,2000. These documents,including the Draft Specific Plan,were received at or about the time Burlington Coat Factory received notice of this Planning Commission hearing on ! the Specific Plan. Certainly,this is insufficient notice and time for Burlington Coat Factory to study any Proposed Specific Plan. Based upon a brief review of the current and prior drafts of the Specific i Plan, Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc. has serous concerns as to whether its store is proposed to remain at the Center. This Planning Commission hearing also cannot be held at this time for violation of Section 247.02 of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("Code.') Code Section 247.02 entitled i "Initiation of Amendments"provides as follows: "Amendments to the zoning provisions,standards or map may be initiated by motion of the City Council or Planning Commission or any other person or agency. If property that is the subject of an application not initiated by the City is in more than one ownership,all the owners or their authorized agents shall joint in filing the application." [Emphasis added] i In addition, the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance at Section'215.08 entitled "Initiation"states: "An Amendment to reclassify property to a SP District may be initiated by a property owner or an authorized agent,the Planning Commission,or the City Council. If the property is not under a single ownership,all owners shall join in the application,and a map showing the extent of ownerships shall be submitted with concept plans and materials." ATTACHMENT NO. 5. ?- r FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133eSO595 Jun. 12 2000 11:30AM P4 City of Huntington Beach June 12,2000 Page 3 Ezralow submitted an Application to the City for the Draft Specific Plan(Zoning Map and Zone Text Amendment),and the Application was sighed by Ezralow and not by anyone else. It was not signed by Montgomery Ward nor Burlington Coat Factory. Montgomery Ward has a fee interest.and,furthermore,under the definition in the Solicitation of Proposals dated March 3,2000, Burlington Coat Factory is designated and defined as an owner for the purposes of redevelopment since the lease goes to the year 2025. Furthermore,since Burlington Coat Factory's 133,500 square feet is under a long term lease and is considered an owner, and since Burlington Coat Factory did not sign the Application,the Application was improper and void under Code Sections 247.02 and 218.09.Therefore,any hearing or other action thereon by the Planning Commission would also be improper. The violation of the City's own Code and intentional exclusion of Burlington Coat Factory from the Planning process is unconscionable and a clear abuse of the City's and Redevelopment Agency's powers. Assuming the economics of the renovation and remodeling are reasonable, taking into account the requirements of the proposed Specific Plan,Burlington Coat Factory believes it is in a position to discuss with the City, the Agency and Ezralow the renovation and remodeling of the Burlington Coat Factory store. However,additional time is needed to study the proposed Specific Plan and discuss the intent and requirements thereof prior to any public hearing. Please note that by .requesting a continuance,Burlington Coat Factory does not waive any of its rights. If the Planning Commission hearing is not continued with respect to the Huntington Center, Burlington Coat Factory will not have an opportunity to have these discussions and will be forced to take action to object to the Draft Specific Plan and take appropriate actions to protect its rights, including initiating litigation against the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Huntington Beach. Lastly,our offices note that these precipitous actions were taken clearly in response to the Ex-pane Notice given to Ezralow on June 1, 2000. The City has violated its own Codes and Ordinances in taking such drastic action,and such drastic courses of action can only lead to tortious liability and exposure by the City and Redevelopment Agency for their own actions. Very truly yours, &ASSOCIATES A IV L. CHMA ALT:rehm AT-TAC HMEN i NO. 3 . i FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. 2133850595 Jun. 12 2000 11:30AM P5 City of Huntington Beach June 12,2000 Page 4 cc: (via facsimile) Mayor David Garofalo Mr.Ray Silver Mr.Howard Zelefsky Mr.David C.Biggs Ms.Jane James Murray Q.Kane,Esq. _ I i I i I ATTACHMENT NO. 3.4. Wards Corporate Real Estate 535 W.Chicago Avenue Chicago,Illinois 60671 312.467.2000 June 13, 2000 RECEIVED Planning Commission J U N 13 2000 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Department of Planning Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Mr. Gerald Chapman Re: City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Hearing on Tuesday,June 13, 2000/Agenda Item No. 3/Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-1/Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-2 (The Crossings at Huntington Beach) Honorable Planning Commission Members: Montgomery Ward,LLC("Montgomery Ward")has reviewed the proposed Specific Plan of The Crossings at Huntington Beach(the"Specific Plan")for the Huntington Center and Montgomery Ward believes it is in a position to work with the City of Huntington Beach (the "City"), the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") and Huntington Center ( Associates, LLC MCA')to renovate and remodel its retail store and to be a successful part of the redeveloped Huntington Center. Based on Montgomery Ward's preliminary plans and specifications for the remodeling of its existing operations at Huntington Center, Montgomery Ward believes that certain modifications need to be made to the Specific Plan and Montgomery Ward hereby sets forth the following comments to the Specific Plan: 1. Conceptual plans 3A,3B, 5A,5B,6A,6B,7A,7B, 8A, 8B, 11 A,and 11B all show a 140,000 square foot single level structure with no acknowledgment of the two existing Montgomery Ward ("Wards") structures presently located on the Wards parcel. The existing Wards structures should be included in any and all plans for the redevelopment of Huntington Center. 2. Conceptual plans 3A, 3B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 11A, and 11B all show a large parking structure being constructed primarily on the Wards parcel. The construction of this parking structure will radically affect the customer's ability to ingress and egress this end of Huntington Center. Further, the construction of this parking structure should not be an absolute requirement. A traffic study/analysis should be undertaken before the Specific Plan is approved. i 3. Conceptual plan 3B appears to add a second level to the project. If a second level is contemplated,then accommodations should be made to allow pedestrian access to the second level of the Wards structure. 4. Section 2.0 (Administration) and Section 2.7 (Specific Plan Amendment)appear to prohibit the redevelopment of the existing Wards structure without going through a process wherein ATTACHMENT NO. 4. 1 Planning Commission Members June 13, 2000 Page 2 Wards would be required to amend an enabling ordinance for this redevelopment. This procedure is egregious because of the expenses related to complying with a plan in which Wards has had no input and the potential for unnecessary demolition and rebuilding of the Wards retail store to comply with the plan which shows a 140,000 square foot, one level building. 1 5. Exhibits 4A and 4B, which purportedly serve as Project Description Charts for Section 3.0 ' General Development Plan, clearly do not contemplate the inclusion of the existing Wards store (181,110 square foot retail store and 27,000 square foot automotive center). Exhibit 4A calls for only 82,000 square feet of existing anchors to remain and Mervyns is 82,000 square feet,therefore,it seems that Wards is not contemplated as an anchor. Exhibit 4B calls for 211,988 square feet of existing anchors to remain. Again, this is not sufficient square footage to allow an 82,100 square foot Mervyns store and a 181,110 square foot Wards store. i 6. The Circulation Plan described in Section 3.3 sets forth modifications to access locations but does not refer to any traffic study. Because of the magnitude of changes described in the Section 3.0 and the various plans identified in Exhibits 3A,3B, 5A,5B, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 11A, and 11B which include the construction of a large parking structure, this redevelopment plan must include a comprehensive traffic study prepared by a traffic consultant before this plan is adopted because of the potential impact ofthis potential parking structure on the parcel. The need for a traffic study is even more critical to assure the acceptability of Sections 3.3.1,3.3.2,3.3.3, 3.3.4,3.3.5,3.3.6, 3.3.7,and 3.3.8 which speak to specific traffic issues. i 7. Section 3.4 (including 3.4.1 through 3.4.10) addresses the capacities and potential changes to the water system, sewer system, storm drainage, and utilities including electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, and solid waste disposal, yet there has been no engineering report to use as "baselines" for modifications to the existing systems. 8. Section 3.5 (Design Guidelines)is clearly meant to apply to the Wards land parcel which does i not contain the elaborate open-aired pedestrian walkways shown in Exhibit 8A and 8B, (Common Area Locations). There should be a clarification as to which "Guidelines" in the jSpecific Plan are appropriate for the Wards parcel. 9. The Common Area Policies Sections are incomplete and in many cases fail to provide adequate specifications, so as to understand the parameters with which Wards or any other developer must comply. The following describes certain areas where specificity is needed: a) Sections 3.5.3.1 through 3.5.3.3 - The lighting standards fall to specify the foot- candles of illumination which must be provided. Further,while there are photographs ATTACHMENT NO. ___ Planning Commission Members June 13, 2000 Page 3 of light fixtures, there are no detailed specifications as to the fixtures dimensions, foot-candle productivity, etc. b) Section 3.5.3.4 -It is not clear whether the stone non-grade pavers will be required in all parking areas. c) Section 3.5.4 - The architectural guidelines are very broad leaving architectural Approval solely to the subjective opinion ofthe Planning Department(e.g what types of patterns and graphics would be acceptable for the large planes ofthe Wards store and other anchor tenants). d) The Landscape Guidelines,while definitive, seem overly restrictive so as to preclude creativity by Wards or any other developer in the redevelopment of the parcels (ea., can types of plantings identified in Exhibit 12 be substituted for a comparable type plant?). 10. Wards qualifies as a permitted use under the plan as defined in Section 3.1 and the inclusion ofnational department stores is clearly contemplated in the design section,specifically section ( 3.5.4C..Therefore,the Wards store should be identified as a permitted use under the Specific Plan. 11. Development Standards-Several issues arise in our review which is ongoing due to the short period of time since Wards has obtained the draft Specific Plan. a) The minimum set back requirements established in the Development Regulations Chart (Exhibit 14) should be deemed as not applicable to the existing Wards auto- motive center. b) In Section 4.3.3 Wards should not be required to provide parking under a Shared Parking Agreement which it has not been given an opportunity to review. c) We request that Wards standard signage be.deemed as complying with 4.3.6 and Appendix D of the Specific Plan. d) Further, Wards would request that the "Sign Standards" diagram be modified to relocate the sign designed as FWb in front of the south facia of the Wards store be relocated as it blocks the Wards entrance. 12. Section 3.4.3 as amended, makes no reference to an engineering study of the redevelopment which would serve as a basis for Wards to calculate its storm water retention requirements. i ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Planning Commission Members June 13, 2000 Page 4 13. . Section 3.3 as amended,speaks to the requirement that Wards meet a requirement to develop a circulation plan, however, there is no reference to .a traffic study which was specifically prepared for this Specific Plan which would serve as a basis for Wards to design such a circulation plan. 14. Section 3.4.1 as amended,there is no engineering study for this Specific Plan which can serve as a basis for Wards to design their site to allow for necessary water line ROW s. With the changes set forth above, Montgomery Ward will, assuming the economics are reasonable, renovate the Montgomery Ward retail store at Huntington Center to meet the requirements of the Specific Plan. Montgomery Ward has a very profitable operation at Huntington Center and believes very strongly that a remodeling of its retail store will improve sales substantially, increase the profitability of the retail store and would work very well within the redeveloped Huntington Center. Very truly yours, C• MONTGOMERY WARD,LLC BY: Loren H. Hohman Director of Real Estate cc: Mayor David Garofalo Mr. Ray Silver Mr. Howard Zelefsky Mr. David C. Biggs Ms. Jane James Gail C. Hutton,Esquire Paul D'Alessandro, Esquire Murray Q. Kane, Esquire Mr. Douglas Gray James C. Hughes, Esquire W. Spencer H. Heine Corey E. Light, Esquire Jonathan C. Curtis, Esquire t ATTACHMENT NO. 4 •`� IN, . +E of 'r,+:.x1 t h ,, `• r: "6' E 'e-rC'•.," �'r ri s C ;�+r'� !�'. n', 4 Frn1 +, .,t�%r + sa".�a .;r / ;t .. a •.� , , L c, �.:. i ,zf, k � t.. tc"'� � fY' �`''�T' ;v "" .. .� _ ��- � 3 �:.�ry I.i.i,�fl � '�"'�.''�� �s M9 il.� ,��#� T BUJ+ ,� ,%! •.ctl,,,s+ tf. f ;���}I��n+p"r�� � 2tq..� _ ��,, +> -S J _ '4 '+#�'t'7•"+ x r'}'•'"'d,'s�,ry�'�a�L,Iij.i�w:YAJ a-fit.,.-: �...r�,:v.�, h��i?�r�• �`.r.s °�'"'f``sr �" r F`;'s fr - .;Ti 7�i i 1 ya.-.« yi,�.d:`+**. £•tr.+ftyi• .�-•+w" .c�.ht r Q a'L:. ,,. sue- ;- _ A°�, ''',-Y�wts�• �>€r�at}-,Yr i'S5 _�it ;•� . 'k� i�I i,•.,�6- 1" ;!<'.�`s�f� /�e �`J�s��3.ji k e..� .✓ �' rti� e "H'�: y�j�•`� 1 �R "�o :1 +:t�� _ -•xvT �r� �-*��.,���..• o h A•� r, - `i`/,: 1�. ., �y 7.�r�f��✓r`+hz).r^ s _ ,.�',�::)'' .?: ~C��,�•�, 'lac sP. .. !b r�!e! �'* •lei r.' 1 �., ' U jii'� 22 -.�� r: 4S��r�' '9 Y- �--%y7�; S'�y� k si@^`"3'•�--• i• :.��s "g,. �.f !•,Y• .`� �{ d. P 1•-.. q ' -V; tJ�.i � tn, i„`' L• rT �,'� d h ::rr :.'�,..✓ rah �+ ,•.+. j$' %3�VMr atrj.ti ,l -. .s ,j-.t,µ •t i. w, .,i/,•• zs'�. (�. :1.' �•.�+ �� 0 t <t; 4,=. s „r7i1 .'�,'J'•'- li+.S�f:�{y!,'`s�''�=+..�r. ,`f•w.�va ,M`.., s 1. :►-:� �n ''€•t'� aft �. •f �P-�`r.:'Li..r t`+ �7�c� k." �F.� ;t cF' F{::'�f�, � J i �;� "• '.:s�-4'x r ''t'� 1 .t4..•3r• -�i �'€q 'y qy: r .r.S +I.MJ' �-�^�v,'„�;;G.l`r-h- n •r?"-t'fa:: ��r - -..- -e rrgs�y'�.Y��i r. t •' x r, t':4r � r _'' ,� �.�-u r,. � `_• f•, _.x.r .�� �:- �`- a< <.�"^3� r "x.�';/ j �Y. _.. y ,.� .t`.• � s`a3 � -u•..,:t+�s I�,.f'.��� r •_t r � �� � Sr. t•--+ 1� '�1 `,sF• � � /r .r r I .;a rs .•�,�,�s�ytz^,.YrC >• Y�',:z`." '�- � ia�t4.l(' :y �r t{g�f r � .�- 1 a-.5' A4,• t .,vy.. .uc '£rs •t —.}57I ! I •. �1 I ,,... 8` �4w .• s F�:= •-. I, ...Y. y'� _ - � xs. � '� �E � ryr�.+'�• � -" t ✓ 1 1'�.:..^- 1�1. �/ Ch^^ �;'•/s�. K %i. ( ` ^•arrrs� � '++"ji'� :���- ..}•t.-� -_•�� f 1 s � ���� + s.ra1'� _--��c«_ ;5-1! *�.,rmp ♦ k DIt -�.fk+" y yr• + .,u _,�''is. .4'c.yt^: _ v +z � � .hs` Ed���s. ,�,. .�/,q,.�'A y}t�� 3�f�n.>f ��' -.s s•,• �`` *�.-,`,1` e ��/ �.���.rl j..,. '' k'''--�k. • y�'•I�� � ��, •.'� �ti, ,m,dr ,ram'% ^ '+'ly�r1 s � 1 � ,:� •` •} �t.�•`, 1 urr=r'4:,• �t- +�.�t� w•� t�3t3�'s'Y.. �, �l ' fX 't r - �' +Ir t� '• :.- .t�°t, r - -- ,i y �a J,y • � �.J _ �.,. �F ,�- +f yr �,_ � •. �� }::, >"�e _ ram, .�. r F t IY � - �c i♦ 1,�y -, �I �/ �1 � +7.�� j ���3-7�3rocw_.w � '1.., a 'u� '� •k. , , to � x'' s s ' v J � �,tj F'. a, F';lls'.Att� 14i':yr'E8+6 !S..4 ��sk '+'�"'�3� +. •,1 °��vy + ��(T/'�/ }:l l ��'1. CI `' /• s'. -I > •t r a+ o��"a 1 - � /' w w"•r� ..Jai' � /.; �+. ^'\ :l :.L• :+cam -��il �1111 � ":� j n�•�Itl•'1L.N.k•,��"i S�totl I}y.� *$ s... s. F",t. xyrc-«Y�f _rw��'•- ,'�dEr'C o�• ., •. `.• n� !• `y:•-- F �� -Fr r � fi. i H5? '�.'rTTs''s'aE'•1 , •� •c' t .j. �'"L �Y ,� r y,,,,rw '.r-, vt.�:.� i r r� + S. rr+F•+�t.,��i+w'�i"tit�:e'^t'�'hrt+�z n' �: ..:a.�`'i;.}.,7fi.'3.: _ •v s wt rfl� ��t �,�. ..Z 1. ) a,s+ �Ft 7 + s•s tiri t y .., u n `c'? �•�,, �" .�„ ,�� rr::'. .»�-r'y,r ,s:,. _ y � s,�j r`. ai`�'r � ...i !�•..,�.'�'�,,..rr,u...dn,;. f«:..,;y..•ca,-,,..�;;':.:. .+�_...:-.;.w-'ri-asa'��-�5,.�hr•. 5 �,� a.�n- .�.r'` i �� 1't'z„� .x ., .. _ ,c�F<•„i�s`� _ .J ��,��s,� ! � �in t+.+:�„i;� -i;:.att^ p�� 2'° , i.� � -'c.�" .•.-Z�.. '�h - `yr< -ias�» - � - -3��•''^T�1 .`.i,,, .��+ �F��`� v+o,-„y+,a ..._.._._ f . ;: j. �ri "�1 - r '^`sxa Y •M �' 5.+,•''It�" �` ., - `.. ^ ,-,•,,, s*, 5 ! ':n.-, tY'y'Ma '//t`,9 Sr S d till s Y -..:.• •'Jtf r..�r+! ±t,y h� l,� } � ....� �'' r r"'_ �` t. �` '•,. .. ``t, �� 'c < \� t''"`�j-:�+^y �-..�a vT i ,� 'I�( 1.� 1. ,}. �� `l .. •�� Legislative Draft (Red-lined and strikethrough text depicts new or revised language from June 20, 2000 Planning Commission Public Hearing) The Crossings at Huntington Beach � City of Huntington Beach SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13 Prepared by City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Huntington Associates LLC. with Greenberg Farrow Architects EDAW Richard Sawyer Adopted 72000 Resolution No. June 20, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 3. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 1.0 Purpose and Intent 6 3.0 General Development Plan 23 1.1 . Authority and Procedures 6 3.1 Regional Commercial Uses 31 1.2 Scope and Format 7 3.2 Open Space and Pedestrian Walkways 34 1.3 Project Area Description 9 3.3 Circulation Plan 39 1.4 General Plan Designation 11 3.4 Public Facilities 41 1.5 Zoning Provisions 12 3.5 Design Guidelines 48 1.6 State Mandated Requirements 12 3.5.1 Project Area Character 48 3.5.2 Site Planning Guidelines 48 2. IMPLEMENTATION 3.5.3 Common Area Guidelines 51 3.5.4 Architectural Guidelines 60 2.0 Administration 15 3.5.5 Landscape Guidelines 68 2.1 Development Phasing Plan 15 3.5.6 Signage Guidelines 73 2.2 Methods and Procedures 15 2.3 Site Plan Review 16 4. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2.4 Parcel Maps 17 2.5 Reuse/Change of Use Review 17 4.0 Purpose 75 2.6 Environmental Determination 18 4.1 General Provisions 75 2.7 Request for Deviation 18 4.2 Definitions 75 2.8 Specific Plan Amendment 19 4.3 Development Standards 77 2.9 Severability 19 4.3.1 Permitted Uses 77 4.3.2 Intensity 77 4.3.3 Building Height 77 4.3.4 Setbacks 77 4.3.5 Landscaping 77 4.3.6 Signs ' 77 4.3.7 Lighting 77 4.3.8 Parking 81 4.3.9 Parking Structures 82 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 3 June 20, 2000 APPENDICES (Volume Two) A— Legal Description B—General Plan Consistency C—Sign Standards List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Vicinity Maps 9 Exhibit 12 Plant Materials Palette 70 Exhibit 2 Aerial Photograph 10 Exhibit 13a Permitted Uses Chart 78 Exhibit 13b Temporary and Seasonal Events Chart 79 &E1494 3B 111u6t =e Coneeptual Mastev Plan 22 Exhibit 14 Development Regulations Chart 80 Exhibit 15 Parking Standards and Details 81 Exhibit 16 Development Regulations Check List 83 Exhibit 5A Development Concept (Level 1) 27 5 " Exhibit 5A Development Concept (Level 2) 28 E7� Exhibit 513 Development Concept (Level 1) 29 Exhibit 5B Development Concept (Level 2) 30 Exhibit 6A Pedestrian Plaza/Walkways Plan 32 Exhibit 6B Pedestrian Plaza/Walkways Plan 33 Exhibit 7A Circulation Plan 35 Exhibit 7A Circulation Plan 36 Exhibit 7B Circulation Plan 37 Exhibit 7B Circulation Plan 38 Exhibit 8A Common Area Locations 51 Exhibit 8B Common Area Locations 52 Exhibit 9 Color and Materials of Common Areas 56~57 Exhibit 10 Typical Tenant Storefront 64 Exhibit 11 A Landscape Concept Plan 66 Exhibit 11 B Landscape Concept Plan 67 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 4 June 20, 2000 INTRODUCTION t f Section One The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 5 June 20, 2000 INTRODUCTION report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public 1.0 PURPOSE AND INTENT Resource Code Section 21083.3 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan from preparation of an environmental assessment establishes the planning concept, design theme, until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. development regulations and administrative Therefore, it would be "speculative" to provide an procedures necessary to achieve an orderly and assessment of impacts peculiar to the project. Once a compatible development of the project area, and to site plan is approved, an environmental assessment implement the goals, policies and objectives of the will be performed by the City of Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach General Plan. The intent is to and site plan mitigations will be applied to the project, establish a visitor serving, regional-commercial as necessary. shopping setting and achieve a high quality in retail and entertainment design. 1.1 AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURE The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan The State of California requires that all cities and identifies the location, character and intensities for a counties prepare and adopt a comprehensive General regional commercial complex. The Specific Plan Plan for the physical development of their area of creates a compatible design theme for the project area jurisdiction. and establishes the development regulations necessary to accomplish the identified objectives. Following the adoption of the General Plan, the entity is required to develop and adopt regulating programs The Specific Plan is regulatory in nature and serves as (zoning and subdivision ordinances, building and zoning for The Crossings at Huntington Beach. housing codes, and other regulations), which will Subsequent development plans, Parcel Maps and other implement the policies described in the General Plan. entitlement requests for the project area must be consistent with both the Specific Plan and the California State law authorizes cities with complete Huntington Beach General Plan. According to Public General Plans to prepare and adopt Specific Plans Resources Code Section 21083.3(b),"If a development (Government Code Sections 65450 et. seq.). Specific project is consistent with the general plan of a local Plans are intended to be a bridge between the local agency and an environmental impact report was General Plan and individual development proposals. certified with respect to that general plan, the Specific Plans contain both planning policies and application of this division [CEQA] to the approval of regulations, and may combine zoning regulations, that development project shall be limited to effects on capital improvement programs, detailed development the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or standards and other regulatory methods into one to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 6 June 20, 2000 document which can be tailored to meet the needs of a California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, specific area. Chapter 3,Article 8,Sections 65450 through 65457. Local planning agencies or their legislative bodies may The Huntington Beach General Plan was adopted by designate areas within their jurisdictions as ones for the City Council on May 13, 1996. The General Plan which a Specific Plan is "necessary or convenient" designates the project area as Regional Commercial. (Government Code Section 65451). The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the A Specific Plan may either be adopted by ordinance or Huntington Beach General Plan. resolution (Government Code Section 65507). Should the legislative body wish to change a proposed Specific 1.2 SCOPE AND FORMAT Plan recommended by the Planning Commission, the change must first be referred back to the Commission The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is for consideration, if not previously considered divided into four sequential sections. Section One is (Government Code Section 65504). the Introduction and describes the purpose and intent of the document along with a brief explanation of Adoption or amendment of a Specific Plan constitutes Specific Plan procedures and authorization. a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State's Environmental Impact Section One also presents the Project Area Description Report (EIR) guidelines. If the initial environmental and is intended to establish the reasons why the review shows that the proposed or amended plan Specific Plan process is logical and necessary for this could significantly affect the environment, the portion of the City. This section presents a general jurisdiction must prepare an EIR and submit it in draft description of the Specific Plan area; special form for public review. The need for an EIR in a characteristics and existing conditions which make particular case is determined by the local government. this area unique have been identified. In this case, since an EIR has been prepared for the City's adopted General Plan and the Specific Plan is Section Two presents the Implementation process and included within the umbrella of the General Plan and discusses how individual projects and tenant associated Certified EIR, the environmental assessment improvements will be reviewed and approved. This (to be completed at the site plan review/approval section outlines the project approval procedures and stage) for The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific describes the process for project appeals. and the Plan will be limited to the effects peculiar to the methods by which the Specific Plan can be modified or project (Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b)). amended. The preparation, adoption and implementation of The Section Three describes the Development Concept. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan by the design concept evolves from the objectives identified City of Huntington Beach is authorized by the and existing conditions discussed in Section One. This The Crossings at Huntington.Beach Specific Plan 7 June 20, 2000 section also presents the circulation, public facilities, infrastructure and landscaping which will support the development concept and reinforce the design theme. r Section Three also includes the Design Guidelines. This section identifies and describes the intended character for the area and provides a framework for project ' implementation. Section Four establishes the Development Regulations lin pjh`-n,E�;r ('r.'::....,a>.4,''} I; •• '' k'a^q r,.lc, for the Specific Plan area and for individual project k ; develo ment. Section Four resents a detailed description of the Development Standards which are 1" .?4 a' i){{ 4KU 1 Y ;i.k.. .,.:i,1?'i'YrFF�+rl �,• �- � �n "!!, h'S't;:h�� l. �i f 3Yv't ,{ y, rk d`5fi« 7Uy�Y'' v "a'4' .3iA ; R4, fi`•1'�'''.i:;{",1 dj{( necessary to guide and control new projects and carry out the goals and policies of the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. View ofRomano's from WingerAvenue An Appendix (printed under separate cover) contains pPe p p all the special studies and reports which have contributed to the formation of the Specific Plan. The Appendix (Volume Two) includes the Legal Description of the site, a General Plan Consistency Y Analysis, identifies the Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval desired in the Environmental Analysis and includes the proposed Sign Standards. The view of The Crossings at Huntington Beach from Center Avenue The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 8 June 20, 2000 C� o, W 1.3 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION •PASADENA .� The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan W covers 63 acres located in the northern portion of the SANTA• • LOS ANGELES City of Huntington Beach. The area is generally MONICA W bounded on the north by Center Avenue, on the east by Beach Boulevard, on the south by Edinger Avenue, LOS LES and on the west by Southern Pacific railroad right-of- INTERNA ONAL 5' AIRPORT way. • LONG o, BEACH ANAHEIM A legal description of properties in the Specific Plan TORRANCE AIRPORT GARDEN • project area has been included in the Appendix. •LONG GROV0 n BEAC SA LONG BEACH/ LOHARBOR SSITEW ANA s lbi ,y,RVIN HUNTING TON BEACH 1L 4 V Regional Location Bolsa Ave. J� fiThe project area is surrounded by a variety of land m uses and activities. The San Diego Freeway (405) and McFadden Ave. an office retail complex create the northern boundary. Golden To the south, office and retail uses are located across West pCrossings Edinger Avenue. To the east, commercial uses are located across Beach Boulevard. To the west, is the Southern Pacific Railroad Line. The property across from the rail line is designated commercial. Edinger ,aa0 Vicinity Maps Exhibit 1 Site Location The.Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 9. June 20, 2000 1 n :t: al' Y -IN'.. ��� 'r .:r w•..ti/'�...�..-.•w.'�7�IA.Tf'_��.�-._ +�, � ••/ •-.\ti,• .� . �. 1 .. it ij yj -�,S4 � ,Ir� r./I.fAT w�YAf�,.dllr ..T,./.,...r._�...-.�.J.. �•� � ka':: �•� r ��.. `�.1. ti,.\ �I'y.�.1.+5�, tr. -_ I ; T �.., _ _ ,_ ;!y A;•I�r .Jy � •i's� ,Z f��aa�i�r,�c! � r ! � �"'••`'-���♦ �'ii"- F;�. . t�i, /� a. r �.`:;N � �1{Zi., ti �• _ � ��IS.< !� s :/j'�, •, � ��,'-^w.r.-/,�" ' �' :a��r_. iiiSrrrh,j''''T"j' + J%. •i3' �. ti i I a!' i�,,. Am 1,Ij ,� :';�p�i�:' �;;.y�U�4d� :��,'[� ,r �a��°i �• � -� •�r�i.�s`:�� ® -�- ;�':.� S'r n,:"��'' �----�-- , j��� '�� ���,. '\a` •1� ANN.". �• '' " .r _ �.^!t•�.� ,� ! 11 II�NN r �. ,�\ 1{� ♦:k wwwn �r � wN t i.- � '��•;�y,1 rlSr4,.ti`E�'1'kf9 is �jF. .........•�ifr`r-' _ �AC�i+'�..�'� •-f'�'iV�IAi :;n'«{"_ti.• •.-I.Y.�f..r � a�i. I �. sf �,%ir«r.�iS:'�@ii%u'�1"Ih�i::`=�i' � +.�''� fy .• � �� - � � / to' � t•• �q�! _ \•� 4 � i !fry J% F S4 1�i{ y r ��`�7. `�:\. j�lt� .,...,• ...r..ram -'� f / r%'a G f: r.. ��:. �T �t;11i ,'•.i ^�1+ -` t T,1 oil ; s. '.�,•.'.��x':, i �� � fu�q t'I,-s �1yN.i� S.• � � - +� ,�d�;�• y ~� •� ��11< .n�1 "4+�, ',r ;/ •r:;;• ^! 7' e u.�t �1,±'� y rZ�, 7 1 Y. A ,9 • t : t %.-. - t e r �• - ~, ,d '�,. .J'r AAA ."I�f, "�i +! _ ,�i 4T. '6 A �i.��ll gas• �'� '"LyM+ !, r pp �" f '�A,j'!.,"' cJ�'M•' ��mt�rn't�L.a .,� '..�..� ,. ,'''!� � �t._.,'• rV ';''•� �' p 1 , /�',,'... -_�._,.._�►.._ ... _ .. 'ri:''++•a��+�.11w _ —2__ .T ^r' '•r.''i_�: —'I/ .. ._ ��- =;s:�,`-..�!..a.��- � '�`� 'II�3'3:'�----- :.;��-y.y�._�--�,Y'�'i/ram• ..r���_�,A��.,(Y:�j ,.-�C� it+1 t�l�..T'+br.�i-.-. _�-�i(/-�l e+i�� � i-�:�::. `'!.;�-�:.'�:"��.:t. - �__'� T���'l$- 7:, ( !.,,: 'h'��S r� i 'i'.:fl�. .�, M f�j lir���.'.�,''�•r ��- �q yr � �� � t ¢� � � !t�� J :+-,,. .a•:r '.f♦�R 7�•� � ,1 i3 � �� ,��,�''£1':A'J r� �11 r rT �' `� �'�` i� , _.i i- ,�i hG�j���5t;�•r 'i 1� � •� � I �'111:4r A/.]s' •1 ?:,� :�.h"kGj" +:;/ :;y�,r ,'y:::%.. ,•`.' 111f�'l,'. .t :1�-� �' �i .�\r:ri•��� �... Aerial Photograph 1997 Aerial Photograph Exhibit 2 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 10 June 20, 2000 1.4 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The entire Crossings at Huntington Beach is currently c. Siting of a portion of the buildings in designated as CR-F2-SP-MU(F9)-Commercial Regional proximity to their primary street frontage - 0.5 FAR-Specific Plan Overlay-Mixed Use Overlay- to convey a visual relationship to the street 1.5 (MU-0.5 (C)/25du/acre in the City's General and sidewalks; Plan. The site has been designated for commercial land uses since the mid 1960s. The commercial regional c. Design of the exterior periphery of the designation anticipates anchor department stores, structures to contain shops, restaurants, promotional retail, restaurants, entertainment, and display windows, and other elements that similar region-serving uses. The site has been provide visual interest to parking area and designated within General Plan Subarea 5A requiring the street elevation; that a Specific Plan with special regulations and standards be established for "Huntington Center." The d. Inclusion of a "public square" as a following Design and Development policies are gathering place of public activity in multi- described in the General Plan for the mall property: tenant regional centers; Design and Development e. Clear identification of building entrances; LU 10.1.15 f. Use of landscaping that provides a three- Require that regional commercial developments be dimensional character; designed to convey the visual sense of an integrated center by consideration of the following principles: g. Encourage the provision of public art; a. Use of multiple building volumes and h. Inclusion of consistent and well-designed masses and highly articulated facades to signage integrated with the building's reduce the visual sense of large scale architectural character, including "boxes'; pedestrian-oriented signage;and b. Use of roofline of height variations to i. Design of parking structures to be visually visually differentiate the building massing integrated with the commercial buildings. and incorporation of recesses and setbacks (I-LU 1, 1-LU 4, I-LU 5, 1-LU 7, 1-LU10 and on any elevation above the second floor 1-LU 13) above grade; The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 11 June 20, 2000 1.5 ZONING PROVISIONS The Crossings at Huntington Beach is presently zoned n , ' �, General Commercial ("CG") to accommodate a full , range of retail and service businesses. The site is also within a sub-area of the merged Redevelopment 4a Project Areas. The adoption of this Specific Plan will supersede the existing zoning and establish a new set E : of development regulations. The Crossings at Huntington Beach site currently consists of a number of activities. The site contains approximately 960,000 square feet of retail commercial space, some of which is currently unoccupied. This site has been developed in numerous phases over the past 30 years. Current market pressures and extent of adjacent competing retail View of Starbucks and Barnes&Noble from CenlerAvenue activities are driving the need to develop a new exciting commercial center for the City. 1.6 STATE MANDATED REQUIREMENTS To comply with the State of California legislated _ mandates, the City of Huntington Beach has adopted several plans to deal with regional issues includin Air Quality, Congestion Management, Growth ,h. .:at�k ^'..° -_.., ,..• .. Management and Transportation Demand Management Plans. All development within the Specific Plan area shall comply with the applicable t�r'`'`"` .; ;,,,, �, • provisions of the following plans: View ofMemyn's front Center venue The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 12 June 20, 2000 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan The South Coast Air Quality Management Plan program, and a capital improvements program for (AQMP) requires measures to reduce traffic traffic and transit. congestion, improve air quality, and requires that cities develop Air Quality components within their Growth Management Plan General Plans. These measures include Regulation XV, a program which requires employers of more than one A Growth Management Plan (GMP) is required to hundred (100) persons to prepare trip reduction implement the passage of Orange County Measure M plans, and a requirement for jurisdictions to prepare approved in the 1990 election. Its purpose is to ensure an air quality component in the General Plan. that the planning, management, and implementation of traffic improvements and public facilities are The City of Huntington Beach is subject to all local adequate to meet current and projected needs. The jurisdiction requirements set forth by the AQMP. The City has an approved Growth Management Element, City has adopted an Air Quality Element and which meets the requirements for Measure M Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, funding, and an adopted Transportation Demand which incorporates AQMP measures. Management Ordinance. Congestion Management Plan Transportation Demand Management The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is required Transportation Demand Management (TDM) by Assembly Bill 471 (Proposition 111), subsequently measures are generally directed at increasing auto modified by Assembly Bill 1791. This Bill requires occupancy, decreasing peak hour usage, and every urbanized county to adopt a CMP;the County of managing demand for transportation facilities. The Orange has prepared a CMP which includes the City City's TDM Ordinance is part of its compliance with of Huntington Beach. The CMP requires mitigation of the Growth Management Plan. Development owners, traffic impacts of development, as well as trip operators and tenants will be required to implement reduction programs.The City of Huntington Beach has the City's TDM Ordinance. completed the mandated components of the CMP including level of service standards,trip reduction The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 13 June 20, 2000 ill-an MaM A. Vr=i is Zu Mi &i�i -Mir j a plup gllI Lei.. M-0 POP% IMPLEMENTATION 2.0 ADMINISTRATION The City's Planning Director shall administer the Text Amendment and action by the Planning provisions of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Commission and City Council. Specific Plan in accordance with the State of California Government Code, Subdivision Map Act, the 2.1 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PHASING Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and the City's PLAN General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan project is anticipated to The Specific Plan development procedures, occur in one (1) phase. The existing Village Retail regulations, standards and specifications shall (Barnes & Noble, Staples, and Circuit City) and any supersede the relevant provisions of the City's Zoning remaining Department Stores (such as, Burlington Code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Coat Factory, Montgomery Wards, or Mervyns) will Ordinance) as they currently exist or may be amended receive major exterior renovation, new enhanced in the future. Any development regulation and paving, and landscaping. The demolition, building requirement not addressed in the Specific infrastructure and utility work of the new Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations construction, will be scheduled and built such that the in place at the time of an individual request. remaining center remains in operation with minimum inconvenience to the remaining tenants. Construction The Specific Plan may be amended. The Planning is anticipated to take 24-36- months from start:of Director shall have the discretion to determine if demolition. requests for modification to the Specific Plan are s4a tAv�cUk�i minor or major. 2.2 METHODS AND PROCEDURES Minor modification is a simple amendment to the The methods and procedures for implementation of exhibits and /or text which does not change the the Specific Plan shall be on a project by project basis. meaning or intent of the Specific Plan. Minor The adoption of the Specific Plan alone will not modifications may be accomplished administratively require infrastructure improvements to the project by the Director with a report to the Planning area. Physical improvements will only coincide with Commission. Major modifications are amendments to the commencement of the first project and approval of the exhibits and/or text which are intended to change a Site Plan Review. The Specific Plan is a regulatory the meaning or intent .of the Development Concept, document and is not intended to be a Development Design Guidelines,or Development Regulations.Major Agreement. modifications require a Zoning The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 15 June 20, 2000 2.3 SITE PLAN REVIEW All new projects within the Crossings at Huntington this service shall be established by a separate Beach.Specific Plan project area shall be implemented resolution of the City Council. through a Site Plan Review process. A Site Plan Review shall be required for all new development activity, The Planning Director has the authority to approve, with the exception of interior improvements, general conditionally approve, or deny a Site Plan Review. A maintenance and repair or other minor construction Site Plan Review application may also require analysis activities that do not result in an intensification of the and comments from various departments of the City. use. These exceptions may be subject to other Building In order to approve a Site Plan Review application, the and Public Works permits and approvals prior to Planning Director shall make the following findings: commencement. • The request is consistent with the City's Application to the City for a Site Plan Review shall General Plan and all applicable requirements include a narrative of the proposed activity along with of the Municipal Code;and preliminary development plans and drawings. The narrative shall consist of a project description 0The requested activity will not be detrimental identifying the intended services offered with square to the general welfare of persons working or feet, hours. and days of operation, number of residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the employees,- and other information! as appropriate: value of the property and improvements in the Supplemental to the application submission, project neighborhood;and plans shall be prepared including the following preliminary plans: site plan, floor plans, elevations, 0The requested activity will not adversely affect landscaping,grading,fencing and signage plans;other the Circulation Plan;and plans may be required depending on the complexity of the project. The entire parcel shall be plotted with 0The requested activity will comply with the dimensions and all pertinent data and include provisions of the Crossings at Huntington dimensions to the nearest intersecting public street Beach Specific Plan and other applicable and identify all street names. In addition, all existing regulations or special conditions required of and proposed physical features and structures on the the project. subject property and abutting properties shall be plotted. The action of the Planning Director shall be final unless appealed to the Planning Commission by the The application shall also include a legal description of applican(C-s4wJ*K3 thin ten calendar days of action. Such the property, identification of the uses for each room Appeals Site Plan Review shall be subject to the on the floor plans and a list of all the building proceduoutlined in the City's Zoning and materials and exterior colors. An application fee for Subdivisirdinance. 0. sik vka-: C*41 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan s ,f- tp mvs 16 June 20, 2000 A Site Plan Review approval shall be valid for a period Specific Plan, and all other applicable of one year. Additional one year extensions may be provisions of the City's adopted codes requested for a maximum of two years. Such an and regulations;and extension request must be made in writing by the original applicant, property owners, and/or • The site is physically suitable for the authorized designee,a minimum of thirty days prior to type and density of development the expiration of the current approval. If construction proposed;and activity does not commence within the approval or extension period,the entitlement shall be terminated. • The design of the subdivision or the All final decisions on site plan review proposals shall proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial be the responsibility of the Planning Director. environmental damage or substantially 2.4 PARCEL MAPS and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;and The project area may be subdivided through a Parcel • The design of the subdivision or the Map process. Parcel Maps shall be prepared type of improvement will not conflict consistent with the Mater Plan Concept to facilitate with easements acquired by the public development. These maps shall identify the at large, for access through or use of, infrastructure and improvements necessary to property within the proposed = ,--- support the anticipated projects,subject to review by subdivision unless alternative the City's Public Works and Fire Departments. easements, for access or for use, will-be -. Upon recordation, Parcel Maps may be further provided. divided and/or adjusted by filing a subsequent 2.5 REUSE/CHANGE OF USE REVIEW Parcel Map or a Lot Line Adjustment, pursuant to ` the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. A Any proposal to reuse and/or change the use of a Tentative and Parcel Map may be approved, or conditionally approved by the Planning Director and previously approved and constructed development,within the project area, will be subject to additional the City Engineer providing the proposal is found to review by the Planning Department. The additional be in compliance with the Specific Plan review will follow the same procedures outlined in the In order to approve the Tentative Map the Planning Site Plan Review process. A "like for like" change of Director shall make the following findings: use shall only be subject to the requirements for a new certificate of occupancy; however any new • The proposed Tentative Map is construction beyond that shall require a new Site Plan Review. In addition any proposed physical consistent with the General Plan, modifications to the existing structure and/or site The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 17 June 20, 2000 shall be subject to additional review and approval of Requests for Deviation may include but are not the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building limited to building height, setbacks, open space, permits. The Planning Director may refer individual parking, and landscaping. Deviation requests, up to projects to Design Review Board for review and as ten (10) percent of any single standard, may be final arbiter of compliance with the Specific Plan. Any considered by the Planning Director. Deviations decision by the Planning Department may be appealed greater than ten (10) percent must be approved by a within ten calendar days to the Planning Commission. Variance application before the Zoning Administrator, subject to the procedures outlined in the City's Zoning 2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION and Subdivision Ordinance. Development and construction phasing of selected provisions and The Zoning and Development Standards of all features may be approved by the Director concurrent anticipated development activity for the Crossings at with a Site Plan Review and shall not require a Request Huntington Beach area have been identified in the for Deviation or Variance to the Specific Plan. Specific Plan. Development project requests shall be subject to environmental review as mandated by the Deviations shall be allowed when, in the opinion of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The the Planning Director, significantly greater benefits Planning Director shall impose any applicable from the project can be provided than would occur if environmental mitigation measures,as specified in the all the minimum requirements were met. Some environmental analysis, as conditions of approval on additional benefits which may make a project eligible individual Site Plan Reviews. Such conditions of for consideration include: -greater open space, greater approval shall describe the time period and manner in setbacks, unique or innovative designs, public open which the mitigation measure must be satisfied. space, and the use of energy conservation or innovative technology. The Planning Director may 2.7 REQUEST FOR DEVIATION approve the Request for Deviation in whole or in part upon making the following findings. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan Development Regulations are intended to encourage Promotes better design, environmental and land projects which create an aesthetically pleasing planning techniques and contribute to the appearance, enhance the environment, and facilitate economic viability of the community, through innovative quality architectural design with an aesthetically pleasing architecture, landscaping adaptation to the surrounding environment. and site layout; and Deviations pertain only to the Development Will not be detrimental to the general health, Regulations of the Specific Plan and may be granted at welfare, safety and convenience of the the time of Site Plan Review for special circumstances neighborhood or City in general,nor detrimental and/or unique architectural features. or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general;and The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 18 June 20, 2000 i • Is consistent with objectives of the Specific Plan in achieving a project adapted to the area and compatible with the surrounding environment; and • Is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, and comply with State and Federal Law. 2.8 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS Specific Plan Amendments, other than a Minor Modification as previously described (Section 2.0), shall be made through the Zoning Text Amendment process; subject to consideration and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Such Amendments may include changes to the Development Concept, Design Guidelines policies and the introduction of alternative Development Regulations. 2.9 SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this title, or any future amendments or additions hereto,is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this title, or any future amendments or additions hereto. The City hereby declares that it would have adopted these titles y and each sentence, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion or any future amendments or additions thereto, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, portions or any future amendments or additions thereto may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 19 . June 20, 2000 x�ti S -�`y".����- .a7P,'r"M' may. �'" .^•,s.v'° ,,;n' � r 5: ;r - '�^�,�� ii y1� • I �! i S 1��� fa.+N1�C •;'!""j ���n.KAp' ,n"•1f ,-x,y; A���t'a�"�te,!1�����%�i , '� , rr -:��-: x .1 wse4- 4m�5 J���x11�'ov„i�-�•��l1� �' `'�x�� k � �� i t.,L": i.*• ,4� s � ' Y=���;,1, � r' F, - .j ! him Y t; �^ � ,;; ���' !i' %,►�. -�. � rc— a. +a _ �, -�,r �� � Ott 1 111 ti 3 � � : i i sl b � ` • ! V j I bf ,-'� as r'��,t�.r,//,/� a�x•;�:� 'P � u3� v 1 � 1 � �� �'•�'�'il;fe9"n � F -�a �! y' i��F.+.,f�u�pe�� ���,. •�:., f i FM f {� � , � �®®®��j4��`�Vi/1�%�i�f4.Y._ �11L.n�� � V'���'� I 'V �• � �r�'+:� ME ..a a g. q.m v:,.a�v,_v..� _ `�l�f�•�) 1 ^v•v v' v: r���•5f I� • I I • i ' I ' � i l I ITi liiil lnu l 1 l nlii Inl 72 IIIII IIII IIII IIII ..III I I III _ 1511�I<nmd lewl�', :L....•.•=� `\ ; M.. — _ \�,.• �Qts.` ,. 00 ` LATER AVENUE'•78. /j�,�j1 = _ __ __ _- I =� � _- _ „}„�.. � ,.�; �) - _ =- = - _ ;1- - ��II�� - _ - gip%}'•�` >`\ ���t;` z,9 . 339 arcond I I / �� ( _ - A, _f..r�, F.' -I�'tl���~�Ilwl' .II III��I �-� �•�::,`:� I j,- '� ���YIIUIiiIIII�IIlIl1l;1 �11e-^•�� '��d'^-� PiLLLU t• I ��J�y .4 ✓•r i`:. ..r./�"\ —. l( ' liiii.i . .'j' �' /� .:/i :%/ ,:C t :Fr`• (m.J)s21 . wg I.i i J I. r— _ 'Sy� �' / /• � I Fn'1 .) :is �/i::vJ 1 I 'I I r� -� _�— � r�- �� � �.�' � '' im _ •��' r ;yJ' 7` .?�' ,,+,. ,� 'nl�'/i�,, �.nrJ. ',, `/ :„1 /' '''7. .��\, IM I' _ �— =,x -- =1= _,_ =r =_ —_ =_ ��3' f'. - �3' :r-_ ; ..� -- - �,— _— -;�•: -c7� .r /,I, -II �''Fa I`. I' A• .•� _t— � � _.7 =f`_ � 't� _' _� -- ` ,�f�� Y^#" � � � � ds r � � ,111IIM� �� _ _ .'IS � � 1� �I I_ _ _ _ _ =•L — ---�_ '� r 4' L llI�LW�_ 'i ' CR_IN_R A T--- GEVENUE - I Illustrativ e aster Plan 't 3B Not us illustrative shows a hypothetical development scenario on die project si . The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 22 June 20, 2000 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 3.0 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan The Crossings at Huntington Beach provides for a development concept provides for a planned retail, range of employment opportunities in professional, dining, and entertainment complex in the northern retail, service, food service, and entertainment; and portion of the City of Huntington Beach. The Specific will broaden the employment base of the community. Plan establishes the general type, location, The Specific Plan establishes a clear development architectural style and character of all development concept to assure the facilitation of a cohesive regional within the site's boundaries, while allowing for shopping center. Design measures encompassing site creative design ideas on individual projects consistent planning, area landscaping, building architecture, with an overall concept. streetscapes, pedestrian linkages, setbacks and signage have been established. Adherence to these details and The Crossings at Huntington Beach will be a 63 acre to the established Design Guidelines will create a master planned regional commercial retail, dining, unique and integrated development. and entertainment facility with supporting services. The Specific Plan is designed to allow for development illustrative conceptual master plans (Exhibit 3A in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding 3B) ict scenarios utilizing the various gui community and City of Huntington Beach. The describe n the Specific Plan. The pla provide Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan provides potential lay s identifying building . ntation and an opportunity for a variety of quality regional serving placement, par ' design an access, roadway commercial uses, consistent with the City's General configuration, ent s and dscaping. The plans Plan. are not intended to reflec n ultimate design situation because a large vari of of development patterns The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan and activities evolve whic re also consistent provides the framework and guidelines necessary to with the cific Plan policies, uidelines and create a unique, high quality, visitor serving, regula ' s. The project statistical summ is shown retail/dining/entertainment complex. The site's o xhibit 4A and 4B and hypothetical c eptual proximity to regional transportation systems make the oor plans are shown in Exhibits 5A and 5B. area ideal for a variety of compatible uses andy�,��p� �C. activities. The development concept is designed in concert with the area's history of commercial activities and the community's need for a strong self-sufficient economy. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 23 June 20, 2000 The Specific Plan recognizes that although the main construction of the project will occur at one time, the ultimate buildout of the property may not occur immediately. In fact, building pads may be established without associated building construction but shall be landscaped in a park-like setting until such time as development is proposed. Therefore, this zoning document anticipates future expansions of the development site. In order to address this concern, flexibility has been incorporated into the Specific Plan Development Regulations (Section Four). This flexibility in development guidelines is intended to accommodate future market trends and tenant needs, without sacrificing the intended high-quality character of the project area. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 24 June 20, 2000 THEATER ANCHORS ;RESTAURANTS.. . ;;.,'.TOTAL To be demolished 6,719 iv, - - -- - ._..._. ---....._.. ...._..,.-_.__.._..._,�, .___. _.- ,_._.•. 't-J- '�r✓. ::e',r�ry:rV✓:.:R^:.7:f L3G:rp.^•"' NEW Theater 100,000 Anchors 1751000 Retail 4707187 Restaurants 777246 Addition to Strip Center 71,800 8941233 SUBTOTAL ...i, �4i:�. :,.3. ^!', :L f'. .NIV :r�'"• .;J.�.:;yt�..0^I:':'77s •f:��.:.1f 3,..�:y:;� '1 t 'P'r: 1: t.S^ 7� ti:1^i1. `:A}h l'." i,4,i'� •P"i�...: ''�.r. �L'ri4:o r.� iif'. ,7t': ,i�il%;•''7i:':�.r;P..:'�'A;:i�G:`�',' `;/�'.i%...t4Tn�r ��d•:'^;� ,-2t'a;�;� cti,.�y.,y; ...'S^.:`6,+''{�..n>.. EXISTING'TQ•REMAIN�,.��',� �'.�� :,I�'r'r•. ��.,Y:�;tv.,�.:_ s..Xa, c:.,• ,s., '�0fwfi{• mJ,.... .,.,:: •ae Anchors 82,0 Strip Center 106100 Restaurants 7,300 Banks 8,240 203,540 SUBTOTAL - _'....�.±�k�^.Vfry._ _ --'.5.;•-^--�ri:' Eialb) � S �546 109..777,3:0°OOQ�•t :2 5: ,� a , .. , ..2.,..ry..E . � ,. , .�,. _A Note- Area distribu ns are approximate and may change as the project is developed. Project Description (statistical summ ) pp,Wd Exhibit 4A 5%W colic u rrs The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 25 . June 20, 2000 "'•;����i3;+��''Kr�e �; ,ruS� u'�i" � r':$4"�i;3 ra ; _pr "'i' � 'r�;"', r.',�r,,, !`'=�,. ti_4., <'!K�•, >t,.,� .r: „ a-�:.a ��" :: :, tTH'EAT 91,ANCH .. >:. r kRE ..,r, ty r .. .... ... a - ., . ORS; .xp RETAIL.;,,.. STAURANTS >s: TOTAL DF To he demo f ed 517,231 NEW CIONSTR06TION Theater 100 000 Anchors 1757000 Retail 343,556 Restaurants 777246 Addition to Strip Center 7 , 00 7677612 SUBTOTAL <�;: . . :•�• . �a: Anchors 1.488 Strip Center 000 Restaurants 7,300 Banks 1 1 8,240 333X8 SUBTOTAL _^''aie4i3,r y'dgi7'7y�' r� i';,�� Fti""'T656­22 _ _ _1�00'000: 386 488 7, 84:.5 1` 100 640 Note: Are is( hrWons are approximate and may change as the project is developed. �� Project Description (statistical sum ry) bt&K cwmrs Exhibit 4B The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 26 June 20, 2000 I� "_ -_ _ - - - I ��-'�"`"�r• .- lii.I TmTrrMTFTfTlrfmTFTt Fffff«rtTl - - - ilflfffN{II{1fIIHii�1 - CClliilllllillllll�lll C1111111111111'if'nwu- 1 � � �� I�,�>,_ IC ' - ;..,,,,;,,,,•, _ . 1lilllllllllllllllllli � � �i� �= - _ _- _❑ I = �NII111111111111111I _ -- L-,--•- - _-- \�\ :. �}?,�...., �o �I` _ - _- __ __ _ - =r = _ _ .�'�.•G�NTER AVEN�IE, a: I.cu: - _ _ _ _ - \`,�•� `, '11 i III J I IjJ1,11111111 r -PIIIIIII r. 0,i, v\/I t111111111111111Illllllll_ I I •',.� Imo,+1,�'' w�r - - ,,' \ Hill 111111111111111111 F1'IlllllllllllfnIiil P`L'y \•` I _ - I I� rl�= - --. •,• � , a''':� _( e;' w�, \Jlllllllllflllfllu �� 02, - _ !T •r D:aL fs.. iS:.' _ .�E r65Y 1I.� �•.N S( �r;tY,S srl - .,1 — -- - f� •5':'. - ,r lf:.ua all (3i/.t, il�,(te.fGr Sr•I i;'�,C' Q I __ _ _ _ ..!l,s sy.1 �rrsr •F\ � ,.! dru.t• /,-� '3' - � � � � � � � �'ti:..•_ - �s�ewl• ) O //%ems sr/i.J� /.r/!:� ..� L - i-'i i'..'.ii`._.-� r r _ l'�.aras�•. Sz,v . RI��a�nonununll _ Will 11[1111111111111111111111 Ill]111111111111W1111milln1111111111111111I ��r•I Hllllllllllllllllll i u III II II IIIIIIIIIIIIF I 1;- ---'����_ .•b-.___,_._=-__-��__�1.==_-_tU1NGER AVENDE_ ..� - - -,----_�f q - ���' W ' 5fbYt-, Conceptual Floor Plan �;r¢� s�uV ic2 bui ld�K� �wt Exhibit 5A Level 1 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 27 June 20, 2000 iTTiilITT �-,•_--� --_ 717 — ...- ...;� Ir,I�II II r �II41TILIIIIIIIifIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIitRIIII1111111L _ --`�' __. - '•°\' {jj/'`I <J5d' nand level... I_f1TITTTITLTNI•Til{iTiTL) - HNIHII+IIIIf{IH C{4fIfI IfR�4LILL� _ = A99 list level -_- Iaunulluuunn� � � ' _- •� ,ENTERAVENUE` C1i ;\N'i I�)I �� �_ _ '— —,3j?s^_:m9 lend '. ;I - I = - - - _� __ _- - _ -- - _ - - - - � r�°• � \ �';\",;;�'?:``••'��._.��,� � �� �I I �1t11!llII I11ILIllI LlllllLll)1LW I11111LLL '9y # r: C _ I _ - --- _ ,l I - - 23 '117 Yll rtr.a is• r � L.1., .S m�e' '�' rzw' an,'n''e/ rcr lr \�itl�l�ll{{1{lllllll - �n,.r^� �a. !' , .+_ -- 1 _ _- _ - -- -_______.- '"�:.I^ e_ si. sseo si vs:o v.� r`•r�'o:n; \ - son°i;. '�_. ..! LO L � _ _ '�Is:., r.)..r Ur,rw/s r.)r.(,e_m t•1 s,•i� IIIII{i �. isii:'1.. .' �' '�/.,:�: _ q _� I - - =- -- -1 -- -- -- -= -- -_ -_ -_ 1•Illlllllf _ 1 c•.nr.� _ -- - - =- �=I-- __ -- -- '�Nll1111Wll =_ __ I, I�I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII- = - --- ��`T'�' 7'•^I I , !!! 11111nnnnnlnlnnnnnulununllllllllllllllNflllllJlW__ 1`._ t, 11111llluutullunLllu1HIMIIluluul1ll_IPIHIIIIII11nnllnll111111 = --: l7iunlllLimltllill I I IIUIInII�nnlIII I —� A �—=I...-L. c. � _ _T_jlll I�-T� __-E,�INGERAVENUE-- —=-- =----•- � i== _ , . ll� -- - - _. 'QG 1�1,fQ,L�'l flvl - WOIA��h� -�D 'Mclttde ► jo 1 Conceptual Floor Plan 611-1 . Exhibit 5A Level 2 601 H- (Zv►cuY� The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 28 June 20, 2000 - (---- -- -- I^L .'. CFW - � r TFR:AVENUN-t :''r{ilTri"iTiiiYfTrfrrnilrnl.�---I F{;TnmmirrrrJiTiriTrmmnrnmrriilTimnllil.,;rn�"-_-_ -7 ,- _ `• ry r+.uuurinmunumnuwnuiuirnmunn �;;�( .amnr mrrmm�rrmrrrrrrrrrm �.�, � I' - — _ — _ -- (;� - — 1' � \"•". � '�' ,h1�I11111Nlhrtlf��ni ,.• -� ' - - - � t.- \l'� �:z� .. ,_. .�;..•_ `��; ._. . - -- - -- -- k - f!IllllillllfillflNi{'yfillilfllNlll _� `tllilllilllllilliillt9 � _ _'I• I- b- -T- �Z/ gas I!!t!llllJl L!llillJLATER AVCN�jE' 0=1 _ = ',7s H1111111111111111Milli if _ __ _ __ __ _ __ �� �1,• � ___ _ ,.� �x:au/:a,�uy _I __ r'I f 14rnl� ��?I �- __ _ �1' I-.=(�%'`l,�r,,t:• _ U %` �. �••'.'• IT, , �ll1ll1111LIllllLllill 11l 1 1 l;l l;l 1111111 0 1 1 11111 i I:Ill1lllJ1!lll1!llll�!111111111!nllil — - _ _Jllllllr!iu_tllllllllllllllllllll!III!IIIIIIIIIIL diJlllilll!II!III11111111 LII _ lllllllllllllllll!11!111111!lll l lJilil! (lit-II'�! I I.,FDINGER AVENUE. - ---- — — — — - j 7G -we/wD►I - {a 1V1CAU�-Q. IMAwTj s�r.e. ow►-d- -�tr�� Ioak� s�it.�iZe., lov�i laU v�g �V�� Conceptual Floor Plan —A-MR Exhibit 5B Level 1 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 29 . June 20, 2000 ENFER-AWN 111TI�liIii;II1111111111A. .��riiililTillrliltiT111rilllrlITT77I1TT1(1TTI(1TrilUJ/7''-'� "i' �� .{ 'y� �1diIIIIIIIIfIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII- - l'' V'`' -vr. le ' - (}11i �Il�rli{� n 7r*) 16 G H I !j : ==�HHf�IIhIH+f��Hf �t+4fµl� ;.�.-_ 1i11111111111111Ii11!19 =_ -; ____ _=-_ _._- � ,�� � = '��' �:�... •�����, gs. J _ �� _ -- -- _ =1= -- -- __-_ -_ _ _ _ __ ._�� <���,. NTER AVEN�,16;� �C0jA �5 -r- ---�711T �- _ _ � �'ill II - �_ _ � __ _ _.. • I' 51pVJ SS. �i' L_J I__I I� ' \ \\. �•\• \�•1•``� ��. X��I,�I (�: !� J.- -- ri _ j, o Irnrrnnnrnnrnrnr— `� h \-' %� ,� Ij\1C) ! J�I!illl!IIIIIIIhiII� —�; V�.. I ��fTTi!TFIFri tll u % _� `••:: .. -- . rLil _I11El—r- '� II _� ° • �� ` rr'' —_ -_ ___-=-- � ,`�;� ',71!IIIIIIII�hIIIIIIIIIJ - '\�• . it i i j - ' - -_ _ � .I•�,`� �I� lTl� � �'', � `:illllllllllll!iIi� =' `� �: '-� flyit MW CO ,Wsz �I1_ ;1 ( Rj �.i �-._, .]I.. Ichi.i�.)) i_l _ = ii'� I -I I.�� ��-; �-�1 - I�R.� III' e 1I I II I III I I I I a lllllll - - - --..— - J- 1 - I _ I _ I ' 1 LL — lu II`i� u IIIIlllllll l lllll111111111111111111111 IIIUIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII I IIIf-__-` a .I �'lullnnnunnlmnnnuluuullulllulur:ulnnlulunulllulll,ll uunn I n u unl�T;llll I, EDINGER AV[✓NUE w, ° Conceptual Floor Plan w�, -� YVIAwi� ►mom Exhibit 5B Level 2 s1v�ra, dund �� bad s�,�aZe. Iou4 Wn5 iotpO 0 Siff tbV\CkX yc, The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 30 June 20, 2000 The objective of the Specific Plan is to implement the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General 3.1 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USES Plan by defining the physical development of the Crossings at Huntington Beach site. Included in this The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan approach are the establishment of land use, recognizes unique development opportunities within circulation, infrastructure, landscape and the project area. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to architectural design characteristics for the project create a distinct cluster of activities and allow for area. The Specific Plan consists of a number of major individual project development and tenant occupancy components which will guide the development process to occur in a timely manner, within an overall Master including the Circulation Plan, Public Facilities Plans, Plan Concept. This approach recognizes development Landscape Concept, Design Guidelines, and patterns, market conditions and establishes sufficient Development Regulations. flexibility to provide for the opportunity of a variety of activities within the Specific Plan area. Any reuse, subdivision, or new development shall be ouu vDv ob YQ, YG��1' subject to the provisions of the Specific Plan. Refer to The City of Huntington Bea h General Plan identifies Section 2.3 Site Plan Review. typical permitted uses unde the Commercial Regional land use category. These ses include, but are not The Specific Plan identifies and requires sufficient limited to, anchor depa ent stores, outlet stores, infrastructure and public facilities to adequately and promotional ("big box") retail, retail commercial, efficiently support any and all anticipated uses and restaurants, entertain ent, professional offices, activities. These improvements will coincide with any financial institutions, and similar regional-serving upcoming development project. This upfront effort uses. will allow for buildout of the Specific Plan in an m lude seine eemmereial basinesse,�,- stiek as auto expedited manner, subject to compliance with the Specific Plan and the Environmental Analysis. —uso. Future activities for the area will depend on market conditions and may include a variety of The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan activities consistent with the City's General Plan. These identifies effective .land planning and design development activities may be either an expansion of regulations techniques in a flexible format which can existing facilities and/or independent new projects. take advantage of ideas and opportunities presented by The project area can. accommodate a total future tenants and users. development of 1,100,640 square feet of regional commercial uses. �p p1 p?0" S `1 The 'Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific"Plan 31 June 20, 2000 - I41llll-111HIIIIIIIIIII %We NO 'Ss. � 1 _ � :_�_ T .. .. •= I - }IIIIIIIIII�IIIIII�IN LIIIIIIIHIII111111111= - - -- I ,f-,t_ r' +\'• . = _ n'JI Ina Irv.^I T. V�Znooll �,�� � �- LI - -- -- ••�� _ � `i71111111111111111� l ��)�' ILL 111111 ffll I ' I - - - � - - - - - - - .. �'I •. NNNNNN.• -.`" ....IIIIII --_ �- - -- --- - .Ins - ;•� ,,, ! '��-.�' �'t� 12 HIIIIIIIIIII t.[wunl i=-i -- _. lil!iIIIIInIIIIIIIIIIII I Iluullillllilillll I11IIi IpIllUlllf - .. _ 1 � u iNNN• 1-1-11-1-----••••••i•iN•.`�NiN• uiuIin'I�'IInuiIiuiIIili��n��lu��n l "nii iiu I u inl n _ — IiIIIIIIPIiIIII III I II I Inl I ilil `�'- .•jluF .1'i... i iiiNi�iiiiNiNi�� ��-iR71i•iiiN�N�- _ �N••� M•' EDINGER AVENUE 441y" VJad& tivfe, ami bra / 6m" sQ&vcm f-Ovl Pedestrian Plaza / Walkways Plan Exhibit 6A The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 32 June 20, 2000 -ffrfflT1TfTfTM7T1 F: TM T T i-.- !f7 zE LK^VLINVt T 00 ""See* a F Ili- -h1hW'111111LLLW1 T ose 4 t F 6869000 1r Z—Y,X/ x� -7 -- ----------- - 0 off E T =7 771:: as al= 2s J LI Cal h P + T, L,U'.1W Lgj ou lij6l� I-I u I ujY u tJNGE13LAV N.VE----- I-- WA Pedestrian Plaza Walkways Plan Exhibit 6B The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 33 June 20, 2000 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USE POLICIES: Strada, the Plaza and the Colonnade. A pedestrian 3.1.1 Any expansion beyond the initial site plan walkway system is also used to connect the Crossings approval, shall be through the site plan review process at Huntington Beach with public transportation (see section2.5). facilities and surrounding network of public streets (see Exhibit 6A and 6B). 3.1.2 Retail, dining, entertainment, and related uses PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AND WALKWAYS POLICIES: drawing from a regional commercial/market area shall be the primary intended activity within the project area. 3.2.1 Individual developments and activity areas within the specific plan area shall be linked through a 3.2 PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AND WALKWAYS series of pedestrian walkways which culminate in an interconnected system of pedestrian plazas creating a The Crossings at Huntington Beach Master Plan variety of open spaces. identifies open space areas which can accommodate 3.2.2 A pedestrian walkway system will link or outdoor commercial activities, seasonal recreation and connect all future development pads to the central entertainment activities, and casual pedestrian portion of the Crossings at Huntington Beach. meeting places. These pedestrian plazas become the central focus of a number of commercial nodes within, the project area. In addition to the major plaza areas, 3.2.3 All pedestrian walkways shall be designed and there are a number of entry nodes which serve as the landscaped consistent with the overall theme of the interfacing links between the vehicular and the Crossings at Huntington Beach. pedestrian areas. 3.2.4 Pedestrian walkways as shown on Exhibit 6A and The clustering of open space plazas are connected 6B shall be incorporated on the Landscape and through pedestrian walkways. These walkways also Technical Site Plans and shall comply with American serve as a link between the variety of Village Disabilities Act requirements. The walkways shall commercial facilities and the Entry Plaza,the Village include shade trees, seating every 200 feet, decorative pavers,and lighting (see cross section on page 41). The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 34 June 20, 2000 - I • _QiTT—nIT-IMIT IRaiInunnllnnnnl nulnlrnl llTinnmt +numm�mmm�nlnnunrnnnnnnmt_ - '�'-�� /llI 1 nnTITnnnrmnmrmmnrmmtnt nn IC4 ru.rd'.d IIIIH�M.Ni+IHN+ITru I = -•f slim IH1++I+I�IH IiII�INHNII �6 limy, �}}+}}++t++H{y .,.9 lust lend -nM _ --- = J \(g� 1 fntuluw,uuw I \ ,. tijA .r5 lit =t �sr.•r ;IilllllTlll fllllllilTll •\�\ ' alw:::., of F:..�I W-:o sry' `jq�, II�11 �I����� 'II .�� •. - �v ——- -- -- - -- - -------— irLu•il � �C�(�I I+I I I I{I I I I I I I+ITll \ `• I •>u- uuo st. ir. - Ww -•i\�\.. �llllllllllllllll — w v I �� _ _ �' '�•` ��� Gaa��J •_�����`;':�- a�=T ��HHI+i{IfI+HHIH� - � ,,,�,r� �� ;---- �I l+tll _maa>_:Wu�•uir__:_� so._�:s_rc_,�._'•_lax_Tu lav_.o•vsirr..)_ _- -_is{ I�r,.;e'b'io;v;l �\\f._�._.�,�I,�•�II,./`'" ;/%:/",�-r�:��-,��,.�•� "`'' - _ L1! _ IIlI11sIQlu - - - L I -R rU - �Il111WJ - lllllll It1111111IW •T14 sr • - L_ _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111tllIIJIli lllllltlllllllII - EQINGER_AVENUE �•tI,,ltl'plpllyry11T1�11 1I I III-I-II IIIlI_IllllI lll-i llllll-l-1 l_.l il 111l_1-1t_l1l lllll__ll1l lll-- •�'__I.� _ • 1J1 TIu..iu.�r Vu.yyuW.J lul,n.vi.0 � SWjw lkirt.ry �lnrars Y,/' C�I/ . ...... Siywla.J.w•r... (� Gluur lkn.+"uy l.uuwv l/�r 1 NyQ.lu/iyW,.. Tp J Twuvu r�\�j�� �y/} ,� Cu+IW RyEi W�0.iyW Vm�w.•.+....r v.i>.v� O Fuudl•.Wuu.uu..�Lt�..vu>lw.axu.S4fuJ J �1 \ 1 �\��• • T J.,tl_,w,a.� ly/�1 Y, Circulation Plan O Fry.JIW.Suq Proposed New Center Ave. Driveway Existing Off-Ramp Exhibit 7A The.Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 35 June 20, 2000 -- - - - -- I �'" iTtrtTrmnnlTmlrTrltTrrr — ' mmrirRri - -- -- - - - - - — %%, n nZ{rlrmrmnnlrmnitmTIMMFIlll?imTrfr � \\ _ IIIIHL IfHHlf�i� 2nn taf /61 and kM jai Illlfllffffffffflflll'IfllffHlfl u.w Illllgt _ __ _ __ _ __ `..•}��`� = /59 rest lend =--�. LII1111 i1 i�lll�l� - - -- -- -- `i 1 '61•-, � L� i•'�` \� •��•,v �ti II _ _ -- - s�s!cmA lea' -- _ I - - -- -- -_ _-_ __ __ _- __ - � �1:1. � =i� `•�.e%'�I� �..f�, KIT, IPM 1 JSryk Sr.' � RTinIMPITI TTIRiIT I _ �•r� ;, _ _ „sa'fs' ��_;a`<�c;_l�l'�III+'IHH+fH�l�l :� _��\�,�` iiiriiiiJlnilL-l` nsm ., ••\�'. --'------ I So - _ 5T ,• uauo sr.) ur.lw s,.1 fx xn ti.) u.r \ -`lIII111iIlI�l �\\ \r' •rf ,.,:;�A;;;.I,,'�'.�, \ Y, ZI r cc .__ _. _ - -- .. - _ _ {II1111L� - 1 Rnet _ - __ __ _ 1�NV..�--rrr-�:: 1--1 L] Rr'RAM7� rvn sr I nL1L1LL WJnLWI � w c = _� _� —_.:_ 1}ill111J1L1111ll1111ll1llWi1iLI1lll111lllll1lllilll1J11111L _..- -_ =�1 elhllllll11111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111]t1llJllllllll!1!III!II!Pllj `.AIIIIIIIILIllllllLllIIIIIIII1Jl.I11ll11.I1111I11ll j EDI.NGER — C� IrAl Slm.nww l�ml,mliml Mr<rRti°, �, N,In lltnnn rnr.ae ��rn � �rV� °I�� ��u�r'Sv I � �,• . G.mIuN Rnn�at°n 0 Alin,Penn EMrw� VV v VV���• j RgMI°,RnMPR n t a Rni°mn Circulation Plan JL rrnRiry RiRM In/0.1pM fTnrr.�wn....a..._...rr r"^' Alnmenne lhne.„I.rcnin-SlRwliml 5ta�+ tZV • ° R^ Proposed New Center Ave. Driveway Proposed Off-Ramp Exhibit 7A The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 36 June 20, 2000 --- if=tENTF AVENU__ }— %!�IliliillPlilT1111r1I�1 i�IIIIIIIIIIIirlllilillllllTiII1111iIlITI11fIIIIII11I11!i'— _ --, — _ , I %�i a Ibr ttlaalllllllllllllllllllllllilitlllllllllllllllllllllt.,� ____ i_-_ .�.�:-, Arrnimnrn ill nmrmmnTTrmrrmrrrrrrr ;HffIiIIIIfIHIitIfT-o , `i lllllllillliliilli'1 �: \\ tgI ill 1111L111ll - LS c - , >�`. SAN I�IEGO FREEWAY-405 - ER AV� Ltu I: _ ZZ�,"', / F1 V' `\ iIII -1 `� � � .... � / ,�._.f� � G, � � _:/_.�/__ L/j I I I•il IIII�YII11TrrTIrllPlrMP I I�I � i!I�= r _ ��� _ __ ° "'// — �%% o,ru'l.•/�.Ev:b'�,'{"�/�T` 'm„� ���'1111111111111111111 � ,�'✓,���� ri;�.. (I' � — — -- — -- _— _ .�L :/ �/ / :a,r.t• ,I (\ll.11,Illill '���r���� .. I'IBr CI B( __ __ -�e to sr _ - -- - — - III r a�I 1 hW1LIWlll111Wlllll II 111Wll llll ll ,fllll(111lWI!tlllll!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1Wllllr eouuwsil= II. I .- — fWWllllllI1ll11llWllW11L1W1111WWll lllllllllll IIII a�f I _ roan v , II I — --- �i a I • .-.. i �_— __'_r : = -"I�• + �- EDINGER- AVENUE— • y.,.E.a�r_:..� .. _ r,.rm._.y�.. 51�re. �e,/ �a' '�'I sit u 9t �pu i�c�`t�a� �e JTViWfS 1 Circulation Plan • s,a„y uoy,v�....r.i W Y 1 VlN�7 Existing Off-Ramp Exhibit 7B The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 37 . June 20, 2000 I'F_ IN UNTFR-A ............ 72 15, TTTPTrMTMTM F '459 t"St I"I � __ _- � __ -_ -'.)\r�� (�; z`_ I���:�,:' SAN DIEGO FREEWAY-405 iLLIJ JILLY •I Ili __ _ __ ' __ _ - `REiA0. � '�- __ __ __ _ _.I_ __ ___ _f = _-- ___ ` `,\' \\� J Mil I t III III 1!1111.1111 W!ll I I I I Ij L[t[it I III I y(I I I T 4-� 0 A\ ` 1.11111111LJ 1111,1111 p rinimmunimAj 7,1�7- ,, 'X� 3, nz_ .. Hill Iv­ LZ El= =T ikc R( ­)i Al WE IaLMMIRLIH __ IL11,11LIM ...-EDINGER AVENUE j.f _00 A 0. taa[Z�L 1JL 0 Circulation Plan ICOYI CU YSProposed Off-Ramp Exhibit 7B The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 38 June 20, 2000 3.3 CIRCULATION PLAN enhanced by a number of signalized entry drives and public transportation facilities (Exhibit 7A and 7B). The Circulation Plan illustrates the major and minor driveway entrances to the site, signalized intersections, The circulation plan relies on a . hierarchy of bus stops and bus pads supporting the development circulation features ranging from major arterials to and surrounding areas, and the public street system local streets. The system is designed to accommodate within the Specific Plan boundaries. The Circulation customer, employee, and delivery traffic to and Plan is consistent with the Huntington Beach General around the project area while discouraging ',,through Plan's Circulation Element and the Edinger Avenue tr ffG 5 o bi sct t�►e pro' c � ate` 3Q. �-S't Precise Plan of Street Alignment. ' , 51 � ►�- vts awe �WLVYDVa- ow►rn t-S. Primary access to the City of Huntington Beach and 4-- drive aisles. the Crossings at Huntington Beach is provided by Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway). The City's General • Plan designates the intersection of Beach Boulevard Primary aeEess leeatiens inte the projeet area %411 be and Edinger Avenue as an internal node and a primary -located and 61@si n@d to--pr-ovidlo- €till turning entry node to the City. Access to the project site is i "=AAts. '-�9192tienR M44te,te-@,Xjsti14gd� provided by a system of arterial highways including: • Beach Boulevard, a north-south principal arterial —Speeifie €Rtuedevelopment-proposals-mayr�nir� - street (120 foot right-of-way), designated as a state rdedifieatiens te-these-antieipat d access leeatiens. highway, a primary path/image corridor, major Ct"wke;, urban scenic corridor,and transit service route. Alternative forms of transportation should also receive careful consideration: The current OCTA bus route • Edinger Avenue, an east-west major arterial street passes the project area on Edinger Avenue and Center (120 foot right-of-way),designated as a truck route, Avenue. The project Circulation Plan identifies primary path/image corridor, and minor urban existing and proposed bus turnout locations along scenic corridor and transit service route. Edinger Avenue and Center Avenue. As a supplement to vehicular access to the project area,potential future • Center Avenue,an east-west secondary arterial street access such as a light rail system and stop shall be (80 foot right-of-way), designated as a transit pursued if available, from the existing rail line on the service route. western boundary of the site. Internal circulation is currently provided by a network In addition, the Development Concept encourages the of private drives/streets serving as access to individual creation of a pedestrian walkway system. As a means portions of the project area. Circulation is further of achieving a strong landscape image, pedestrian walkways are required and shall be provided throughout the development to facilitate pedestrian The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 39 June 20, 2000 access from adjacent developments to the project site. 3.3.5 Shared access facilities and reciprocal vehicular The pedestrian walkway system shall include. access to and between individual on-site activities may walkways around the perimeter of the site in the street be requested and/or required by the Director of right-of-way. Planning for adjacent uses and parcels. CIRCULATION PLAN POLICIES: 3.3.6 Alternative transportation forms such as a light rail stop shall be coordinated with Orange County 3.3.1 Primary access to the project area shall be from Transportation Authority and pursued by the the existing signalized intersections along Edinger Crossings at Huntington Beach should a light rail Avenue and Center Avenue. New access locations into urban transit system be developed in the future. the project area shall occur only where traffic patterns Existing bus stops shall be relocated as needed to and median openings allow, subject to review and conform to pedestrian patterns. New bus turnouts are approval of the Directors of Public Works and planned along Edinger Avenue and a new bus stop Planning and the Fire Chief. along Center Avenue. 3.3.2 A new primary access into the project shall be pursued where the San Diego Freeway on and off Parking Area ramps intersect with Center Avenue, subject to Cal- Trans, Department of Highways approval and 5'Planter Island approval of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and the Fire Chief. 3.3.3 Additional new driveway access points from the , street system adjacent to the project area shall be limited and allowed only when the project size, location or type of use warrants such access, subject to t> review and approval of the Director of Public Works and Fire Chief. No new driveways along Edinger Avenue or Beach Boulevard will be permitted. 3.3.4 Deceleration and acceleration lanes for _ driveway access points may be required,depending on the location of the proposed access point. s'Crosswalk Pedestrian Walkway Section The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 40 June 20, 2000 3.3.7 Pedestrian sidewalks shall be incorporated into the 3.4 PUBLIC FACILITIES project as a component of the landscape plan. Sidewalks shall be installed throughout the The Public Facilities section discusses infrastructure, development to facilitate pedestrian access from storm drain, sewer, and water facility improvements adjacent developments to the project site. The necessary to serve development within the Specific pedestrian walkway system shall include walkways Plan area. A speeif e psis —of in&ast� e--- around the perimeter of the site in the street right-of- , way and through the parking lot to the project area. phasing plans ean be feund in the final eivil report and betind„n eF a sepapate-eewn ff 3.3.8 Public landscape areas within the right-of-ways 5� shall require a separate Parkway Landscape PUBLIC FACILITIES POLICY: �N �' Agreement for continued maintenance of the area. All public facilities infrastructure necessary to serve 3.3.9 A traffic impact analysis/traffic signal warrant development within the specific plan area shall be analysis shall be required, in association with a completed concurrent with initial project development proposal for the site. Future traffic development, subject to review and approval of the impact analyses may be required due to unanticipated Director of Public Works. project developments not previously anaylzed. All traffic studies shall be subject to review and approval by the Directors of Planning and Public Works. 3.3.10 Circulation system improvements will be master planned to accommodate ultimate buildout of the Specific Plan. However, since the majority of the project is anticipated to be constructed during the initial development stage, all on-site and off-site circulation improvements shall be completed prior to the first occupancy request. Future expansions permitted under the Specific Plan may generate additional circulation improvements as determined by future traffic impact analyses. 3.3.11 A Delivery and Fire Truck circulation plan, depicting on site access routes and manuverability, shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works and the Fire Chief,in association with a development proposal for the site. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 41 June 20, 2000 3.4.1 WATER SYSTEM Domestic water for the property will be provided Proposed architectural site changes will be reviewed by the Public Works Water Division of the City of by the Fire Department for code compliance and may Huntington Beach. require additional fire hydrant installation. These hydrants (if any) will be connected to the existing or The Water Division has use of both underground and proposed water line loop. The number of hydrants on imported water sources to service the area. The the system is not relevant to the flow delivered and, underground supply comes from nine existing wells, therefore, does not affect the system. The required fire and imported water is delivered to the City of suppression sprinkler flow rate is approximately Huntington Beach by the Metropolitan Water District 27500 gpm. The existing and proposed fire sprinkler (MWD) at three locations. The Specific Plan area is systems will be required to meet this standard. It is not part of the City's Master Plan for Water Service and anticipated that the proposed modifications to the the ultimate development anticipated will be Crossings at Huntington Beach will require water flow adequately served by the City's existing systems. for fire protection above that which the existing system can deliver. MWD is the major wholesale water purveyor to the City of Huntington Beach which, in turn, is the retail All on-site water improvements will be designed to the provider to all water users in the City, including the City of Huntington Beach water standards. Water subject property. system improvements from the public right-of-way to the on-site meter shall be designed for future City The existing center has a looped water system. Water acceptance and maintenance. Locations of fire is delivered to the site by the City of Huntington hydrants and apparatuses will be reviewed by the Fire Beach's 12-inch line located in Edinger Avenue and a Department and Water Division of the City of 12-inch water main on Beach Boulevard. Huntington Beach to ensure adequate fire flow and pressure. A final design analysis will be performed The proposed modifications to the center will require during the site engineering stage to properly size the that a portion of the looped system be reconstructed. system, determine final alignments, and determine if The required hydrant flow for fire sprinklers is 4,000 additional water improvements are necessary. gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square Construction of the redesigned water system shall be inch (psi). The existing and proposed upgraded fire completed prior to first occupancy. hydrant systems will be required to comply with this standard. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 42 June 20, 2000 3.4.2 SEWER SYSTEM The City of Huntington Beach is responsible for The existing 10-inch sanitary sewer line exiting the the review and approval of the, collection of site is adequately sized to carry the anticipated flows wastewater within the project area. The Orange from the reconstructed center. However, final design County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for analysis will be performed during the site engineering the treatment of wastewater. The City system stage to properly size the system, determine final ultimately is collected by the Sanitation District via alignments, and determine if additional sewer their trunk and distribution lines to convey sewage to improvements are necessary. Construction of new District Plant #5, located in Fountain Valley, and sewer lines shall be completed prior to first District Plant #2 in Huntington Beach. occupancy. Sewage from the subject property is collected via a private on-site collection system with a singular outfall point at the southwest corner of the site. A 69 inch sanitation district trunk line runs beneath the concrete channel located along the west property line. No changes to this existing connection are anticipated. An existing on-site private system consists of a series of 4, 67 8, and 10-inch lines collecting into one 10- inch line which is proposed to connect with the county system referenced above. Due to the reconfiguration of the development, it will be necessary to remove or abandon-in-place several sanitary sewer lines and replace them. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific-Plan 43 June 20, 2000 3.4.3 STORM DRAINAGE The City of Huntington Beach and the Orange and may include water storage in underground pipes. County Flood Control District are the agencies As a result,no ponding will occur at any point on site responsible for the flood control system in the project during a 100 year event. vicinity. A regional flood control channel exists along the western boundary of the site. The existing detention pond will be removed and be regraded as an additional parking area. The existing drainage system consists of two main lines, "A" and "B". Secondary line "C" drains a small There will be a need to add various new lines to drain area westerly of the existing Montgomery Ward store the open air section of the Crossings at Huntington in addition to secondary line "D", and numerous Beach. However, final , design analysis will be connecting laterals. All lines drain westerly into a City performed during the site engineering stage to of Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel properly size the system, determine final alignments, (Huntington Beach Storm Channel C5-5C2). Drainage and determine if additional storm drain improvements area boundaries have been identified based on existing are necessary. inlets and catch basins. Construction of storm drainage improvements shall be There is a small drainage area located at the northerly completed prior to first occupancy. perimeter of the Crossings at Huntington Beach which drains into a small basin located in the northwest corner of the site. Hydraulic calculations performed on the existing storm drain system revealed that ponding in a 100 year event will be as follows: average depths of 1 foot and a maximum depth of 2.8 feet were determined for the ponding over line "A." Average depths of 9 inches and a maximum depth of 1.4 feet were determined for the ponding over line "B." The storm drainage discharge rates from the remodeled Crossings at Huntington Beach will remain similar with the exception of the discharge from the enclosed shopping area. This area will now become an open air shopping complex. Drainage areas will be redistributed to redtice ponding throughout the site The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 44 June 20, 2000 3.4.4 WATER QUALITY Water quality in California is regulated by the use of oil and grease traps,detention basins,vegetation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National filter strips,and other common techniques in order to Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), preclude discharge of pollutants into local storm which controls the discharge of pollutants to water drains and channels. bodies from point and non-point sources. A NPDES permit or other EPA review will be required for 3.4.5 UTILITIES individual construction projects. There are several public utility service providers Prior to issuance of any grading permit or demolition in the Specific Plan area. Adequate facilities exist for permit (including removal of any hazardous materials the current service needs of the area, however, such as, asbestos) the developer shall submit a "Notice additional facilities may be required as additional of Intent" (NOI), a Storm Water Pollution Prevention development occurs. Plan (SWPPP), and any required fees to the State Water Resources Control Board. These documents 3.4.6 ELECTRICITY shall be filed under the terms covered by the State NPDES General Construction permit. The SWPPP shall Electrical service to the area is provided by the be on file with the Public Works Department prior to Southern California Edison Company. Existing any demolition or removal of hazardous materials. transmission and distribution lines are adequate to service current and potential future needs. Any new Through the NPDES Permit process, the City currently or existing overhead utilities (excluding 66kv) shall-be requires contributors to non-point runoff pollution to undergrounded per the City's undergrounding establish Best Management Practices (BMP's) to ordinance (Chapter 17.64 HBMC). minimize the potential for pollution. Under this program, the developer is responsible for 3.4.7 NATURAL GAS identification and implementation of a program of BMP's which can include special scheduling of project activities, prohibitions of certain practices, Natural gas service in the Specific Plan area is establishment of certain maintenance procedures, and provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Adequate facilities exist for current and projected other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of downstream waters. Typical elements of future needs. Relocation of existing facilities shall be such a BMP program would include addressing the concurrent with project development. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan. 45 June 20, 2000 3.4.8 COMMUNICATIONS Telephone service in the Specific Plan area is provided by General Telephone (GTE). Relocation of existing facilities and new installation shall be concurrent with project development. Provisions for fiber optic communications shall also be included in the overall site planning for the project area and shall be provided prior to the first occupancy request. Cable television service within Huntington Beach is provided by Time Warner Communications. Installation of new services shall be concurrent with project development. 3.4.8 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Rainbow Disposal Company currently provides solid waste disposal services for the area. Based on service projections and anticipated demand increase, an adequate level of service will be maintained. No solid waste disposal facilities are planned to be located in the Specific Plan area. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 46 June 20, 2000 /1\ kji � F-- Design Guidelines Mimi - -- -- ' BEDLAM& The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 47 June 20, 2000 3.5 DESIGN GUIDELINES Huntington Beach as part of the Site Plan Review process. The Design Guidelines are general and may 3.5.1 PROJECT AREA CHARACTER be interpreted with some flexibility in their application to specific projects. Variations may be considered for The project character and theme for the projects with special design characteristics that still Crossings at Huntington Beach is that of the Italian meet the objectives of the Guidelines. Village. Italian Villages derive their character and The Design Guidelines shall be used to promote a high classic charm from the ancient Roman and Greek level of design quality while at the same time provide architecture that was infused during the initial some flexibility, necessary to encourage creativity on construction of these villages. As the years and the part of individual/tenant designers. The Design centuries passed on, additional construction and Guidelines have been prepared to articulate the reconstruction occurred in these villages, adding even intended development standards of the Specific Plan. a more layered architectural identity. The styles of The Guidelines establish a framework for Classical, Neo-Classical, Baroque Rococo and even developers/designers of individual projects and design Modern and Post Modern Designs influenced these criteria, which the City will use to evaluate proposed villages over time. It is the intent to utilize this developments. montage of designs to tastefully develop a specific vernacular of architecture that best represents that of 3.5.2 SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES an Italian Village. The Design Guidelines establish the character and The positive shopping experience begins at style for the development of this retail, dining and landscaped entrances to the site, which lead to entertainment complex with buildings and convenient and ample parking. The center's open-air streetscapes that have a distinctive visual identity. The spaces of plazas, courtyards and passageways will be Guidelines accommodate individual project identities arranged in a non-linear pattern. Attention to lighting and promote interrelationships between and low level landscaping shall be given along non- complementary building storefronts and exterior linear passageways and pedestrian walkways to allow spaces. The major elements of the Design Guidelines pedestrians to see ahead and around the walkways include: site planning, overall project/tenant clearly. Additionally,the main plazas will be accented architecture, exterior pedestrian amenities, by water features. A pedestrian walkway will connect landscaping, and signage. All development projects east to the existing adjacent Village Retail center. within the Specific Plan area shall conform to the Italianate themed graphics add to the continuity of all Design Guidelines and shall incorporate appropriate the linked spaces. To facilitate the development of The theme elements. Crossings at Huntington Beach into a unique resource for the community the following site planning policies The Design Guidelines shall be used by the Crossings shall apply: at Huntington Beach owner and the City of The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 48 June 20, 2000 SITE PLANNING POLICIES 3.5.2.1 Site layout for the project shall be designed to route people and vehicles through the site in a clear, identifiable, efficient and effective manner by incorporating unique pedestrian walkways and highlighting main drive aisles with landscaping and specially treated paving. w- 3.5.2.2 A minimum of six public open space amenities shall be provided on site. Of the six total ;_: public amenities to be provided, at least two water features and two public art elements are required I..... `• __ V �..,,. * .A,' , and shall be incorporated into the common project area. The remaining two public amenities may be located anywhere on site. Potential Entry Signage 3.5.2.3 Loading and storage areas facing public streets shall be designed to resemble a facade. The facade 3.5.2.5 Parking shall be provided onsite in a manner that shall include architectural details and design is convenient and compatible with the layout and elements to ensure integration into the project design of the overall project and consistent with the environment and shall appear as a typical tenant standards in Exhibit 15. Satellite pad buildings are storefront. Loading areas at the rear of the Village encouraged to provide a minimum setback without Retail center shall be updated with facade parking between the building and the street (see improvements and shall be screened from view from General Plan Policy 10.1.15.0. the surrounding street system. 3.5.2.6 Security provisions, including lighting, building 3.5.2.4 Entry drives shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet entrance visibility, and drive locations, shall be wide, not including landscaped medians. carefully considered. Landscaped medians, a minimum of four (4) feet wide, shall be incorporated into three (3) main entry drives along Edinger for a depth of 100 feet. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 49 June 20, 2000 3.5.2.7 Public Restroom Facilities shall be designed to minimize the corridor distance leading to public restrooms. The length of the corridor from the mall exterior to the door of the restroom shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. Restrooms shall be designed utilizing a single door to enter into the facility. Stall doors shall have purse hooks installed in both men's and women's restrooms. All hallways leading to the restrooms shall have surveillance cameras installed that shall be tape recorded 24 hours a day. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 50 June 20, 2000 3.5.3 COMMON AREA GUIDELINES The Crossings at Huntington Beach is divided into several unique spaces. The Italian Village setting will be carried out through distinctive architectural design elements including towers, domes and arches, cobblestone streets and walks, water features and site amenities that reflect the quaint and harmonious lifestyle of an Italian Village. A wide color palette with contrasting accent elements will create a lively exciting experience for visitors to the Crossings at Huntington Beach. (See section 4.5.3). -- I , TmnmTTIT(fffTmml.lAM1 1fil TUlR➢TMTM11TfTrlTilTIInmmfift'' - � rrRmT T1Tnmrrrr rrm r l rmrTim _ �}if411iHIHIfIIHIr�n, "r' 1 �III= 1111 i -- -- - t7 7117 _ fiIIIIIIIIIIIIII111�III IIIIIIIIIIIIII I'IIlll,l ', IIIIIIIIIIIIIIICI � r t ��-(l >t- - ` 1HIMIT - -- - - -- -- -- - _ ,.r' •`; .) - -- - -- C NTERAVENkJE,, 7. I;I ill l lll IIiIII II1 ILllllllllll In II - -- - - -- '' _ -- = U- •c = j Public Art OFF Plaza - `Entr Plaza �rinul .�.. _ T, J' sF _ p"Pedestrian nl.' .Connection ! - aiw•�r �'i,�' — — — �r:.$°3; AIL �I'yI�I}'} I� �\'\'''' 'JJ. •4lW•J'.!: - _ 1� I .' I-��" -I - llll I�I I —1�' � `� IIIIIIIIIIIIIII!1 N, ,Y, •�• - I ':'Public A-rtIf ' � I rniw sr rr I it W — — — — .I Public Art -- - L - - '�-- =� `_ � � - `r---' - -- I �_ .TC4I11.._� �.'. u r ��'_ I�'1=-•t''`\.I (1J fJ (+ Colonnade Courtyard r'"- ' - -_ _- Village Strada' -= _ \:' p _ _= Glninliln _ 'r••r'' ,,Ifii,.. (;Village Retail - -— _— -- _ -- -- - IIIIIII III - x_x'. — — — -__ --' r1f 1111111111FWPC `IT' I� { 1 �I 1- �I � , lnuul!nmiiln!°11Ir! munuuwmlwuwuuulluwwuuuwuuWluuuuu--— - J — — I� ..: _ -- _.='' tilll1111111111 nllllll lllllli lllll111111 _ ---'-----._ ,".hill llllll!II IIIIII III IIIII IIIIlu 1'j11 ll!IIII(. i--- -- - ._:— - I IL.-- - _ EDINGER AVENUE. L� N Common Area Locations Exhibit 8A The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan - 51 June 20, 2000 AI Ef.NTf.R7lVF1VC1 >'HIIIT,11Ri1TllilIITipITTMTI1-,TiT1TiF.III I RIF11 71T11 TTTiTT i111TV11,,;' Is. JiIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIII111Ifllllllllllll,_ i-7=` •` IHIM{}ll�l{�IlrN "Hl -' v. 1, �.' �\, Fps i ji �1HHi}'4;�I4fN�N1 IfIHfIW+lll iiu>= I I li ` I I'rM It'd ITIT'__ �11111111111111:.1119 1 =_ __ -_ = r.J: �' - .`' �,�.,•. ".•\ sq,�, - - - -- - � IILOc N�'ill = =h1LLIllLI1lllLlllWIIT1IL!JLWLIIILLLJ11111 _ -. `�•:.��._ - - __ __ -_ ___ ___-�_ __ _ - �'�•'`�:.,�;�-`__ ' ;:_�_u_ -TEntr Plaza =- - _ __ _ _ �� ublic Art - __ =I,:Pedestrian I I I - - ,� / ;�%�^� � r� � � / �x/�/- o. �®,� I II�c-7Cio�nnecltion �,. �• '\\;�?��\ ',�; ".IO= M.M:s. �/ '�j�� ,;�� % -.�`- -/ /�?�_I � Gi711llllllllfl,l�� �/; ``;'\•>���•�' �� �x ,���_, 11 j = _ � -/ � � =-�---��•— -_._ t,.,,-'TTTC^, ... ��. ,, ,,. l �-4 `Public Art I V 'I' — �— _� //J% �� /,' �'•_�: ,� �T/�r%% f \",IIIIIIIII�IIII =� :'fir,` _ �` ;;��°° �ca 111 •_ '*—� 'r - 'di / y'm J '/ v, � " /-.xnsr./;u�%�.,i./ Y, s/— }.-.r9`:�r�.\ -1 .y ,�,` '.;Ai�, .I p� I Public Art i='�_ =i= -_ =��_ `-�- '-?= _3 �,n:;•�'-? •/ %�' �',,, Colonnade Courf and -- -- V` I y _ it a e Strada CO y -I_ � -- gt = _ -- �.. ,' I;.�•` l '1= = HEVilla a Retail`_ \ __ f'4•.; ;,;, _ I¢ I I ' r EUIL I , -_ __ __ __ ='_ _= r,. t�... ;I CO - I asrrr. mn z - — [I4f u 'I _ Z{llW1lll11llWll 1111llI1L111JW1W 111llLWllalllllllll!If - -- Imo' _ r 1 I ITnnunulunlll uU - I' ,,HIIIIW11111111NIIIIITLIIllIIIlllllllllhlllll----->,... ;—_<.N1LI_1111llllllllLll!IIlII1111llL1111111W11 f111111111L11Lllill.11llli I = EDINGER AVENUE --- i� tD ikPrr* Yvwn y vvn" Wants ` -D1rore. uan,d. -�&/ Irxm" Common Area Locations sou mvicu S Exhibit 8B The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 52 June 20, 2000 iw - a:."VON � YJY ����.�.��'t ' `y"�a��y �, jtr,;Qc�• � g rt.: ,... i '. i ti � ��' ,M,,�n,,,,�wl,,.�.��y � I .,�ts...o....c�f f -gr::� ;�, •,�,�^r'`��.�. �,G�.ti -A "�-�.�5.: `Y•.Vt}p►�, ,.r` �.i� _ .v,• -, .1•.Tw a .eK r .:� r 1_r.'M4'' �AA�.1 '•J' y' m'�.r' �Y". {x ' t�,. ..i v� �4`,n,... s.+/r "/• w !i l +�'•�.�"y'��" r_ ,���`'+3„ d � � £:• ".-,f��'t.'�"�',� l�w r1 �:��l .��: t � .'in it` �ktt� ,►.; ,�., t.7 .�I t S �, �.. ► ' :��V� .r` �' f. s- all `►n„ WAR y C Ir? a` rry %AIM' i l� p,<��! �"�:. eras 9 Y r; - a "'}:? J I• "' j{ =I N 1 F;�',Qpr �� r, I �'�f, ' ,j,- r ���• ,ck:1.. •��(8 1 � �` v;�M�inn^ � i c�r�i; � u rn - fr> •? - ,t_ _.! l{,a5"�,%�,��2s�����fr.�1 4 ��rf�l� 1:-`t � I ( }r,v y� ��.�"'�.e-{.r`vr r `3;'Y'. ' 4. r.c - - 5''"aa JI �.7!:ai.'. rlrt. ;'.n•.:-' �) n.�+;_E:�.hair' YA r, •\ i�`e .. r�, f }+lid• f'.,*.1 n.µrr' '£4� ,r•{{`T`` �} ::��- ♦,t'1. �y. 1 .t.�ti` f, r iC,y �.. n a"' r., iS�i�C>� `td..?e'F,.r•' ;, �- a �r !".� 1{ ••_� �S�S --.t(L;!- -� }�1 L. =r. J ,-i�t�;�.1"'' �, i *�.l*.i. •a��,�5" ri:�L"�'3G � r �'T�k;• -:iy �`'. 'I � `_-r�• '.7%�' _ �r '-- J#t� n s+�`ii•.`r!,.. 1 ;.tl �c J"'7�',in���lll � 4i � � I ..f � ��Y• , .+.��£R ��'���^+-� ,r [�''1 r�.� �1',� % ,.t't!` ibf E(4a ] , .¢� • r ~ �'i3�t...��-GY`s - ^x!" y , ii'�' 1' i ,r_.�., £*-/i In t � � a.,iir,St:a �;� �`:Mkt ���+•3.� .1C�{ ♦ g..y ` i • � � I�1 ,or-,.�'T� l 4'.. q-�. 1 " ra r � $ . �,,, � 1>4 r� ,. yams rr J /{�� 40-1 k � �r 1. �r �y ii ¢\m� Z ��� •• ` ,T � 1�4 r`i�•G �j ,/ �� `-t'"' r •-`..,.,} .t �-.�"-•��k.Jx� rfcJt' ti+'1 .r ,,I�\� I s :�-y f I 1 `_ '..1� � f, ,_.. a�r ._n+-r ii'i _ { -�. ; �r •2 � .. :.-} �. 11, �,r: -,•'' � � l � 6 �-�• I try .,,,�4�'�-3�, {' II .. f I "` .!� w i Frr t d1 j, n�� j THE VILLAGE STRADA Acting as the "Main Street" of The Crossings at Huntington Beach, the Village Strada will have pockets of landscaping, outdoor dining tables, children's play areas, and seating for a respite from a long day of shopping. The buildings will have varying architectural style, while still complementing and not contrasting with each other. The intent of the Village Strada is to insert modern uses in old buildings as is done in an authentic Italian Village. i ,, r _'1:• — -I.r.:- Ibi -%•1` n y{[� -.:�:" ��,ji��• —�.�—__�. — _ _F _ — JY/ _ Y(~et�- _ �' �. , T,rF:j —F' �. 'L1 ,_ � /I--�, _ r,,,C I I �+M, r`M •f !�. �- �I � r . .� .y' J W"•-_+{r .1J` t .�yA} .w, �ji? �� f d �'�• t`- ' '�'. J 'I i{% Ir p ... _m I �� JQ"•J _ I I 'S_ _ v-" r Qt' -fir �� 1 ___ _ ...` I 'I .... L i�'i_ - 'ELT-•=:::,_'- - � B- :� � i[�I'' ,III- �,�, ' �I �i, `- f yf�• �..,. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 54 June 20, 2000 THE PLAZA The Plaza (or Town Square) is the center of the Italian Village. It creates the foreground for the theater entry and is the central pedestrian access from the Strada, and the South and North passages into the Villages. Accented by cobble streets, water features and the arched entry and dome of the theater, the Plaza is the hub of the Village. Major design concepts were developed by great Italian Architects such as Brunelleschi, Bramante, and Alberti that are evident in the Crossings at Huntington Beach. The theater dome,arched windows,doorways,and passageways,and decorative stone windows,corner and eave moldings are prime examples of traditional Italian Architecture. Q'y�'' z.,t'*.:uAr�J.• : ?' ,t,4 c I':'.�r'�n. y� 1,1 i2;r � S•'t''Y} 1 to .,tt '� ....'r.. ,• •:'.' 4�.iti.,,:,:.1"•3;(gd:+,; •-fi:'f kc+ "1`?�;';a `!t„='..Ak,' 5 ka. ", Y.i' '�`:�•. _ ,i;9,.,;•'':afi�. fir. ,'�j^.. '!. '�`y� }jl y'� ��i.�,► � �:w', �r•```'..r. ���'- ,.� '^.✓�';";.,�"�'R"? } ,.d n zn _ t. �':� •II "1M1 1` 1 „- '''ter• , I� ' .ii� .�.' �. � ,;;, ,�. •�� it ���. -f, I ^�; 'I y I -- ." THE COURTYARD AND.COLONNADE Once past the arched entry to the theater,the Courtyard expands to provide smaller shops and merchants along with kiosks and the queuing area for the theater. Beyond the domed theater entry is the entrance to the Colonnade, which continues the retail experience for the visitor. The continuation of the Italian Village theme will follow throughout the Courtyard and Colonnade with alleys of trees, intimate dining and seating areas,and an architectural flare reminiscent of old Florence. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 55 . June 20, 2000 � u � lh � . .Y -� I�1 rl,�l /�%/ � i7. � ��` �y !`►��I ��. r=s �• allr�5��1.� � � � T` Tw �� 7'1„ V'-�/" • "•.�� l�h *fi�l'� � a�''�cl t�t��`! f tlfit �:�'r 4 �,-.qcc ��� I /,��II i� �I •r y , l i �Y�'t,,IMRMAY '�_�� {�I��� %iF�l���_ % � c' ' ~• [r:= 's-.::':r Ifi' do t7tiiQid�in.rfr�r�na �.JRV�'C' a®-.G-.� c. An-••1"'Ai �� ,'•�•3i1�'ef�' '�_�i .'. . wt -t.,,. -:r �� '"(S'k`' F:,_„_. `i::.;; �� �1�•c1IFJ Nft� •� ; ��- . G S .3.�- M1 hs- i� �h J I I. �• Ahl 7777 -�, .......... 1 rTIO 'L III ��.���lis7'•ssssr;i_asiira , is- 1, —,_� - '. - -�—�' --��--� T•-r "ac '� s:n„eu•. - r z • r. �%k,�'�_r,3{ry^..7�c #-i•,^r:r,..i�.�Cea.'..-�ipi• if�, fir'+ i`•�1�, �r• � ., r� t+f5 Color and Materials of Common Areas Exhibit 9 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 57 June 20, 2000 COMMON AREA POLICIES: 3.5.3.1 Common Area Lighting will create a strong, attractive night identity for the project. Selected elements will be highlighted with illumination. R These elements are selected for their ability to enhance the dimension and add character to the building architecture, to promote the appropriate �. degree of prestige to the project,as well as to provide :. a safe and secure environment for visitors and merchants. ` Parking lot fixture 3.5.3.3Exterior lighting shall be located and designed to evenly illuminate the parking areas, including the parking structure. Particular attention shall be paid to �- the illumination of all sidewalks connecting walkways and alcoves. All light standards shall be consistent with respect to design, materials, color and color of i � light, and with the overall architectural style of the project. All lighting shall be confined within the project and shall not project beyond the project •- ;. boundaries. Lighting at passageway f J '° p i � 3.5.3.2 Illumination of buildings and landscapingi will be indirect to create a strong positive image. Stair fixture MRy n Concealing light fixtures within buildings and 7 landscaping can highlight attractive features. Use of a variety of lighting levels at entries, plazas, , r t.,:,r . parking lots, and other areas where evening activity is expected, will create an exciting night Walkway fixture Accent fixture time environment. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 58 June 20, 2000 3.5.3.4 Hardscape in the common areas will consist of 3.5.3.6 Landscaping in the common area will consist of non grid-like patterns, which recall the historical espaliered vines on columns and trellis elements, cobble stone walks and streets of an Italian Village. potted planters to add detail near storefronts, and Water elements shall be creatively incorporated to large and small planting beds throughout the plazas provide visual delight and interest. and passageways. Landscaping may consist of groundcover, grasses, shrubs, vines and trees and shall constitute a minimum of 10% of the common area (excluding Village Retail). - ,. rYa�i.ty:'yv:,..�_i3i�Lr:,4•''• a�1�3os+did _.:f�`•1..:.rl;ru c.•'�'fr�y'..:... ••S,`4..�M1'.'i.� _ - r •+ '�. 9".'...::._,I'u'Y•,'.. 1��^' \:.{:.'Yt•-"�_.`.:'3: t..iil�'�G."�,-ate-. - :.ate'!•:� ��.r.• �- r Rasa — ,�• .,�;;;a;o: . _ ... '�'r_ .�:::;.�.'�," .rr -_ --_ 3.5.3.5 Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the surrounding public streets and shall not be exposed on the wall surface of a -. - building. Screening material and color shall be - compatible with the overall building design and colors. Backflow devices, electrical transformers and other mechanical equipment,. located on grade, shall not be located within the front or 3.5.3.7 Trash enclosures shall be concealed with screen streetside setbacks, and shall be screened from walls and ornamental gates. Loading docks shall be public view or undergrounded. screened from view from the surrounding public streets through the use of architecturally detailed fagade building walls. The facades shall be integrated into the overall architecture of the project. Landscaping screening shall be provided where possible. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 59 . June 20, 2000 3.5.4A New Stores and Theaters 3.5.4 ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Implementation of the Specific Plan will Many of the elements of the Crossings at Huntington generate construction of numerous new in-line retail Beach architecture reflect that of an Italian Village and anchor stores and will likely include a multi- living environment. The Architectural Guidelines are screen movie theater. Design and site layout of any intended to establish a character, style and quality for newly proposed structures shall comply with the each architectural category. The categories are: following policies. New Anchor Stores and Theaters NEW ANCHOR STORES AND THEATERS General Tenant Storefronts POLICIES: Existing Major Department Stores and Village Retail The description of these guidelines is not intended to 3.5.4A.1 Building massing and articulation shall discourage individual innovation and creativity,but to possess a balance in form and composition; large simply provide a framework within which an overall flat unarticulated building elevations shall not be sense of place will be reinforced. Building design shall permitted. The large planes of the theater and comply with the following architectural policies. major tenant walls should be enhanced with patterns and graphics consistent with the overall design theme of the center. 2: Ada 4 �! -� — I f I - ,��. "ice 'L.lit. `1 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 60 June 20, 2000 View of North elevation 3.5.4A.2 Building entries shall have a clearly defined There are two basic types of General Tenant primary pedestrian entry. Storefronts: Storefronts facing the 'exterior' toward Edinger Avenue and Center Avenue, and storefronts 3.5.4A.3 Building materials and colors shall be guided facing the 'interior' toward the Common Areas. Both by, but not restricted by, the approved Common storefront types may be one or two levels. Area palette. To achieve this Italian Village concept, general 3.5.4A.4 Architecture of all structures on the property tenants in relation to each other shall have varying parapet heights, window openings, heights and shall be reflective of the quality of building colors, rhythms,canopies and signage. materials, design, and presence as depicted in the sample artist's :renderings throughout this The basic objectives of tenant storefront guidelines document. are to ensure high quality design and use of materials consistent with that of the project and to 3.5.413 General Tenant Storefronts will conceptually be produce a variety of three-dimensional storefront treated as an Italian Village. Tenant storefronts may designs, each uniquely different from its neighbors be designed choosing from a design vernacular of but tied together with common theme materials. various architectural elements. Then, linking each individual tenant storefront to another creates a shopping experience of boutiques and shops similar to a walking street in an Italian Village. Arches, columns, tower elements, domes and canopies shall be mixed in with display bays, balconies and balustrades for a distinctly up-scale look garnered from many European styles and themes. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 61 June 20, 2000 GENERAL TENANT STOREFRONT POLICIES: 3.5.4B.3 Tenant storefront materials may include but are not restricted to: 3.5.4B.1 All storefront designs and plans shall be subject to the approval of they and the City of O—Pague: Translucent: Huntington Beach. ?Yo 'Dw polished metals Glass block s�'� C�h�YS 3.5.4B.2 Storefronts are encouraged to have multiple Smooth brick Etched glass Smooth and Rough plaster Clear glass planes to create a variety of volumes and spaces Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete Crackle glass and to maximize each store's visibility. Porcelain and Clay tile Metal grillwork Painted or Stained wood Glazed ceramic the Smooth, Rough or polished stone Powder coated or anodized metal Cast concrete or plaster (i.e. columns,cornices) :.k .`f:,,a1 �'�.,i+ii� ni��r�Y'. �i4 is 4..; r' �ijf;'y�+`'.• l'[ '.i, ., y��,a^.;.t•,�' rd��Ril''a'1,I�:itFiN::i.• Vaf '' nr_.,�{ -q,^, © pi • .ram ;' u a Elevation of typical storefronts showing varying heights, window rhythms and heights and canopies The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 62 June 20, 2000 - -r�,•'4r�t''!�lryh",t'-'t1}:.:�?''.,::T'�%:i"'�}r`.:::. t,``.'e'�.:^' - ..:,y+;•-'•?t��F.-`�..r'h'`L:;����• t, � `P" ...y...t..'•1.ti.Y}i•!.' Yiiyi,Ct. r1c�S.Y'"d„ �5;'ft4`,`J' �YAtYf�',"kliw`:. `a;z:t.s.,:;:'. _ ^'g'. t'";t.. ;t'=;,;•'3;.:"v;(,4y w'4: i ro t +�+1�r.�sr. 'F�li;:s;_ .'.�:' `r..' •, 'r>'-' i t. ` •ryt k k4115•.tF1.i�t H. ...P•, ..•_5.. .. , x': xrliitan•n7r.'L`L's.� "• 1 ^ t 4.4re ,�•.•"";f .T't h::l. 'ti SI INti �•'�j%T(, ,ram.•." ) a yy Examples of streetfront collection concepts 3.5.413.4 Tenants' storefront may project from the face of µ,• `' " s""'' the building J as long as this does not extend beyond 5,.,r {{,,Y .#�,.fU� •ua>•.,'•il: "?; "��h�.,..,;ar:4_ 7•q,.�ri;0kr a vit6;:;r;•, maintains :. + r,: ;_. „T' ;�,'<,':' the face of the upper level overhangand a -�� - ��"��° - the required mall clearances. a. 3.5.413.5 Storefront designs shall comply with the design VAMAIWWOO MO. guidelines and may require modification in the event that they are too similar to a neighboring '' store. Themes evident in the Italian Village shall be " �■ f. FA y a used to base all storefront designs 3.5.413.6 Tenants are encouraged to vertically extend Ts:.• their facade design from leaseline to leaseline and ' from slab to top of parapet or bottom of upper floor above. - 3.5.413.7 Tenants are encouraged to have awnings or Examples of awning use canopies at their storefronts. The.Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 63 June 20,, 2000 t. t ' � it. IiG°at' _.,A�n'."� 'i}�,' ,.t.• ".�:�'.li,.:"':'•al"..�.:�5 '.,t',i�s }.:,t 11,, .. .gi.� iauts �,..� •bi�+Y..T�jT`&t .i• di 'r :zr. ' i.J.'!' vi-ay° � 'r:'..^ t �at�.n'`t.�..J'�';�+.i::i',l '�L,•ys��� ,��: fi4> :;rs',1 ,F' .� :3 ',5�:,4;t'a�,,• arr L J �� � ,i:�f,,u,.y�Y��;,. j�: ..._.. - '�'i'�t.,�'•:Gi>"�:Ya��� '.sr� Ssi't tsY"e;,.,y,' - - 5. !! r is i,•� �LL11i M� � ^ �4v��f"..., Typical Tenant Storefronts Exhibit 10 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 64 June 20, 2000 .4C Existing Major Department Stores and Village 3.5.4C.1 Complete facade improvements of a tail remaining buildings shall occur if ex 'ons, renovations,or reconstruction to an ion of the The existin , erating department stores are 63 acre property are propo 1 improvements Mervyns, Burlingto t Factory, and Montgomery shall be subject to co lance with the Specific Wards. The Village Re ' Center includes the Plan. building wing on the east si the property (Barnes and Noble, Circuit City, Staples, in-line 3.5.4C.2 T acade improvements shall be compatible retail). The Specific Plan is intended to re ' e with the Italian Village architectural theme remodeling, revitalization, and new construction discussed in Design Guidelines. with an Italian Village theme throughout the 63 ac property. Therefore, the following policies y to 3.5.4C. he renovation designs shall be subject to the any remaining department stores the Village appr of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Retail center at the time a uilding permit is manageme d the City of Huntington Beach. requested for the prope 3.5.4C.4 Building materials an lors shall be guided EXISTI JOR DEPARTMENT STORE AND by, but not restricted by, the a ved Common GE RETAIL POLICIES: Area palette. National retail store ma �Is�nd jj� �or 1 al be considered. too . 3 To 7 .5.00R - --- - . _ sm zoo K:1:3: %•.5..' .:l. 'k'.' C!^K. •M - _'Y'k u:-1:1' Y" 3�J•1''.:«�232 3:1:: - Conceptual Facade Improvement The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 65 June 20, 2000 Ll� `1- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- !IIiT I:�III ,III 111 II II IIIII..I.I~III,�J IIII„J ,I��r, TIP 72 157 lli .III ,III ,III „III•It 'IEI ffliTTfli-iillTT- 71ITTMTTfiiTFillTTTTTM-464 ground level I (� - \\ \ O— 459 first level r _ 319 second Icvd y =1 Q �, Ig - 1 0 WID 7RO _ ;, �• a +Y3A^S, 232 ' 14 <�, q4 a, 7. , 102 _ •. ' ., QQ r_ a_ __ _ _ 41, _ rs _ !J I B II I III I I I :11 II I I T II { I'IU�_ { I � �I T� T IT I IIi!:'II IIII li IIII II III 11 �II �I IT1 J !1111 II !II II 1�� ` ,�� E lD NGER A„VENUE _ tb d�.h rr�t� w�-�a► D wt' Landscape Concept Plan s Exhibit 11 A The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 66 June 20, 2000 N4ER-AVENPt-1 I---.I AVITA it RMIC N -F.TMTnTMrr1inTfflffTFFII[nTiTmmTrt,TIWIT pf,6 VOS milifl, HIM V (4TE RAVENY CD \ TH W T: 7 z z') \N 17 I' , - - /1,.� :r.. c'a .` ntrfnMll��rfulrl'I .`//�MEN 2.5/ X 102 LLJ --7 7 _T7 7 .......... MV. T-= 7 , TTZ CU TU 1411 Vill 1WEL VU M. 10 11 &AW, q I'lW111111 f EDINGER AVENU _- e Landscape Concept Plan ,A-Dyt -Ole ji re �0-" VL� -fbo?vi vvt Exhibit 11 B wicum, The Crossings.at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 67 June 20, 2000 3.5.5 LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES The landscape for The Crossings at Huntington Beach 3.5.5.2 Existing healthy trees, where feasible, shall be is an integral component of the overall project design. preserved or relocated'on site. If healthy trees are This design concept is urban in nature and has strong removed, replacement shall be as follows: Each elements of an Italian Village. These elements include existing Rhaphiolepis "Majestic Beauty" removed the use of strong vertical elements such as Italian shall be replaced with one (1) thirty-six (36) inch cypress and Palms at the main entrances in strategic box tree or palm equivalent. All other healthy tree areas for emphasis and continuity. Some of the other species with a ten (10) inch diameter trunk at elements that fit well with an Italian Village breast hieght or larger shall be replaced with two environment include the following which are (2) thirty-six (36) inch box trees or the palm indigenous to the California coast. i.e.: Bougainvillea, equivalent for each tree removed. Should the Ivy Geraniums, Hibiscus, Lupine, Azalea, Indian foregoing substitution of two (2) 36" box trees be Hawthorn and tree varieties such as Silk tree, Alder, impractical, the ratio may be modified to one (1) Strawberry tree, Deodar Cedar, Carob, Carrotwood, 36" box tree with the approval of the Directior of Crepe Myrtle and the like. The Landscape Concept is Public Works. Palms may be substituted for trees at composed of these elements as well as other elements, the ratio of half (1/2) foot of brown trunk height such as decorative paving, water features, public art, for each one (1) inch of box size. If the situation and lighting which are complementary to and assist in occurs where there is not enough planting area for the implementation of an integral landscape design. the trees required, the accumulative box inches of These Landscape Guidelines establish the design trees may be utilized, For example, two (2) thirty character and visual qualities for development within six (36) inch boxed trees could be combined into the Specific Plan. one seventy two (72) inch box tree. For palms, the requirement of eighteen feet of brown trunk for LANDSCAPE GUIDELINE POLICIES: each thirty six (36) inch tree would work as follows: two (2) thirty six (36) inch box trees could 3.5.5.1 Site layout shall respect and preserve as much of be combined into one (1) thirty six (36) foot the existing site features, including trees where (brown trunk) palm. All tree replacement shall be possible. A professional consulting arborist shall subject to review and approval and may be determine whether existing trees can be saved modified by the Director of Public Works. during construction. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 68 June 20, 2000 3.5.5.3 Landscape design shall provide formal or 3.5.5.5 Street tree planting in the parkway areas shall informal groupings of deciduous and evergreen include a minimum of one (1) thirty six (36) inch trees, flowering shrubs, and groundcover. Trees box tree for each forty five (45) feet of lineal shall be of even size and shape at the time of frontage. At the discretion of the Director of Public installation. Replacement trees shall be compatible Works, this planting may be modified to one (1) with the new landscape plan. A minimum of eight twenty four (24) inch box every thirty (30) feet. (8) percent of the net site area shall be landscape Tree planting shall be grouped in informal drifts and shall be provided on the perimeter of the site and tree quantities shall be determined by the and the parking lot. Additional landscaping is length of the property adjacent to the street divided requred in the Common Area (see policy 3.5.3.6). by the recommended spacing of each tree variety. Shrubs shall be planted flush to the walls, when All parkway planting shall be subject to review and feasible, thus not allowing a hiding place for an approval of the Director of Public Works. offender or privacy for transients between the shrub and wall. 3.5.5.4 Plant materials shall be selected to create an informal pattern of landscaping to reinforce the character of the tree plantings. A formal pattern of landscaping shall be created on-site at the project entries. Trees shall be selected based upon the size of the planting area to allow for mature growth without causing future damage to the improvements. A consulting, certified ISA arborist shall review and approve final tree planting plans for compliance. All trees shall be a minimum twenty-four (24) inch box size. Shrubbery (evergreen and flowering) shall be low to medium in height; minimum size shall be five (5) gallon. All grass selections shall be made from the City's approved water efficient materials list. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 69 . June 20, 2000 PLANT PALETTE - SITE DESCRIPTION BOTANICAL NAME COMMONNAME FRONTAGE TREE PYRUS KAWAKAMII EVERGREEN PEAR LAGERSTROEMIA FAUREI CRAPE MYRTLE METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE FRONTAGE HEDGE LIGUSTRUM J.TEXANUM' TEXAS PRIVET JUNIPERUS CHINENIS `PARSONII'JUNIPER FRONTAGE ACCENT SHRUB BOUGAINVILLEA SP. BOUGAINVILLEA HIBISCUS ROSA-SINENSIS HIBISCUS FRONTAGE GROUNDCOVER GAZANIA SP. GAZANIA ZOYSIA TENUIFOCIA KOREAN GRASS ENTRY DRIVE THEME TREE OLEA EUROPAEA OLIVE ENTRY DRIVE TREE JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDA PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE PYRUS CALLERYANA'BRADFORD' BRADFORD PEAR ENTRY DRIVE ACCENT SHRUB AZALEA SP. AZALEA ENTRY DRIVE EDGE SHRUB PHORMIUM TENAX FLAX ENTRY DRIVE LOW SHRUB TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE END ISLAND TREE LAGERSTROEMIA FAUREI CRAPE MYRTLE RHAPIOLEPIS'MAJESTIC BEAUTY INDIA HAWTHORN TREE FORM END ISLAND LOW SHRUB ASPIDISTRA ELATIOR CAST-IRON PLANT TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS SPREADING ROSEMARY END ISLAND ACCENT SHRUB ROSA SP. SHRUB ROSE PARKING LOT TREE PLATANUS ACRRIFOLIA'BLOODGOOD' LONDON PLANE TREE ULMUS PARVIFOLIA TRUE GREEN' TRUE GREEN.ELM ZELKOVA SERRATTA SAWLEAF ZELKOVA ULMUS PARVIFOLIA CHINESE ELM SCREEN TREES EUCALPTUS SP. EUCALYPTUS PINUS SP. PINES AGONIS FLEXUOSA PEPPERMINT TREE PARKING GARAGE SCREEN TREE TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX PARKING GARAGE PLANTING BOUGAINVILLEA SP. BOUGAINVILLEA TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA `MINTJULIP' SCREEN TREES MELALEUCA QUINQUENERUTA CAJEPUT TREE TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX FICUS RUBIGNOSA RUSTYLEAF FIG Plant Materials Palette Exhibit 12 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 70 June 20, 2000 3.5.5.6 Pedestrian walkway systems shall be designed to unify the entire project area and provide Perimeter parking lots adjacent to arterial streets pedestrian site access to buildings, parking and site shall be provided with additional landscape activity areas from the perimeter project area and treatment to ensure that the parking areas are from within the site. Pedestrian walkways shall be a adequately screened from adjacent street views, minimum of five (5) feet clear in width with no however, not hidden from the view of passersby vehicular overhang. and police on the adjacent streets. Berming in these areas is encouraged and shall be a maximum of 3.5.5.7 Perimeter landscaping around the project areas three (3) feet high and have a natural appearance shall provide a consistent edge treatment using a in form. However, the fact that a successful retail limited variety of plant materials. shopping center must be seen from the adjacent streets will be the determining factor in the 3.5.5.8 Parking lots shall be planted at the rate of one (1) selection and placement of all_ perimeter tree for every ten (10) parking stalls. Parking lot landscaping. trees shall be twenty-four (24) inch box trees. All Shrubbery shall be planted in areas where berms tree planting areas shall be a minimum net width of are not practical. Shrub planting shall be provided four (4) feet in one direction and a net width of six in a minimum five (5) gallon size and spaced a (6) feet in the other direction. Small trees (at maximum of three (3) feet apart. Shrubbery shall maturity) shall be utilized in these planting areas. not exceed three (3) feet in height. Hedges shall be Parking lot treatments shall be consistent and trimmed from the ground and maintain an eight contribute to the project landscaping unity. Parking (8) inch clearance from the ground. lots shall be planted with trees in such a manner as Where cars overhang the curbs, ground cover to provide maximum shade. An alternative which planting shall be required;a maximum overhang of clusters or groups parking lot trees may be two (2) feet shall be permitted. The overhang area considered. larger trees may also be considered as shall not be considered as part of the required substitutes for a number of smaller trees, subject to minimum percentage of on-site landscaping or review and approval of the Director of Public minimum planter.width. Works. The,Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 71 June 20,,2000 3.5.5.9 Perimeter landscaping shall preserve or Exhibit 7, shall incorporate enhanced materials construct a minimum ten (10) foot wide landscape from the property line to the back of the adjacent buffer between the arterial highway and private landscape planter or a minimum of 15 feet. Minor project improvements, including buildings, walls, driveway entrances shall provide a minimum of ten parking areas, etc. Landscape improvements within (10) feet of enhanced treatment. the public right-of-way, adjacent to private improvements, shall be constructed by the project Pedestrian connections consisting of enhanced developer and maintained by the property owner paving materials shall be provided along the front consistent with the overall landscape theme. The of the satellite buildings (Barnes and Noble, Circuit design shall be consistent with the approved City, and Staples) and within the pedestrian Edinger Corridor concept. walkway connecting these outlying buildings to the main mall. Enhanced paving materials shall also be 3.5.5.10 Entry drives shall be constructed in conformance provided throughout the public plazas and from with the Specific Plan (Policy 3.5.2.4) and City Edinger Avenue at the main project entrance design standards (Public Works Standard Plans) (across from Sher Lane) along a pedestrian path to subject to the review by the Directors of Public the main plaza. Works and Planning. Project access points shall be designed to provide entering and exiting drives 3.5.5.11 Interior plaza areas and courtyards shall be with adequate views of approaching pedestrians provided as focal points. These areas shall be an and vehicles. integral part of the building architecture and be connected by a walkway system to the public Entry drives shall provide convenient access to pedestrian walkways. parking lots at various locations approved by the Director of Public Works. In addition to street trees 3.5.5.12 Irrigation systems shall comply with the City's and on-site landscaping, each entry shall be "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements." designated by ground cover-planting, shrubs, and (Ordinance #1452). large specimen trees on each side of the entry. These trees shall be located a minimum of ten (10) 3.5.5.13 All landscaping shall conform with the feet back from the intersection of driveways and requirements of the Landscape Improvement property lines to avoid line-of-sight conflicts. chapter of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the City Arboricultural and Enhanced paving (pavers, interlocking bricks, Landscape Standards and Specifications, and City stamped concrete, or other similar material) shall Standard Plans, in addition to the Specific Plan be provided at all driveway entrances from the policies. public right-of-way to the project. Major driveway entrances,as identified on the Circulation Plan, The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 72 June 20, 2000 3.5.5.15 Landscape screening is intended to soften and 3.5.6 SIGNAGE GUIDELINES blend the connection of the building areas with the landscape of the parking lots. Trees shall be The Signage Guidelines identify a framework to provided to soften,and visually relieve,parking and advertise a place of business and provide directions or utility areas and to provide summer shade. information specific to that business. Attractive and effective signage can be designed without detracting Trash enclosure areas, where appropriate, shall be from the overall design quality of the project area. The provided with tree and shrub planting screens to Signage Guidelines also contribute to the overall soften the enclosure. Mechanical equipment and project area urban retail design theme. Design, color, transformer areas shall have landscape screening materials and placement are all important in creating and/or low-level screen walls. Valves, meters,back signs that are architecturally attractive and integrated flow preventers, etc., shall be screened by shrub into the overall project area design. The intent is to plantings and/or low level screen walls. create and promote a quality visual environment by allowing only signs which are compatible with their 3.5.5.16 Landscape lighting shall be provided in selected surroundings and which effectively communicate areas to aesthetically enhance the site. Pedestrian their message. walkways shall include adequate night lighting for public safety and crime prevention purposes. Signs shall be designed to be architecturally Courtyard lighting shall be a minimum maintained compatible with the colors and materials of the level of one foot-candle. adjacent building. All signing shall be consistent with the Crossings at Huntington Beach's sign standards 3.5.5.17 Conservation water measures shall be (appendix Q. incorporated in the landscape design. A minimum of seventy-five (75) percent of the required landscape area shall be planted with ground cover and the balance (a maximum of 25 percent) with turf. The use of shrubs, hedges, and berming shall be provided to screen cars in the parking lots from street view. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 73 June 20, 2000 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BLUM ienoe RaaeAaa A 12 mill [SOU 0*1 1q Nt- are OkaTR_ - O OI -- - --,� - �, - - - --- - - '�-tr Section Four The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 74 June 20, 2000 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4.1.0 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS POLICIES: 4.1.1 Not withstanding provisions to the contrary, all 4.0 PURPOSE grading shall be approved by both the Planning Director and Director of Public Works,or designee. The purpose of this section is to provide specific 4.1.2 Construction may commence only after the development regulations and standards that will be Planning Director finds that the project is consistent applied to development projects in the Specific Plan. with the regulations and applicable policies and Upon adoption by the City of Huntington Beach, the guidelines of the Specific Plan. Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan will be the zoning document for the project area. 4.1.3 All structures in existence at the time of Specific 4.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Plan adoption shall be deemed legal, non-conforming. All policies regarding Site Plan Review process and The provisions contained herein shall govern the fagade improvements shall apply. design and development of the Crossings at 4.2 DEFINITIONS Huntington Beach Specific Plan area. Standards and/or criteria for development and activities not specifically addressed in this Specific Plan shall For the purposes of the Specific Plan, words, phrases and terms shall have the meanings as de require referral to the current provisions of the fined below. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Terms not specifically defined in the Specific Plan shall and Municipal Code. have the same definition as used in the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Whenever a use has not been specifically listed as in effect at the time of any individual request. being a permitted use, the Planning Director shall determine if the use is consistent with the intent of this When not inconsistent with the context,words used in Specific Plan and compatible with other permitted the present tense include the future tense; words used uses. In addition, all projects must comply with the in the singular number include the plural number; following policies: and words of the masculine gender include the feminine and neutral gender. The word shall" is always mandatory and the word "may" is permissive. The word "encouraged" shall mean every effort shall be made to conform to the policy but alternatives may be acceptable. 4.2.1 Architectural Features. Architectural features include elements that compliment the building architecture such as, but not limited to, walls, The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 75 June 20,.2000 architectural towers and domes (with The Crossings at 4.2.9 Renovation. Any request to remodel, improve, Huntington Beach logo), spires, and arches. renovate,upgrade,or refurbish the interior or exterior Architectural features may include signage as depicted of an existing building, including minor in the attached signage guidelines. improvements to accommodate new tenants or an 4.2.2 Communication Antenna. All types of receiving upgraded look for an existing tenant. and transmitting antenna,except satellite dish antenna 4.2.10 Site plan. A plan prepared to scale, showing accurate and wireless communication facilities. and complete dimensions of all buildings, structures, landscaping, parking, drive aisles, uses, etc. and the 4.2.3 Deviations. An adjustment in one or more exact manner of development proposed for a specific Development Regulations in order to accommodate parcel of land. special circumstances and/or unique architectural features. Deviation shall be limited to ten (10) percent 4.2.11 Street. A public or approved private thoroughfare or of any single development regulation. road easement which affords the principal means of 4.2.4 Entryway. The point of ingress and egress from a access to abutting property. public or private street to the individual project. 4.2.12 Structural alteration. Any change in,or alterations to, the structure of a building involving: the bearing 4.2.5 Final approval. Ten (10) days after approval by the wall, column, beam or ceiling joints, roof rafters, roof discretionary body and no appeal of that decision has diaphragms, foundations, retaining walls or similar been filed. components. 4.2.6 Modification (Minor). An amendment to the 4.2.13 Ultimate right-of-way. The adopted maximum exhibits and/or text which does not change the width for any street, alley or thoroughfare as meaning or intent of the Specific Plan. established by: the general plan, a precise plan of street, alley or private street alignment, a recorded 4.2.7 Modification (Major). An amendment to the parcel map, or a standard plan of the Department of exhibits and/or text which is intended to change the Public Works. Such thoroughfares shall include any meaning or intent of either the Development Concept, adjacent public easement used as a walkway and/or Design Guidelines,or Development Regulations.Major utility easement. modifications require a Zoning Text Amendment and action by the Planning Commission and City Council. 4.2.8 Private drive. A privately owned and maintained roadway used to provide vehicle access through the property. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 76 June 20, 2000 4.2.14 Use. The purpose for which land or building is 4.3.1 Permitted Uses. Permitted uses shall be required to arranged, designed, or intended, or for which it is meet all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach occupied or maintained. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code. A list of permitted uses is provided in Exhibit 13A. 4.2.15 Wall or fence. Any structure or devise forming a physical barrier. This definition shall include: wood,- 4.3.2 Intensity. The maximum intensity shall be consistent concrete, concrete block, brick, stone or other MVZUY5 with the City's General Plan. masonry material, metal, and wrought iron,etc. 4.3.3 Building height. The maximum allowable building 4.2.16 Zone. A district as defined in the State Conservation height shall be seventy-five (75) feet and a maximum and Planning Act, shown on the official zoning maps of 4 stories. Rooftop mechanical equipment and and to which uniform regulations apply. parapet walls may exceed the maximum permitted building height by fifteen (15) feet, however 4.2.17 Zoning maps. The official zoning maps of the City mechanincal equipment shall be screened from view. of Huntington Beach which are a part of the Special themed architectural structures or elements comprehensive zoning ordinance. such as towers or domes may be allowed up to one hundred-twenty (120) feet. 4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4.3.4 Setbacks. Refer to Exhibit.14. The Development Standards shall serve as the 4.3.5 Landscaping. Landscaping shall be permanently mechanism.for the implementation of the Crossings at maintained in an attractive manner in all setback and Huntington Beach land uses. The standards set forth in parking lot areas fronting on,or visible from,adjacent this section will assure that future development within public streets. The Crossings at Huntington Beach is implemented in a manner consistent with the intent of the project area 4.3.6 Signs. All signs in the project area shall conform to Master Plan. The standards contained herein provide the provisions of the sign standards in Appendix D. flexible mechanisms to anticipate future needs and achieve compatibility between land uses and the 4.3.7 Lighting. All illumination of interior circulation surrounding community. Standards and guidelines are streets, parking areas, and project sites, shall be designed to be compatible with the existing land use coordinated to provide consistent illumination categories of the City. The primary land uses in the intensity. Emphasis shall be placed on areas of high Crossings at Huntington Beach shall be.. regional vehicular and pedestrian activity. Light fixtures and commercial, retail,dining,and entertainment. standards shall be consistent with building architectural style. Public streetlights shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach guidelines for street lighting. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 77 June 20, 2000 New building construction of the following uses and facade improvements to existing buildings shall be permitted within the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan subject to review and approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Director. Other changes in occupancy, such as, like for like tenant changes, new.--tenants established within existing buildings, and/or intensification of tenant uses shall be subject to building permit plan check review to verify compliance with parking and the Specific Plan review. GIONAL,:COMM�"RCIAL :..r y;,... 2.{., �.:. .:; . {,.'.�. ,,, .�;. 1°UBLIC'4A1VD SEMIPUBLIC A•uarium� Day Care Facilities Banks and other financial institutions Government Offices * Commercial recreation and live entertainment Public Safety Facilities Food Markets (Specialty Markets-max. 10,000 sq. ft.) Utilities and Communication Facilities General Retail Parking Day Spa -surface Hotels Motels -structured Movie Theaters -valet Restaurants -with outdoor dining - with alcohol sales -*with live entertainment and dancing �pp N wI7b1 dXtv�- h 3ClWra (DVI, D" 6MW Mg. CtA4 IDVUL 0V1 l /�(V�•� S}A,� -11 Personal Services OFFICE Business and Professional OTHER PERMITTED RETAIL Car stereo and alarm installation,if integrated into an anchor/major retail building and located within a building Portable carts and kiosks Note:Other similar uses may be permitted subject to review by the Planning Director. *Requires an entertainment permit HA WV¢,- "h h ow►.d. d��op nt 51 M&aXd , Permitted Uses Chart a5 0'W' wd_e d oVI de. ' �f 7•s-00 �CN7 C � Exhibit 13A 5 o�pxea Cif (3,yive- +)m4M m ►WA, skDVU 4A-, Sub' a,11 Skk,1 QA�edl "VI tLiwe v M�-Mi s� ot$ sI,tAW v1 f�1� v►�.wr �° 8 7•s •tso V2C/�� The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 78 June 20, 2000 The following temporary and seasonal events may be permitted outdoors within the mall's interior common areas only. The following temporary and seasonal events located within the parking lot shall follow permit procedures described in the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. u, ...-eu,.:. .,, .• :'.,=:...,..•:.,'+ .. ' .r' - «='i�w tJi.. ..�' -'+�G:, 'I<.., .fig!._ ..�:h3`;..,'.w;�::!SC-,. . :...- � .�•...•, ..,.. ,,�t,,.a.a^,.��•�� .r.�MJr.i;T '�V�,'1 !t• ��• ��' '=?-S� '.",.,�.5 .'..:,...ta, ah';.npy,.',. +:,r !..4 a.. .:. .,\ .i'...2,.• li - ` \`1 tL".ti�^ �.tY...'ti:� t :.t, ,, EMPQRARY `AND SEAS�NA UE .,Y at:. Art Shows Auto shows Carnivals Circus Commercial Filming Concerts Contests Farmer's Market Fund Raisers Health Fairs Live Entertainment Miscellaneous Exhibitions Outdoor Retail Sales Pet Shows Seasonal Displays and Events Theatrical Performances Note.• Other similar temporary uses maybe permitted subject to re vie w by the Planning Director. Temporary and Seasonal Events Chart Exhibit 13B The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 79 .June 20, 2000 'Ll,;',:�:5'�:J?2�'i�% ; 'S,i�%'`�r`t;?&'I:�ti•t!�t":r';��'j,i-;'�'. "1,'7i ..':.ra t ¢- ..1 :z ,r.- ..,ar�`;�• ,Nt�al. ` ...��` ,i,C�i_n5' 'ia:�,:�;�n,.a).,'<�:.'Ci..,,�`Sc',ti'r:;F<,���;.; ,.�.:'t�� '!�i,I.t.�Y' j � U� ,{a� a.. ; 3 ;FAri•L�,rr s, x;+ jj`� i'+y+ ",a yfi17pp T;..F,.v1; c ';: :I a.(', "4 "3.[S.`: .y,{f',-. �;. 'N. f.7}.??,5.,5:tKM'-+F7•',.'' .. �,..r,a.:..7.x.��rr`"ti'!'3i:`f';:':i•i�S;�7. 4%�;:i..�•,Ur;lS'-,'.i't: tSSLJE . r ��.,... . ....�..:: �. ;. , ... .,. , . .DEv�ELOPME�NT:STA•NDARD Minimum Project Area (AC) 50 Minimum Lot Size (AC) None Minimum Lot Frontage None Maximum Building Height 75 feet Maximum Number of Stories 4 stories Maximum Additional Height for parapet walls, mechanical 15 feet equipment,communication antennas etc. Maximum Architectural Feature Height 120 feet Maximum Lot Coverage 50% Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.5 Minimum Setback* Street side (Edinger Ave., Beach Blvd. and Center Ave.) 50 feet,or 25 feet if setback is fully landscaped Interior side (West Property Line) 10 feet Minimum Landscaping 8%of total site; 10%of common area Minimum Perimeter Landscaping Street side (Edinger Ave., Beach Blvd. and Center Ave.) 10 feet Interior side (West Property Line) 5 feet Minimum Standard Parking Stall Size i" 5 X 116 5* S Minimum Drive Aisle Width 25 feet for 90 degree stalls Minimum Parking Required Shared parking based upon joint use of parking analysis with Site Plan Review Maximum Compact Spaces 20%of total spaces Handicapped Parking Comply with Uniform Building Code and Title 24 Parking Structure Design Comply with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Public Amenity Requirement Minimum of Six public amenities required;At least two public art elements and two water features within common area Wireless Communication Facilities Comply with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ITransportation Demand Management lComplywith Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance * Buildings exceeding fifty (50) feet in height shall increase the set back by one (1) foot for each one (1) foot of building height above fifty (50) feet. Development Regulations Chart Exhibit 14 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 80 June 20, 2000 toward the required landscape percentage or TYPICAL PARKING LAYOUTS minimum landscape width. [R- X Gom p t ,.earl ,dnS s ll siizof ei rsh y�,�Q�zero raw�Z o� �n� iv.n�ao ,�i'nc•�:'p�'�.�,O n"i��t feet deep may inn, proposed of the tetal proposedr ,")g sp e@s. Al eempaet--parkng--stalls shall be �tgsl �° •� and the Perimeter of the sifg and shall-bg --p .bibited v4thwn thg- r insst eturgII CUTS �• •�r} Total parking required by the Huntington Beach U) Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (see below) .� shall be installed for each project prior to final 1e' 18 2 �s' 6 �e' 2s ta' �s' building inspection. STANDARD PARKING SPACE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE STANDARD PARKING SPACE Parking shall be provided in accordance with an approved Shared Parking Study. A shared parking program may allow for a reduction of the code required parking by up to twenty five (25) Parking Standards & Detail percent,based upon a shared parking analysis. It is estimated that the New Shared Parking Study will Exhibit 15 suggest a ratio of 4.5 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of development. 4.3.8 Parking. All developments will be required to meet Handicap accessible parking spaces shall be the minimum on-site parking standards as provided in provided as required by the Uniform Building this Specific Plan document. The following shall Code and Title 24. apply: �g1n� ��• staff • Standard parking stall size may be nitie-(9)-fee4- eb yl,v�' wide by eighteen (18) feet deep and may be reduced to provide a landscape curb or wheel stop (in parking structure) at sixteen (16) feet with a two (2) foot overhang to expand the landscaping. This additional landscape area will not be credited The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 81 June 20, 2000 4.3:9 Parking structures shall be designed utilizing the. massing and basic design characteristics and Italian Village architectural guidelines found in this Specific Plan. The structures shall be screened from view using trees and landscaping. Parking structures shall include exterior, open-air stairwells in the design of the parking structure. Stairwells shall be built to allow pedestrians to be seen in the stairwell from outside of the structure, and allowing the same pedestrians to see out. Parking structure lighting shall be a minimum level of three foot-candles; preferably metal halide. Use lighting in the center of the parking structure aisles that throws light to the side, thus lighting pedestrians and parked cars. Design the structures to allow as much natural light into the structures as possible. All interior wall surfaces in the structures shall be painted white to reflect ambient light. The structures shall follow the City of Huntington Beach Police Department Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Guidelines. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 82 June 20, 2000 o .�= POSE D v C i. o1V11V.1L1V .RO y[„ �%LH` ,;.f,.r - .'nl.- •.1''..,1.. ')... i�,4�.1•:;el.l-: Y.., ::L�,.`.i'..xdl..-7'G;?,.. _ Intensity (F.A.R.) Building Height Architectural Feature Height Parapet, Mechanical Equipment Height Lot Coverage Setback Front Interior Side Exterior Side Landscape Percentage Perimeter Landscape Front Interior Side Exterior Side Parking Spaces Parking Structure Design Public Amenities Public Art Elements Water Features Development Regulations Check List Exhibit 16 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 83 . June 20, 2000 w� e A. Legal Description The following provides the legal description for the entire Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan Area,which is bounded by Center Avenue on the north,Pacific Railroad on the east,Edinger Avenue on the south and Beach Boulevard on the west. Refer to Exhibit 1 in the Specific Plan. Perimeter Legal Description Parcels 1 through 3, 5 though 9 and that portion of Parcel 4,Parcel Map No. 86-200, in the City of Huntington Beach,County of Orange,State of California as per map riled in book 225 pages 40 through 45,inclusive,of parcel maps,in the office of the county recorder of said county,described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way(30 feet wide)with the centerline of Edinger Avenue(variable width),as said intersection is shown on said Parcel Map No.86-200;thence South 89 32'12"East 45.00 feet along the centerline of said Edinger Avenue to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of parcel 1 of said parcel map;thence North 00 15'57"East 50.00 feet to the southwest corner of said parcel 1 also being the True Point of Beginning:thence North 00 15'57"East 1120.67 feet along the westerly line of said parcel 1 to the northwest corner of said parcel 1;thence South 89 32'12"East 1903.57 feet along the northerly line of said parcel 1 and the northerly line of parcels 2, 3 and 4 of said parcel map to the northeasterly line of said parcel 4;thence along a non-tangent curve in the northeasterly line of said parcel 4,concave southwesterly and having a radius of 504.00 feet,a radial line to said point bears North 43 06; 37"East;thence southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 12 11'46"an arc distance of 107.28 feet: thence along the northeasterly line of said parcel 4 the following 5 courses:South 34 41'37"East 207.33,South 31 44'17" East 229.95 feet to the beginning of a non- tangent curve,concave northeasterly and having a radius of 300.00 feet,a radial line to said point bears South 75 10153"West;thence along said curve through a central angel of 50 58'39"an arc distance of 266.92 feet,South 65 4746"East 233.09 feet and South 35 19106"East 70.61 feet;thence South 00 16150"West 273.62 Feet along a line that is parallel with the easterly line of said parcel 4 and 9.00 feet westerly;thence South 42 16"20"West 41.42 feet along a line that that is parallel Nvith the southeasterly line of said parcel 4 and 6.00 feet northwesterly to a point in the north line of parcel I of an easement to the city of Huntington Beach recorded November 9, 1972 in book 10418,page 968 official records in the office of the county recorded. November 9, 1972 in book 10418,page 968 official records in the office of the county recorder of said county;thence North 89 32'12"West 583.76 feet along said north line to the southeasterly corner of parcel 2 of said easement;thence North 44"32112"West 41.01 feet along the northeasterly line of said parcel 2 to the north west corner of said parcel 2;thence North 89 32112"West 32.50 feet along the north line of said parcel 2 to the northwest corner of said parcel 2;thence South 00 27'48"West 37.00 fee;along the west line of said parcel 2 and said parcel I to the southerly line of parcel 4 of said parcel map;thence North 89 32'12"West 18-4.1-5 feet along the southerly lines of parcels 1,2,3 and 4 of said parcel map to True Point of Beginning. Note: .This description was prepared as a convenience only and is not for us in the division and/or conveyance of land in violation of the subdivision map act of the State of California APPENDIX B B. General Plan Consistency Analysis . California State law requires that all cities and counties have a long-range general plan for their physical development. Once a local government has adopted its General Plan, it must be implemented, and local governments have a range of implementation tools from which to select. Most mechanisms for implementing a City's general plan derive from local government's corporate and police powers, such as: construction of streets, acquisition and development of parks, zoning, subdivision regulations, school dedication requirements, code enforcement, environmental and design review procedures and redevelopment. A specific plan is an effective implementation tool that is often used to address a single project or a master planned project such as the Crossings at Huntington Beach. The Specific Plan provides a bridge between the broad General Plan policies and individual project submittals (site plans, subdivision proposals, etc.) in a more area-specific manner than is possible with community wide zoning ordinances. As a result, a specific. plan's emphasis focuses on establishing guidelines and concrete development standards to supplement those of the general plan. Specific plans must be consistent with all facets of the general plan, including the policy statements contained within the general plan document. In turn, zoning, subdivisions, and public works projects must be consistent with the Specific Plan. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan contains detailed regulations, guidelines and implementation measures that will serve as a guide, providing consistency with the City's General Plan and standards and guidelines by which future development will be approved. This section explains how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. The four (4) points listed below provide the basis for the consistency analysis contained in this section. 1. California Government Code Section 65450-65553 permits adoption and administration of Specific Plans as an implementing tool for the General Plan. 2. The current General Plan designation for the site is "Commercial Regional" with a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.5, a specific plan overlay, and a mixed-use overlay. The mixed-use overlay would allow 0.5 commercial FAR and 25/units/acre. The site is currently zoned "CG" General Commercial with a 1.5 FAR. The more restrictive 0.5 General Plan FAR takes precedence. The adoption of the Specific Plan will supersede the existing zoning and adopt a new set of zoning regulations. Adoption of the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan;therefore, a General Plan amendment is not required. 3. The Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan and serve to implement all aspects of the General Plan as it applies to the designated area. 4. The City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update, adopted in 1995, is comprised of 16 separate elements: 1) land use, 2) urban design, 3) housing, 4) historic and cultural resources, 5) economic development, 6) growth management,_ 7) circulation, 8) public facilities and public services, 9) recreation and community services, 10) utilities, 11) environmental resources/ conservation, 12) air quality, 13) environmental hazards, 14) noise, 15) coastal and 16) hazardous materials. The following provides a brief discussion of these 6/8/00 CWN DOCUMENTSUIUNTINGTON OEACMSCOTTGENERALPLAMONSISTENCY.DOC 1 Elements, which are applicable to the project including a listing of applicable goals and policies. Although the General Plan identifies objectives within each element, the policies actually implement the objectives and therefore provide more specific criteria of how the identified goals will be achieved. The discussion below indicates how the Specific Plan project meets the applicable policies. 1. LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element (LUE) for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan provides for the types, density/intensity, design, and distribution of commercial, residential, industrial, and agricultural land uses as well as public' and private open space. The LUE includes goals designed to serve as a general guide for the future development of Huntington Beach in terms of location of uses,allowable residential densities,and other criteria. The LUE designates the 63-acre Crossings at Huntington Beach project site as Commercial Regional (CR) with a maximum building height of four (4) stories. Typical permitted uses of the Commercial Regional designation are anchor department stores, outlet stores, promotional ("big box") retail, retail commercial, restaurants, entertainment, professional offices, financial institutions, automobile sales facilities, and similar region-serving uses. The site is also designated as sub-area 5A in the General Plan with specific design and development standards for the mall property. The primary goal of the Land Use Element is to provide guidance regarding the manner in which lands are to be used in the City of Huntington Beach. Applicable goals include: • Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economical demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. • Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. • Achieve and maintain a high quality of architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. • Ensure that significant environmental habitats and resources are maintained. • Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. • Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinctive identity for the City's neighborhoods,corridors,and centers. • Achieve the development of a range of commercial uses. • Achieve new development that enhances the City's quality of development and sense of place,goals for community character, and preserves significant historical resources. The following applicable Land Use Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. 6/8n/00 QWY DOCUMENTSIHUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 2 Correlation of Land Use Development with Market Demands Folicies LU 1.1.1 Establish incentives for the development of uses to support the needs and reflect the economic demands of City residents and visitors. The majority of the Specific Flan area will be developed in a single phase as outlined in Section 2.1 of the document. However, individual building pads may be developed in later phases along with expansions to the initial phase of construction. This approach will ensure that future economic development opportunities will be implemented dependent upon market conditions Additionally, the Specific Plan allows for flexibility in the Specific Flan Development Regulations This flexibility in development standards is intended to accommodate future market trends and tenant needs, without sacrificing the intended high- quality character of the project area. During the formulation of the Specific Flan, staff identified uses to be permitted and prohibited within the document. "Future permitted uses"have the incentive of a "fast track"entitlement process since their approval shall be determined via the Planning Director vs the Planning Commission or City Council LU 1.1.2 Promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. The Specific Flan will encourage future development by promoting a comprehensive planned commercial project and allowing for future "fast-track" entitlement. This Specific Flan will promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Additionally, the landowner is promoting development through its internal marketing strategies and real estate brokers Correlation of Land Use Development with Supporting Public Infrastructure and Services Policies LU 2.1.1 Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). The Specific Flan area will be developed in a manner that would allow forprivate development to occur in a timely manner with an o verall Master Flan concept. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Circulation Flan, and Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the Specific Flan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Flan. 6/8]/00 C:V"DOCUMENTS\HUNTINGTON BEACHflSCOTTGENERAUILANCONSISTENCY.DOC 3 Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. LU 2.1.2 Require that the type, amount, and location of development be correlated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and services (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Elements). Development will be correlated with infrastructure needs. Section 3.0 of the Specific Plan presents several conceptual development plans and discusses the circulation, public facilities and infrastructure improvements which will support the Land Use Plan and reinforce the design concept. Implementation of the proposed project will occur in a single phase, and it will be consistent with the intent of the Master Plan Concept. LU 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. Development will be correlated with infrastructure needs. Section 3.0 of the Specilk Plan presents several conceptual development plans and discusses the circulation, public facilities and infrastructure improvements which will support the Land Use Plan and reinforce the design concept. Implementation of the proposed project will occur in a single phase,and it will be consistent with the intent of the Master Plan Concept. Quality of the City's Built Environment Policies LU 4.1.1 Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in this Plan, as appropriate. Design Guidelines and Development Regulations are included as Sections 3.5 and 4.0 of the Specific Plan. Section 3.5 establishes a comprehensive set of design guidelines for the entire project area and for individual project development, while Section 4.0 presents a detailed description of the development regulations and standards which are necessary to guide and control new development and carry out the goals and policies of the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. 6/8/00 QWY DOCUMENTSWUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 4 LU 4.1.2 Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 35.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. LU 4.1.3 Require property owners to maintain landscaping, remove and abate weeds, and replace unhealthy or dead landscape. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.55 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. LU 4.1.4 Encourage developers to incorporate mature and specimen trees and other significant vegetation, as defined by the City, that may exist on a site into the design of a development project for that site. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 35.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. The Landscape Plan also requires incorporation of mature and specimen trees that may exist on a site into the design. LU 4.1.5 Consider creating incentives for the use of drought-tolerant species in landscape design. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. Policies for the use of drought-tolerant species in landscape design is also addressed in Section 3.0 of the Specific Plan and will be reviewed with the plans for development of individual parcels LU 4.1.6 Require that commercial and industrial development incorporate adequate drought-conscious irrigation systems and maintain the health of the landscape. Landscape standards which require development proposals to implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. 6/8/00 QVOY DOCUMENTSUIUNTINGTON BEACH%SCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 5 The incorporation of adequate drought-conscious irrigation systems and maintenance of the health of the landscape is also addressed in Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan and will be reviewed with the plans for development of individual parcels LU 4.1.7 Require that all commercial and industrial landscape be adequately irrigated with automatic irrigation systems. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific . Plan. The incorporation of automatic irrigation systems is also addressed in Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan and will be reviewed with the plans for development ofindividual parcels. LU 4.1.8 Use reclaimed water for the irrigation of public and private landscape, as feasible. The City does not currently have a reclaimed water supply system available. As indicated in Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan, reclaimed water shall be utilized where and whenever feasible and shall comply with the City's "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" (Ordinance #1492). Usage will be addressed with future individual requests for development if such a system is available at that time. LU 4.2.1 Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications related to new, adaptively reused, and renovated buildings not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time ofanyindividual request. Additionally, once a site plan is proposed for development, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to thatgeneral plan, the application of this division(CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in 6/8/00 CAMY DOCUMENTSINUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 6 the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. LU 4.2.4 Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions,open space,and other pertinent elements. Section 3.5 Design Guidelines and Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan include requirements for parking, access requirements, supporting functions, open space, etc. LU 4.2.5 Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. Appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use shall be incorporated in accordance with State and Federal Laws (refer to Section 3.5 Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan). LU 4.2.6 Monitor the conditions of buildings in the City and enforce pertinent building, municipal and zoning codes to ensure their maintenance and quality. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or maybe amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. Tunes and Densities of Land Use to be Permitted Policies LU 7.1.1 Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules (Table LU-2 - see below). Table LU-2 6/8/00 C:VMY DOCUMENTSMNTINGTCN BEACH%SCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 7 Land Use Density and Intensity Schedule Land Use Category ical Permitted Uses COMMERCIAL Anchor department stores,outlet stores,promotional ("big box") REGIONAL retail,retail commercial,restaurants,entertainment,professional offices, financial institutions,automobile sales facilities,and similar region-serving uses. The Specific Flan area will accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that maintains the City's fiscal viability and integrity of environmental resources The proposed permitted land uses are consistent with the City's General Flan for the site. Individual building pads may be developed in later phases along with expansions to the initial phase of construction. This approach will ensure that future economic development opportunities will be implemented dependent upon market conditions Additionally, the Specific Flan allows for flexibility in the Specific Flan Development Regulations This flexibility in development standards is intended to accommodate future market trends and tenant needs, without sacrificing the intended high-quality character of the project area. LU 7.1.6 Accommodate the development of additional jobs-generating land uses that improve the 1992 jobs to housing ratio of 0.82 to 1.0 or greater; to meet objectives of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (Southern California Association of Governments) and Air Quality Management Plan. These should capitalize upon existing industrial strengths and emphasizing the clustering of similar or complementary industries. The Specific Plan permits and encourages jobs generating land uses that will assist in improving the 1992 jobs to housing ratio. Additionally, during the formulation of the Specific Flan, staff identified uses to be permitted and prohibited within the document. "Future permitted uses"have the incentive of a "fast track"entitlement process since their approval shall be determined by the Planning Director vs. the Planning Commission or City Council. Distribution and Pattern of Development Folicies LU 8.1.1 Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, and in accordance with the principles discussed below. a. Enhance a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors by their distinct functional role,activity,and/or form and scale of development. b. Increase diversification of community and local commercial nodes to serve adjacent residential neighborhoods. C. Intermix uses and densities in large-scale development projects. d. Site development to capitalize upon potential long-term transit improvements. 6/8/00 QWY DOCUMENT&HUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 8 e. Establish linkages among community areas, which may include pedestrian and vehicular paths, landscape, signage, other streetscape elements, open space, transitions in forms, scale,and density of development,and other elements. The Specific Plan area will accommodate the development of a balance of land uses consistent with the patterns and distribution of use and intensity depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, specifically,regional commercial uses Commercial Regional Permitted Uses Policies LU 10.1.15 Encourage the incorporation of community-oriented facilities in regional commercial developments, such as telecommunications centers, public meeting rooms, daycare facilities, and cultural uses. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan development concept outlined in Section 3.0 of the Specific Plan provides for a planned Commercial Regional complex in the City of Huntington Beach allowing for a variety of uses, consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. During the formulation of the Specific Plan, staff also identified uses to be permitted and prohibited within the document. Future permitted uses include telecommunication centers, public meeting rooms, daycare facilities, and cultural uses. Design and Development LU 10.1.16 Require that regional commercial developments be designed to convey the visual sense of an integrated center by consideration of the following principles: • use of multiple building volumes and masses and highly articulated facades to reduce the visual sense of large scale "boxes"; • use of roofline or height variations to visually differentiate the building massing and incorporation of recesses and setbacks on any elevation above the second floor above grade; • siting of a portion of the buildings in proximity to their primary street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and sidewalks; • design of the exterior periphery of the structures to contain shops, restaurants, display windows, and other elements that provide visual interest to parking areas and the street elevation; • inclusion of a "public square" as a gathering place of public activity in multi-tenant regional centers; • clear identification of building entrances, • use of landscape that provides a three-dimensional character; • encourage the provision of public art; 6/8/00 CAMV DOCUMEUMHUNTINGTON BEACHISCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCV.DOC 9 • inclusion of consistent and well-designed signage integrated with the building's architectural character, including pedestrian-oriented signage;and • design of parking structures to be visually integrated with the commercial buildings. Section 3.5 Design Guidelines and Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan address these issues The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan provides the framework andguidelines necessary to create a unique high quality regional commercial development. Development Policy: Community Subareas LU16.1.1 Accommodate development of the City's neighborhoods, boulevards, and districts according to the Community Districts and Subareas Schedule (Table LU-4). Table LU-4 Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 5A Permitted UsesCategory: Commercial Regional (CR) - Region-serving . commercial uses permitted by the"CR" land use category and mixed-use structures vertically-integrating housing with commercial uses. Density/Intensity Category: "F2"—Maximum FAR of 0.5 • Height: four (4) stories Design and Category: Development . Locate buildings around common courtyards and pedestrian areas. • Locate a portion of development along the Beach Boulevard frontage. • Improve the signage and sense of entry from the Interstate 405 Freeway,Beach.Boulevard,and other major access points. • Implement extensive streetscape improvements along the Beach Boulevard.and Edinger street frontages. • Promote the economic enhancement and revitalization of the Center. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan development concept outlined in Section 3.0 of the Specific Plan provides for a planned Commercial Regional complex in the City of Huntington Beach allowing for a variety of uses, consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. Section 3 9 Design Guidelines and Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan address design and development issues The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 6/8/00 QUAY DOCUMENTSUIUNTINGTON BEACHISCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 10 provides the framework and guidelines necessary to create a unique high quality regional commercial development. 2. URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT The Urban Design Element focuses on the quality of the City's physical and visual character, which is determined by the organization, scale, density and pattern of the community's built environment and open spaces. The primary goal of the Urban Design Element is to establish and strengthen community identity. An applicable goal includes: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach The following applicable Urban Design Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Nodes Policies UD 1.2.1 Require public improvements to enhance the existing setting for all key nodes and pedestrian areas through the consideration of the following: a. provide pedestrian connections and visual continuity between the node and surrounding neighborhoods; b. incorporate shade trees to shelter pedestrians; C. incorporate the use of enhanced paving materials at the pedestrian crosswalks; d. widen the sidewalks at intersections where feasible to minimize the length of pedestrian crossings;and e. enhance the connections where feasible between the public sidewalk and private commercial interior open spaces/courtyards as described in the Land Use Element by using: • decorative paving materials; • landscape materials;and • street furniture. Landscape standards which require development proposals to implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.9.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specfc Plan. Section 3 9 Design Guidelines and Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan address design and development issues The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan provides the framework and guidelines necessary to create a unique high quality regional commercial development. UD 1.2.2 6/8/00 CAMY DOCUMENTSIHUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPUWCONSISTENCY.00O 11 Require that the nodes incorporate the public improvements specified in UD 1.2.1 and other elements that may be listed in the table,as feasible. Landscape standards which require development proposals to implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan Corridor Identity Policies UD 1.3.1 Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character along the community's corridors, reflecting the unique qualities of each district. Ensure that streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors, the residential corridors, and primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while promoting visual continuity throughout the City. Landscape standards which require development proposals to implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. UD 1.3.2 Provide for the implementation of streetscape and landscape improvements along the major commercial corridors, through public capital improvement programs, business district improvements,or other techniques as funding is available. a. Develop or enhance the pedestrian environment in those parts of the corridors where there is existing or the potential for pedestrian activity,this includes the use of. • sidewalk furniture; • shade trees; • shade structures • special paving;and • pedestrian walkway linkages. b. Consider using special corridor oriented public signage, public art, or median monuments at prominent intersections. C. Discourage the excessive use of temporary signage including bunting and commercial banners. Section 3.5 Design Guidelines, Section 4.0 Development Regulations, and Section 3.5 6 Signage Guidelines of the Specific Plan address design and development issues The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan provides the framework and guidelines necessary to create a unique high quality regional commercial development. 3. HOUSING ELEMENT 6/8//00 CAMY DOCUMENTSWUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 12 The Housing Element, adopted in February 1999, is intended to direct residential development and preservation in a way that coincides with the overall economic and social values of the community. The Housing Element is an official municipal response to a growing awareness of the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the community, as well as legal requirements that housing policy be made a part of the planning process. As such,the Element establishes policies that will guide City officials in daily decision making and sets forth an action program designed to enable the City to realize its housing goals. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted three goals for its housing program which are consistent with State and Regional housing policies. These goals are: • The attainment of decent housing within a satisfying living environment for households of all socioeconomic,racial and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. • The provision of a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes throughout the City. • The development of a balanced residential environment with access to employment opportunities,community facilities,and adequate services. These goals relate to issues, which are not directly applicable to the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, since the Specific Plan is not designated for residential uses. The Housing Element objectives and policies are also not applicable. 4. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT The overall intent of the City of Huntington Beach Historical and Cultural Element is to identify the historical resources of the community, their current designations and community status, and the issues affecting their future. Goals include: • To promote the preservation and restoration of the sites, structures and districts which have architectural, historical, and/or archaeological significance to the City of Huntington Beach. • Develop avenues for communication and participation in arts and cultural activities and programming to bring together diverse segments of the community. • Highlight the City's unique cultural heritage and enhance its visual appeal. • Expand opportunities for the City's children to receive quality experiences of arts and culture. • Establish a wide range of arts and cultural programs and facilities that address the needs and interest of residents,workers,and visitors. These goals relate to issues, which are not directly applicable to the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, since the Specific Plan area does not contain any significant historic and cultural resources The Historic and Cultural Resources Element objectives and policies are also not applicable. 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT The Economic Development Element is specifically concerned with the identification of a strategy to address development potentials that will broaden and stabilize the City's economic 6/8/00 QWY DOCUMENTS\HUNTINGTON BEACFRSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 13 base. Its goals and policies are formulated to provide new policy direction for the City and the planning area. The primary goal of the Economic Development Element is to provide for the economic opportunities of City's residents; business retention and expansion; and land use plan implementation. Applicable goals include: • Provide economic opportunities for present and future Huntington Beach residents and businesses through employment and local fiscal stability. • Aggressively retain and enhance the existing commercial, industrial and visitor serving uses while attracting new uses to Huntington Beach. • Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic land use planning and sound urban design practices. The following applicable Economic Development Element policies are identified below, followed in Italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Economic Growth Policies ED 1.1.1 Maintain and expand economic and business development programs that encourage and stimulate business opportunities within the City. The Specific Plan will stimulate business opportunities within the City by allowing for and encouraging Regional Commercial development under an expedited entitlement process Additionally, the Specific Plan provides for a range of employment opportunities in the professional retail and service fields;thus stimulating business opportunities and strengthening the employee base of the community. Refer to Section 4.0 Development Standards for a list of permitted uses Commercial Use Policies ED 2.4.1 Encourage and assist existing and potential commercial owners to update, modernize, and expand their commercial properties. The Specific Plan will encourage future commercial development by promoting a comprehensive planned retail center and allowing for future "fast-track" entitlement. This Specific Plan will promote development in accordance with the Economic Development Element. Additionally, the landowner is promoting development through its internal marketing strategies and real estate brokers ED 2.2.3 Seek to capture "new growth"businesses such as,but not limited to: • telecommunity; 6/8/00 QV"OOCUMENTSINUWINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERAL A ANOONSISTENCY.000 14 • "shop for value" or "big box" stores; • entertainment-commercial developments; • knowledge-based retail and entertainment-information retail uses;and • high sales tax producing businesses. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan seeks to capture "newgrowth"businesses by allowing for and encouraging Regional Commercial development under an expedited entitlement process. Additionally, the Specific Plan provides for a range of employment opportunities in the professional retail and service fields;thus stimulating business opportunities and strengthening the employee base of the community. Refer to Section 4.0 Development Standards for a list of permitted uses ED 2.2.4 Encourage the expansion of the range of goods and services provided in Huntington Beach to accommodate the needs of all residents in Huntington Beach and the market area. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan encourages the expansion of the range of goods and services provided in Huntington Beach by allowing for and encouraging Regional Commercial development under an expedited entitlement process Additionally, the Specific Plan provides for a range of employment opportunities in the professional retail and service fields;thus stimulating business opportunities and strengthening the employee base of the community. Refer to Section 3.0 Development Standards for a list of permitted uses ED 3.1.4 Encourage the development of a "big box," "shop for value" businesses, especially along Edinger Avenue. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan encourages the expansion of the range of goods and services provided in Huntington Beach by allowing for and encouraging Regional Commercial development consistent with the Specific Plan under an expedited entitlement process 6. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT The Growth Management Element, adopted in April 1992, is a pre-requisite to establish and continue eligibility to receive monies generated by the sales tax which was approved by Orange County voters in November 1990 as Measure M (Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance). The purpose and intent of the Growth Management Element is to establish goals, policies and programs that will promote growth and development based upon the City's ability to provide an adequate circulation system and public facilities and services. The applicable goals of the Growth Management Element are to: 6/8//00 CAW DOCUMENTSWUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 15 • Reduce traffic congestion. • Ensure that adequate transportation and public facilities and public services are provided for existing and future residents of the City. The following applicable Growth Management Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Land Use Policies 5.8.1 Promote balanced growth of residential and non-residential land uses and supporting public facilities and services. The Specific Plan prepared for this project area promotes the development of comprehensive planned regional commercial area, consistent with the City's land use designation. 7. CIRCULATION ELEMENT The purpose of the Circulation Element is to evaluate the transportation needs of the City and present a comprehensive transportation plan to accommodate those needs. The Circulation Element focuses on the City's arterial streets and highways; public transportation modes and services;water transportation; and air transportation. The primary goal of the Circulation Element is to provide a multi-mode transportation system that ensures the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Applicable goals include: • Provide a balanced transportation system that supports the policies of the General Plan and facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while minimizing environmental impacts. • Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. • Develop a balanced and integrated multi-modal transportation system. • Encourage and develop a transportation demand management (TDM) system to assist in mitigating traffic impacts and in maintaining a desired level of service on the circulation system. • Provide sufficient, well designed and convenient on.and off street parking facilities throughout the City. The following applicable Circulation Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Streets and Highways Policies CE 2.1.1 6/8/00 C:WY DOCUMEMSWUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPUWCONSISTENCYAOC 16 Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) not to exceed LOS "D" for intersections during the peak hours. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities to serve the proposed project. A Circulation Plan (refer to Section 33 of the Specific Plan) for the project will be prepared consistent with the City of Huntington Beach's Circulation Element. This plan will be approved by the City and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally, once a definih've site plan and development project is proposed, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed . for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Fublic Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en vironmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division (CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects m the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Fublic Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Flan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. CE 2.1.2 Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) for links not to exceed LOS "C" for daily traffic with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway south of Brookhurst Street. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities to serve the proposed project. A Circulation Flan (refer to Section 3.3 of the Specific Flan) for the project will be prepared consistent with the City of Huntington Beach's Circulation Element. This plan will be approved by the City and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Flan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Flan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City.. 6/8/00 CAMY DOCUMENTSWUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 17 Public Transportation Policies CE 3.1.1 Encourage and support the various public transit agencies and companies, ride sharing programs, and other incentive programs, that allow residents to utilize forms of transportation other than the private automobile. The project Circulation Plan identifies bus stop locations along the project frontage on Edinger Avenue and on Center Avenue. The Circulation Plan (Section 3.3) describes the various public transportation alternatives proposed. In addition, the Specific Plan re-iterates any future project's obligation to comply with the City's adopted Transportation Demand Management ordinance. CE 3.2.1 Require developers to include transit facilities, such as park-and ride sites, bus benches, shelters, pads or turn-outs in their development plans, where feasible as specified in the City's TDM Ordinance. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a 7DM ordinance. As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, the development within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requirements and bus pads and turn outs must be provided at the site. Transportation Demand Management/Transportation Systems Mana eg, ment Policies 4.1.1 Encourage non-residential development to provide employee incentives for utilizing alternatives to the conventional automobile (i.e., carpools, vanpools, buses, bicycles and walking. ne Specific Plan indicates that alternative forms of transportation should also receive careful consideration. ne future development within the Specific Plan will be required to address this issue. In addition, the Specific Plan re-iterates any future project's obligation to comply with the City's adopted Transportation Demand Management ordinance. CE 4.1.5 Promote ride sharing through publicity and provision of information to the,public. The Specific Plan indicates that alternative forms of transportation should also receive careful consideration. The future development within the Specific Plan will be required to address this issue. In addition, the Specific Plan re-iterates any future project's obligation to comply with the City's adopted Transportation Demand Management ordinance. CE 4.1.6 Encourage that proposals for major new non-residential developments include submission of a TDM plan to the City. 6/8/00 QV"WCUMENTSUMWINGTON BEACMISCOTTGENEPALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 18 The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a 7DM ordinance. As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, the development within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requirements and bus pads and turn outs must be provided at the site. Parking Facilities Policies CE 5.1.1 Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in private transportation use. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in use to serve the proposed project. Section 4.3 Development Standards of the Specific Plan states that parking shall be provided based on the results of shared parking analysis to be approved by the Directors of Public Works and Planning. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. CE 5.1.2 Provide safe and convenient parking that has minimal impacts of the natural environment,the community image,or quality of life. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate supply of parking that supports the.present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in use to serve the proposed project. Section 4.3 Development Standards of the Specific Plan states that parking shall be provided based on the results of a shared parking analysis to be approved by the Directors of Public Works and Planning. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in 6/8/00 CAMY DOCUMENTS\HUNTINGTON BEACHGSCOTTGENERAUn ANCONSISTENCY.DOC 19 the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Scenic Highways Policies CE 7.1.1 Require the roadways, as shown in Figure CE-12, to be improved and maintained as local scenic highways, major urban scenic highways, minor urban scenic highways, and landscape corridors with key entry points. Section 3.3 Circulation Plan identifies the roadways to be improved and maintained. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. CE 7.1.4 Establish landscape and urban streetscape design themes for landscape corridors, minor scenic urban corridors, and major urban scenic corridors which create a different character enhancing the corridor's surrounding land uses. For example, the design theme for corridors adjacent to residential neighborhoods should be different than the design theme for industrial or commercial uses. The landscape Plan for the Crossings at Huntington Beach (Section 3.55 of the Specific Plan) has been prepared to establish the design character and visual qualities of the interior and perimeter of the project area. CE 7.3.1 Require that new development include landscaping that is compatible with the visual character of the designated scenic highways and corridors. Landscape standards which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Flan standards are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan. 8. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT The Public Facilities and Public Services Element discusses public facility service provision for Huntington Beach residents and businesses. The services discussed in this element include: law enforcement, fire protection, marine safety, education, libraries, and governmental administration. Applicable goals include: 6/8/00 C:WY DOCUMENTSIHUNTINGTON BEAC"COTTGENERAUn ANCONSISTENCY.DOC 20 • Protect the community from criminal activity, reduce the incidence of crime and provide other necessary services within the City. • Ensure adequate protection from fire and medical emergencies for Huntington Beach residents and property owners. • Promote a strong public school system which advocates quality education. Promote the maintenance and enhancement of the existing educational systems facilities, and opportunities for students and residents of the City to enhance the quality of life for existing and future residents. The following applicable Public Facilities and Public Services Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Police Policies PF 1.3.1 Ensure that project development site designs provide "defensible space". The Specific Flan includes policies for future development to reduce crime. Crime prevention guidelines are included in Section 3.5 Design Guidelines of the Specific Flan, and they will apply to all future development within the Specific Flan. The Police Department will review the development plans/site designs once proposed. PF 1.3.2 Ensure that new development and land use proposals are analyzed to determine the impact their operators, occupants, visitors or customers may have on the safety and welfare of the community. The Specific Flan includes policies for future development to reduce crime. Crime prevention guidelines are included in Section 3.5 Design Guidelines of the Specific Flan, and they will apply to all future development within the Specific Flan. The Police Department will review the development plans/land use proposals once proposed. Fire/Paramedic Folicies PF 2.3.2 Ensure that new construction is designed with fire and emergency access and safety in mind. The Specific Plan includes fire safety measures in Section 3.4.1, which will apply to all future development within the Specific Flan. The Fire Department will review the development plans once proposed. PF 2.3.3 Ensure that existing buildings are maintained in a manner which is consistent with fire safety. 6/8/00 C:NT/DOCUMENTSWUNTINGTON BEACHISCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 21 The Specific Plan includes fire safety measures in Section 3.4.1, which will apply to all future development within the Specific Plan. The Fire Department will review the development plans once proposed. 9. RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ELEMENT The Recreation and Community Services Element has been adopted to identify, maintain and enhance local parks and recreational services and facilities. Applicable goals include: • Enrich the quality of life for all citizens of Huntington Beach by providing constructive and creative.leisure opportunities. • Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents, and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. • Develop park sites to provide diverse recreational and sports facilities that meet the residents'and visitors' active and passive recreational needs. • Ensure recreation facilities are renovated and upgraded to meet the current recreational interests of adults and youth. • Provide parks and other open space areas that are efficiently designed to maximize use while providing cost efficient maintenance and operations. These goals relate to issues, which are not directly applicable to the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, since the Specific Plan is not designated for residential or open space uses by the City General Plan. The Recreation and Community Services Element objectives and policies are also not applicable. 10. UTILITIES ELEMENT The Utilities Element discusses water supply, sanitation treatment (wastewater), storm drainage,solid waste disposal,natural gas,electricity,and telecommunications. Applicable goals include: • Provide a water supply system which is able to meet the projected water demands; upgrade deficient systems and expand water treatment, supply, and distribution facilities;and pursue funding sources to reduce the costs of water provision in the City. • Provide a wastewater collection and treatment system which is able to support permitted land uses; upgrade existing deficient systems; and pursue funding sources to reduce costs of wastewater service provision in the City. • Provide a flood control system which is able to support the permitted land uses while preserving the public safety; upgrade existing deficient systems; and pursue funding sources to reduce the costs of flood control provision in the City. • Maintain solid waste collection and disposal services in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939), and pursue funding sources to reduce the cost of the collection and disposal services in the City. 6/n8//00 CAMY DOCUMENTSWUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTT L GENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC L • Maintain and expand service provision to City of Huntington Beach residences and businesses. The following applicable Utilities Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Water policies U1.2.1 Require that new and existing development contain safeguards and mitigation measures preventing degradation. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public. infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Flan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an En vironmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Flan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Flan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. U 1.2.2 Require new development to connect to the sewer system. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Flan for water., wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Flan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner mill be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Flan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed 6/n8�//00 C:VMY DOCUMENTS%HUNTINGTON BEACH%SCOTTGENERALPLA OC LJNCONSISTENCY.D for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Flan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. U 1.3.4 Require the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation, grading, and other non-contact uses in the new developments,where available or expected to be available. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary According to Fublic Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en vironmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division (CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Flan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Speck Flan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Wastewater Treatment and Facilities Policies U2.1.6 Require that sewer capacity is available before building permits are issued for new development. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards 6/8/00 C:WY DOCUMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACHISCOTTGENERAUn ANCONSISTENCY.DOC 24 and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Flan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to fcibbc Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified'with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Fublic Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Flan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Flan EIR, the. Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Storm Drainage Policies U3.1.5 Limit new development, when necessary, until adequate flood control facilities are constructed to protect existing development and accommodate the new development runoff, or until mitigation is provided in accordance with the Growth Management Element. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Flan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section. 210833(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an en vironmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. 6/�8//00 C:VdY DOCUMENTSViUNTINGTON BEACH=OTTGENERAIPLANCONSISTENCYAOC LJ Solid Waste Policies U 4.1.2 Maintain adequate solid waste collection for commercial, industrial, and residential developments in accordance with state law. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en vironmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Gas S pplL Telecommunication,Electricity Policies 5.1.1 Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan shall ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities to serve the proposed project. A Public Facilities Plan for water, wastewater and storm drainage will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan). These plans will be approved by the City, and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and developmentprojectis proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project 6/8/00 CAPAY DOCUMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACHISCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 26 is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQA1 to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more signif cant than described in the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/CONSERVATION ELEMENT The Environmental Resources/Conservation Element addresses the City of Huntington Beach's environmental resources. Applicable goals include: • Improve and enhance the overall aesthetic value and appearance of the City of Huntington Beach through the provision and maintenance of local public and private open space. • Protect and preserve significant habitats of plant and wildlife species, including wetlands, for their intrinsic values. • Conserve the natural environment and resources of the community for the long-term benefit and enjoyment of its residents and visitors. The following applicable Environmental Resources/Conservation Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Open Space Policies ERC 1.1.1 Encourage the provision of open space elements within the larger-scale development projects including but not limited to public plazas, entry courts, and planned development common areas. As indicated in Section 3.5.5 Landscape Concept of the Specific Plan, each project development shall provide sufficient landscaping to continue the Landscape.Plan concept and the Specific Plan identifies an open space exhibit with plazas and pedestrian walkways throughout the project. Aesthetic Resources Policies ERC 4.1.8 Include commercial, residential, industrial, and natural areas in the electrical undergrounding program. 6/�8/J00 CAMY DOCUMENTSWUWINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC G/ The Specific Plan requires undergrounding of utilities in association with development of future projects per Specific Plan Policy 3.4.6. Water,Electricity, and Gas Conservation Policies ERC 5.2.1 Require, the use of reclaimed water in common areas and landscape treatments of all proposed developments. The City does not currently have a reclaimed water supply system available. As indicated in Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan, reclaimed water shall be utilized where and whenever feasible and shall comply with the City's "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" (Ordinance #1452). Usage will be addressed with future individual requests for development if such a system is available at that time. ERC 5.2.2 Create standards for landscaping and irrigation, which are in compliance with State requirements. Landscape standards, which require development proposals to submit and implement a landscape plan consistent with the overall Specific Plan standards and in compliance with State requirements, are included as Section 3.5.5 of the Specific Plan. The landscape standards will apply to all development within the Specific Plan 12. AIR QUALrIY ELEMENT The purpose of the Air Quality Element is to address air quality factors affecting the City, and establish goals, policies and programs in order to help achieve the goals of the Air Quality Management Plan adopted by South Coast Air Quality Management District. An applicable goal includes: • Improve regional air quality by a) decreasing reliance on single occupancy vehicular trips, b) increasing efficiency of transit, c) shortening vehicle trips through a more efficient jobs-housing balance and a more efficient land use pattern, and d) increasing energy efficiency. The following applicable Air Quality Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Vehicle Work Trips Policies AQ 1.1.2 Require all businesses and multiple tenant centers with 100 or more employees to participate in a Transit Management Association or Organization. 6/n8/00 QWY DOCUMENTSWUNTINGTON BEACHhSCOTT AO GENERALPLANCONSISTENCYC 28 The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a TDM ordinance, which addresses appropriate trip reducing activities As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, the development within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requirements AQ 1.1.5 Encourage all new commercial, industrial, and residential structures to accommodate appropriate trip reducing activities such as alternative work schedules, on-site day-care facilities, on-site automated teller machines, "mail-in" applications, or telecommuting and/or teleconferencing facilities as technology becomes available. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a TDM ordinance, which addresses appropriate trip reducing activities As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan,all developments within this . Specific Plan project will comply with Cityrequirements Transit Trips Policies AQ 2.1.2 Require developers of employment centers with 100 or more employees and major activity centers to include transit amenities and transit access as an integrated part of their projects. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a TDM ordinance, which addresses appropriate trip reducing activities. As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, developments within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requirements AQ 2.1.3 Encourage property owners in existing employment and activity centers (such as the Pier, Downtown, Huntington Beach Mall) to include transit amenities at their sites when these projects apply for additional planning permits or services. A Circulation Plan will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.3 of the Specific Plan). The circulation plan specifies locations for public transportation bus pads and bus turnouts and also includes a potential location for a light rail transit stop. This plan will be approved by the City and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. AQ 2.1.4 Encourage major commercial and industrial development projects located along transit routes to include integrated transit access points in the project design. A Circulation Plan will be prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.3 of the Specific Plan). The circulation plan specifies locations for public transportation bus pads and bus turnouts and also includes a potential location for a light rail transit stop. This plan will be approved by the City and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. Carpool and Vanpool Trips 6/n8(/]00 CAMY DOCUMENTS\HUNTiNGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 29 Policies AQ 3.1.2 Require that employment centers with 100 or more employees increase the availability and the "attractiveness"of parking spaces for vans and carpools. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a TDM ordinance, which addresses appropriate trip reducing activities As discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, developments within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requirements Vehicle Trip Distances Policies AQ 5.1.1 Encourage residential and commercial growth to occur in and around existing activity centers and transportation corridors in accordance with the Land Use Plan Map. A Circulation Plan has been prepared for the project consistent with all standards and requirements of the applicable service agencies (refer to Section 3.3 of the Specific Plan). This plan will be approved by the City and the landowner will be constructing public infrastructure as required by the City in order to support the land uses proposed by the Specific Plan. AQ 5.1.2 Continue to encourage job growth by maintaining the supply of commercial and industrial designated land in accordance with the Land Use Map. Consistent with the General Plan and in accordance with the Land Use Map, the Specific Plan permits job generating land uses that will assist in improving the 1992 jobs to housing ratio. The majority of the Specific Plan area will be developed in a single phase as outlined in Section 2.1 of the document. However, individual building pads may be developed in later phases along with expansions to the initial phase of construction. 6/8/00 QWY DOCUMENTSkHUNTiNGTON BEACKSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 30 . Particulate Emissions AQ 8.1.1 Continue to enforce construction site guidelines that require truck operators to minimize particulate emission. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and . building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division ICEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. AQ 8.1.2 Require installation of temporary construction facilities (such as wheel washers). and implementation of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific,development regulations.and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. Additionally, once a defimbve site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 210833(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division (CEQAJ to the 6/�]8/00 CAMY DOCUNEWMHUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC J 1 approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an en vironmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Energy Conservation AQ 10.1.1 Continue to require the utilization and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en vironmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division (CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior en vironmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. AQ 10.1.3 Encourage energy use audits, and identify conservation measures, for all existing commercial and industrial structures. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and 6/8/00 CAMY DOCUMENTSUiUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 32 building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. 13. COASTAL ELEMENT The Coastal Element, amended in 1992, includes information sufficiently detailed to indicate kinds, location and intensity of land use and applicable resource protection and development policies. The Coastal Element designates different categories of land uses which will be permitted within the coastal zone and specifies the areas where each land use map, categories and additional policies together constitute the Coastal Element, which is intended to reflect local conditions and needs while meeting the Coastal Act policies and requirements. The Coastal Element is organized around the following issue areas, which have been identified as relevant to the City's coastal zone: • Recreation and Shoreline Access • Visitor-Serving Facilities • Visual Resources • Water and Marine Resources and Diking,Dredging,filling and Shoreline Structures • Environmentally Sensitive Habitats • Energy • Community Facilities • Coastal Land Use Plan • Next Steps in Coastal Planning The goals and policies within the Coastal Element provide guidance and direction for development in the coastal zone. The goals of the Coastal Element relate to issues, which are not directly applicable to the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, since the Specific Plan area is not within the coastal zone. The Coastal Element objectives and policies are also not applicable. 14. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT The Environmental Hazards Element addresses flooding as it pertains to geologic, seismic and soils hazards. This Environmental Hazards Element and the referenced materials together .satisfy the geologic and seismic portion of the Section 65302 (g) requirement. Applicable goals include: • Ensure that the number of deaths and injuries, levels of property damage, levels of economic and social disruption, and interruption of vital services resulting from seismic activity and geologic hazards shall be within levels of acceptable risk. • Ensure the safety of the City's businesses and residents from methane hazards. • Eliminate, to the greatest degree possible, the risk from flood hazards to life, property, public investment and social order in the City of Huntington Beach. • Ensure the safety of the City's businesses and resident from peat hazards. 6/8/00 C:UAY DOCUMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH%SCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 33 The following applicable Environmental Hazards Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Geologic/Seismic Safety Policies EH 1.2.1 Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction such as stated in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or maybe amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not,addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. EH 1.3.5 Encourage property owners to take adequate steps to protect their property against economic risks resulting from seismic and geologic hazards. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this SpecYic Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent.with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report" Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. Flooding, 6/8/00 CAW DOCUMENTSWUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCV.DOC 34 Objective EH 4.1 Ensure that the City's flood prevention standards and practices provide satisfactory safeguards for public and private development. The Public Facilities Section of the Specific Flan (Section 3.4) addresses this policy. Additionally, upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Flan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Flan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Flan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. 15. NOISE ELEMENT The purpose of the Noise Element is to identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The Noise Element recognizes the guidelines adopted by the Office of Noise Control in the State Department of Health Services and shall analyze and quantify to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources: • Highways and freeways; • Primary arterials and major local streets; • Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems; 0 Aviation and airport related operations;and • Other ground stationary noise sources contributing to community noise environment. An applicable goal includes: • Ensure that all necessary and appropriate actions are taken to protect Huntington Beach residents, employees, visitors and noise sensitive uses from the adverse impacts created by excessive noise levels from stationary and ambient sources. The following applicable.Noise Element policies are identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Ambient Noise Impacts on the Community Policies N 1.2.2 Require new industrial and new commercial land uses or the major expansion of existing land uses to demonstrate that the new or expanded use would not be directly responsible for causing ambient noise levels to exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior on areas containing "noise sensitive" land uses as depicted on Figure N-1. 6/8/00 CAMY DOCUMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 35 Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or maybe amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. The City Noise Ordinance addresses this policy. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed, an En vironmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 210833(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en vironmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior en vironmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. N 1.2.5 Require development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the acceptable limits of the City noise ordinance. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or maybe amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. The City Noise Ordinance addresses this policy. Additionally, once a site plan is approved, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en wronmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division (CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 6/8/00 C:WY DOMWENTS HUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPIANCONSISTENCY.DOC 36 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. 6/�]8/00 CAMY DOCUh¢NTS HUNTINGTON BEACHISCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCYAOC _ J7 Traffic and Mechanical Equipment Related Noise Impacts Policies N 1.31 Require all new non-residential development to design and configure on-site ingress and egress points diverting traffic away from nearby "noise sensitive" land uses to the greatest degree practicable. Upon the City's adoption of the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, the development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications of the Specific Plan shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's zoning code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan provides specific development regulations and standards that will be applied to the Land Use Plan of this Specific Plan. All development regulations and building specifications not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in place at the time of any individual request. The City Noise Ordinance addresses this policy. Additionally, once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed,an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAJ to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an en vironmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. N 1.3.7 Provide for the development of alternate transportation modes such as bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways to minimize the number of noise generating automobile trips. Section 3.3 of the Specific Plan indicates that alternative forms of transportation should receive careful consideration. The future development within the Specific Plan will be required to address this issue. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a 7DM ordinance, which addresses appropriate trip reducing activities as discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, the development within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requirements N 1.3.8 Ensure that commercial and industrial uses, as required by the Air Quality Management Plan, implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs such as incentives for car pooling,van pools, and the use of public transit. 6/8100 C:WY DOCUMENTSWUNTINGTON BEACHiSCOTTGENERALPLANCONSISTENCY.DOC 38 The City of Huntington Beach has adopted a 7DM ordinance, which addresses appropriate trip reducing activities. as discussed in Section 1.6 of the Specific Plan, the development within this Specific Plan project will comply with City requirements. 16. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The City of Huntington Beach adopted the Hazardous Materials Element as part of the overall General Plan. This Hazardous Materials Element identifies goals, objectives, policies, and programs related to hazardous materials. Applicable goals include: • Reduce, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for harm to life, property and the environment from hazardous materials and hazardous waste. The following applicable Hazardous Materials Element policy is identified below, followed in italic typeface by an explanation of how the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan achieves consistency. Policy HM 1.1.4 Implement federal, state and local regulations for the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Once a definitive site plan and development project is proposed, an Environmental Assessment will be performed, which will analyze impacts peculiar to development proposed for the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan, and propose mitigation measures, as necessary. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b), "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an en vironmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division [CEQAI to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Based upon Public Resource Code Section 21083.3 and the fact that the Specific Plan project falls within the development envelope analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan is currently exempt from preparation of an environmental assessment until a site plan is submitted for approval by the City. 6/8/00 CAPAY DOCUMENTSUIUNTINGTON BEACMSCOTTGENERALPIANCONSISTENCY.DOC 39 APPENDIX C,,'', , THE CROSSINGS AT HUNTINGTON BEACH Huntington Beach, California C. Signage Standards The Crossings at Huntington Beach Signage Standards 1 6/8/00 I. INTENT This sign program has been established for the purpose of assuring that all signage and graphic elements within The Crossings at Huntington Beach are consistent with the project development aC r plan and established architectural standards. This program shall serve as the singular guideline for all signage design on or around the exterior of the 'e. project and visible from public right-of- ways. A project sign criteria program is a requirement of the City of Huntington Beach. II. APPROVALS&COMPLIANCE �Z A. All signage plans, permanent or temporary, must be reviewed and approved by an authorized agent of The 10'-O"X4-01, Crossings at Huntington Beach Management prior to submittal to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Staff per Section 233.04.A2 of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance. B. All signage, permanent or temporary, must comply with the approved signage plan for The Crossings at Huntington Beach and have the required City of Huntington Beach Building Permits prior to installation. C. Where interpretation of these guidelines is not clear, The Crossings at Huntington Beach shall make a decision for clarification subject to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Staff approval. D. Where unique site or building design ` dictates, the City of Huntington Beach Planning Staff will review and make a decision upon The Crossings at I !`! Huntington Beach recommendations for exceptions to these guidelines. dOQ E. The sign area shall be defined as the area including all figures which is an integral part of the sign. Decorative or structural sign supports shall not be included in the calculation of sign area. F. Actual quantities may vary, specified quantities are maximums. 61-0"X4'-011 G. All signage shall conform with sight- distance and visibility design requirement to avoid impeding the ability of commuters to view oncoming traffic. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Si�naae Standards 2 6/8/00 III. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION A. Freeway Monument Sign (EMa) 1. Quantity: 1 location (refer to site plan _ exhibit). 2. Height:: Maximum 60ft. to to «.��. •=�u.- g p of lettering, 50ft. to top of structure above freeway grade. ti -• .;: -. 3. Area:800 sq.ft.maximum per side. '> 4. May include sculptural design elements, which will not be calculated as part of the allowable sign area. 5. Creative use of lighting, including exposed neon and colored lights,will be permitted. B. Primary Project Gateway Sign (EMb) 1. Quantity: Up to 3 locations (refer to site plan exhibit). 2. Height: Maximum25ft. above entry road grade 14ft. minimum clearance if spanning across drive aisles. 3. Area: 300 sq.ft. maximum (project 4 name only included in calculation). ga 4. May include sculptural design elements '•. on each side of entry, as part of the support column structure, which will not be calculated as part of the allowable sign area. C. Secondary Project Monument Signs (EMc) 1. Quantity: Up to 4 locations (refer to site plan exhibit). 2. Height: Maximum 15 ft. above entry road grade. 3. Area: 200 sq.ft. maximum per side (total for project I.D. and optional tenant name listings). 4. Sign may include project name and up to three tenant names. 5. Project name and non-sign elements (base,columns,etc.) should relate to the design motif and use of materials as established in the primary project identification signs. 6. Tenant name listing panels must be integral parts of overall sign design. Materials, lighting technique and placement must be consistent for all tenant panels. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Siege Standards 3 6/8/00 D. Primary Project Wall-Mounted Sign (EWa) 1. Quantity: 3 locations (refer to site plan z exhibit). pp� 2. Height: 15ft. above garage parapet or ^p = above finished grade. 3. Area: 250 sq.ft. maximum (project name only included in calculation). - 4. Sign to be attached to retail buildings or parking structure 5. Sign to be designed to relate directly to primary project gateway sign 6. Additional theater signage may be included at or adjacent to this project sign and must be designed as an integral part of the parking structure entrance. E. Secondary Project Wall-Mounted Sign - (EWb) 1. Quantity: 7 locations (refer to site plan exhibit). 2. Height: Not to extend above building ' parapet. 3. Area: 200 sq.ft. maximum (project name only included in calculation). 4. Sign to be attached to building or gateway structure directly above entrance. F. Directional Signs (EDa,EDb,EDc) lr 1. Quantity:EDa-10;EDb-9;EDc-4 2. Height:6ft.maximum above grade. 3. Area: 15 sq.ft. maximum per side (sign panel only included in calculation). 4. Sign may be internally or indirectly illuminated. 5. Sign may carry tenant names and logos in a standardized color. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Signa ,e Standards 4 6/8/00 � nl ::c',.v` _....._.�% /- • '-. - , t N, 1 ' ' /O�.:i- t%.3 �Igrsr" ,..0�'.'a•Fa_�"a� Si- •u'�. j �. �" $ �� FTe�tit '"� f y it -mot � ��ppp+.4+C.,yy�� M„[�y .r'f,,��.i"'-� /1 �qi r y � �r t L �i• �.L�FI`i?` 1 e ��/ .R i A ,lr .n�p �� , Oloc�isltl•�; 4 �i 1.w.-. 1 l311 ° Icw 6t 1Y/' �. Dann rEjl {►�I :tly1� �`a r�l iB�Q �S 1� { !1 4 No, — r(�. 1 ,(,y e n � �i1 �c.,•1 isl(.r,� ��:- ..�% -.Li:'"'`�*!! (� • :SC �, h.dF-_� t.�I�®�,I MiM iTJ N I. d/� t, �r,•'-n x 31Z(ti. � 1_� a }= ��-s h r� z L� �°+,-w/ ti M � V.RETAIL TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS A. Creativity, uniqueness and high quality materials shall characterized signage u elements used to identify retail tenants in The Crossings at Huntington Beach. r - Each storefront will be a custom design with graphics appropriate to the �6 i individual storefront's design *rf vocabulary. 6' B. Sign area for tenant signage will be calculated around the sign copy only,as contained by a box of up to 8 continuous straight lines (with right angles) formed around the extreme outer limits of the sign message and will not include elements integral to the storefront design. C. These criteria apply only to tenant signage visible from public right of way. D. Building Mounted Storefront Signs 1. Allowable signage area: a Individual letters: 1.5 sq.ft./linear foot of building frontage. Y i b. Cabinet sign: 1.25 sq.ft./linear foot of building frontage. c. Tenants with stores greater than 35,000 sq.ft. will be allowed 1.75 <~' sq.ft./linear foot frontage for both individual letters and cabinet type x L4 e. signs. tar ➢� d. Tenants occupying more than 1 + story shall have signage allowances doubled. 2. Retail tenant signage may occur on each elevation of leased floor area. 3. Sign may be individual letters or other 1 type if cabinet is designed as an integral part of the overall storefront designs. i' 4. Creative use of lighting sources is encouraged,internal or indirect. r F - 5. Lighting fixtures must be designed as an zF integral part of the signage and rr� . r; storefront design. 6. Exposed neon will be permitted only if submitted as part of an overall storefront design scheme and must meet all U.L. and local building code standards. Where used other than in letters, neon will not be considered a sign , but will be subject to all general �.. storefront design criteria. 7. Logo marks and corporate identity elements (such as mascots, symbols, special shapes,etc.) are encouraged,but will be considered signage and are subject to all regulations contained in these guidelines. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Signaye Standards 6 6/8/00 SIGN STANDARDS — COMPARATIVE STUDY EMa Freeway Monument 25 ft. above Lettering 60ft. / Freeway Top of Sign 50 ft. 60 sq.ft. hove freeway grade 800 sq.ft. (logo&legend) if Reader board 115 sq.ft.: 90 sq.ft.message 800 sq.ft. 25 sq.ft.other info EMb rimary Project 25 ft. tall 25 ft. tall Monument (Gateway) 130 sq.ft. 300sq.ft. (logo&legend) 1 per street frontage EMc condary Project of Addressed 15 ft.tall Monument 200sq.ft. (logo&legend) Tenant listings (3 names) 2 per street frontage EDa ehicular Directional ft.tall 6 ft. tall EDb Pedestrian Directional 2 sq.ft. 15 sq.ft. EDc Project Directory 1 per entry Tenant names incl. o business names Up to four per tenant EWa rimary Project of addressed 15 ft.above grade Wall Sign 250sq.ft. (Gateway w/Cinema (I.D.) EWb condary Project 1.5 sq.ft.per 200 s.f. Wall Sign I ft.of wall Height not to exceed Building parapet Channel Letters 1.5 sq.ft.per 1 ft.of wall 1.5 sq.ft.per 1 ft.of wall plus 15% lus 15% One per street or One per street or parking lot frontage Parking lot frontage" Cabinet Type Sign Not addressed 1.25 sq.ft.per 1 ft.of wall rus t be integral part of orefront design" ** unless tenant is grater than 35k sq.ft. or a 2 story configuration The Crossings at Huntington Beach SiQnaQe Standards 7 6/8/00 9MTYK DESCBIPU ® FRflWAYMOMMM ® MMARYPWMOMIMBITIGi* O 9OONDARYM C W M1A+D+OmW k lg3 NwW p 4@UCUUR DIRECIIDNAI 0 KMTRIAN D�ECT ft EDb � PR%a DIRECTDRY -- EN nnor — ;�nfIIIIInOR m0 ak RflnmAnnllltyly { nmmmmmmnz"�mm ; - EVY� PRWEPROJELTWAu SIGN F&mywlOmwLDI fNfNNHNNNNjNI EDa _ 9NIVHNHIIINfNH l59 bd IM SAN DI FREEWAY-405 � SECONDARY PRWWALLM ti. C ! a EDa EDa n EDa � � F awv. n. F 31 Nan 4� 9A o t7o� uuuuw>ruuuuuuuuwunuuuu EDa A i "Ol EDb - EDb EDa S tie 61 Z EWb d s EWb EDc O m r EWA - . s. It EDb {Ni -9a_ d u, EDc EDa EWb FM 0 / w. EWb ..r. EDc MA; ivi' 102 i EDb Ewb EDa EDb EDa EWb EWa Rx EDa EDa C BOULEVARD EMC �sv wv Mb am 1 ury 00 EDa wawoY r -—UE- - EMb SIGNAGE LEGEND TYPE DESCRIPTION TYPE DESCRIPTION TYPE DESCRIPTION TYPE DESCRIPTION IEMa FREEWAY MONUMENT EMc SECONDARY PROJECT MONUMENT EDb PEDESTRIAN DIRECTIONAL EWa PRIMARY PROJECT WALL SIGN(Gateway w/Cinetna I.D.) CEenar>t listing 3 Nam�sl EMb PRIMARY PROJECT MONUMENT(Gateway) Mal VEI IICUTAR DIRECTIONAL EDc PROJECT DIRECTORY EWb SECONDARY PROJECT WALL SIGN - = EMc `° ) . -- -- _ rrrcvENUE; EMc . _ EDb \ �\ H ITInnrrm M n FTM EDa Q 72 A;�}I 1111111111111111111111111 llIlialInnil 11111fil - �.;\ �\ •� 46A romd Hilli{IHI{IIIfIIl'N f1 EDa - _ - __ -_ -_ -- � .. _:� �\�,� ��� - _ 459Lslluvcl Hfi{HI9 - _- SAN O FREEWAY-405 "'�� .,o..,� DISC( F WA EDa_ _- =_ - ER •. =:4- �• I� — _ .19 seccnd Ievel � _ _ -` _._ EDb EDa -- - EDa 00 bEM i EWb Db E ----- ;r � ID a l EDb L \ EWa _ J1JJI� � IIU t I = - EDa -- m . Sf+IH+�I -- _ EDc EWb 4� EDc \dllllllllllllllll� EWb EMa _ 102 EWa _ — — EDb V _ _ _ = EDa - �! � ,- - EDb E ri �\ -1 EDa I. B I kC Bc -_- - liuu t� ES E5 E5 a3m,�r - - - ns.v - EDa =f - V — 111111llilllllllLll �•. uulululllLlllllll1111 ulllllllll uuJllmlllnuullin� �b1L111unlulullululnwl111lwuuWw EMc —E INGER VENUE -- — EMb- --- ---- — —.. --- EMc �-- r� -- EMb SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS RECEIVED FROM v ATTORNEYS AT LAW AND MADE A PART OF TH EC RDATTHE COUNCIL MEETING OF S FORTY-EIGHTH FLOOR OFFICE OF THE ITY CLERK ,f 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90071-1448 WRITER'S DIRECT LINE TELEPHONE (213) 620-1780 OUR FILE NUMBER (213)617-5565 FACSIMILE (213) 620-1398 100-92503 jcurtis@smrh.com July 5, 2000 City Council HAND DELIVERED City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: City of Huntington Beach City Council Hearing_on Wednesday:July 5 2000/Agenda ItemNo. D-1/Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-1/Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-2 (The Crossings Specific Plan) Honorable Mayor Garofalo and Members of the City Council: This Firm represents Montgomery Ward,LLC("Montgome y Ward"),which is the owner of approximately 13.47 acres of real property (the "Montgomery Ward Pro e ") located in what is commonly known as the "Huntington Center Mall" ("Huntington Center"). Our client has requested our assistance in connection with the proposed approval by the City Council("Ci1y Council") of the City of Huntington Beach ("Cijy") of the draft Specific Plan No. 13, identified as "The Crossings at Huntington Beach" (the "Specific Plan"), which would govern future development at the Huntington Center.'- We submitted by'separate letter dated June 28, 2000, comments and suggested changes to the Specific Plan,many of which were considered and recommended by the Planning Commission to be addressed or incorporated therein. However, Montgomery Ward continues to have serious concerns and objections as to the impact and legality of certain other provisions of the Specific Plan,proposed implementing procedures contained therein and related actions of the Redevelopment Agency of the City ("Agency"),which are set forth in more detail below. Of particular concern is the fact that, based upon certain sections of the Specific Plan, including, but not limited to, the existing '-� Each of the correspondence, documents and other materials referenced or referred to herein, as well as all other documents and materials relating to this matter and/or the Huntington Center on file with the City or the Agency or otherwise considered records of the City or the Agency, are hereby incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of this hearing and the record of this reference. L O S ANGELES ■ ORANGE COUNTY ■ S A N D I E G O ■ S A N F R A N C I S C O 4 XiAg?"&. - SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 2 Illustrative Conceptual Plans, it appears that the City, the Agency and/or Huntington Center Associates,LLC and/or the Ezralow Company(collectively hereinafter referred to as "HCA") have developed an elaborate discriminatory scheme by and through the Specific Plan to exclude Montgomery Ward from the Huntington Center. Montgomery Ward is concerned as to the actions and proposals by the City, the Agency and HCA as they relate to the Specific Plan. Montgomery Ward is a major retailer which operates 251 stores(approximately 20,000,000 square feet)and is involved in numerous innovative and leading malls throughout the country. Prior to the end of this year, Montgomery Ward will have renovated 78 of its retails stores with plans to remodel at least 40 more of its retail stores in 2001. Montgomery Ward certainly has the expertise, experience and financial commitment to redevelopment which makes Montgomery Ward uniquely qualified to ensure the success of the redevelopment of its property at the Huntington Center. There is no proper reason as to why the City Council should condone or approve a Specific Plan that is improper and discriminatory on numerous grounds from both a planning perspective and a legal perspective and results in the exclusion of Montgomery Ward from the Huntington Center. , Based on the foregoing, on behalf of Montgomery Ward,we request that the City Council incorporate Montgomery Ward's comments on and changes to the Specific Plan, revise the Specific Plan in accordance with state and local law and comply with CEQA prior to any further hearings on this matter. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS I. The City Council Hearing Is in Violation of Municipal Code Sections 247.02 and 215.08. II. Proper Notice of this City Council Hearing Has Not Been Given in Accordance With Municipal Code Section 248.02 and Government Code Section 65094. III. The Specific Plan Is Not in Compliance With the General Plan. IV. The Specific Plan Does Not Comply With State Law and Municipal Code Requirements for Specific Plans. V. The Specific Plan Constitutes Unlawful Discriminatory Spot Zoning. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 3 VI. The Specific Plan Is in Violation of Equal Protection,Substantive Due Process and Procedural Due Process as Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. VII. The Specific Plan Violates Government Code Section 65852 Concerning Uniformity of Regulations and Violates Established Law Prohibiting Arbitrary Interference With Private Business. VIII. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Will Violate the California Environmental Quality Act; An Environmental Impact Report Must Be Prepared. A. The City Must Prepare and Certify an EIR for the Proposed Specific Plan. B. The Specific Plan Is a Project Under CEQA. C. The City and the Agency Must Undertake CEQA Review Before Proceeding With the Adoption of the Specific Plan. D. The Elements of Tiering Are Not Met. E. The City and the Agency Have Unlawfully"Split"the Project for Purposes of Environmental Review. F. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Would Unlawfully Defer Environmental Review. G. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Will Result in an Unlawful Failure to Undertake a Cumulative Analysis of the Project's Environmental Impacts. IX. Conclusion. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 4 I. THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING IS IN VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 247.02 AND 215.08. This City Council hearing should not be held at this time for violation of Sections 247.02 and 215.08 of the City's Municipal Code ("Code"). Code Section 247.02 provides as follows: "Amendments to the zoning provisions, standards or map may be initiated by motion of the City Council or Planning Commission, or any other person or agency. If property that is the subject of an application not initiated by the City is in more than one ownership, all the owners or their authorized agents shall join in filing the application." Similarly, Code Section 215.08 provides as follows: "An amendment to reclassify property to a SP District may be initiated by a property owner or authorized agent,the Planning Commission, or the City Council. If the property is not under a single ownership, all owners shall join in the application, and a map showing the extent of ownerships shall be submitted with concept plans and materials." FICA submitted an application to the City for the draft Specific Plan(zoning map and zone text amendment), and the application was only signed by HCA, not by any other owner, including Montgomery Ward. On June 9, 2000, we learned that Ray Silver, City Administrator and Executive Director of the Agency, unilaterally declared by memorandum dated June 5, 2000 that the City and Agency were the "applicants,"because it was a "city-initiated project." In light of these events,it remains uncertain as to who is the true"applicant." However, since Montgomery Ward owns in fee a substantial portion of the property covered by the proposed Specific Plan and did not sign the application, and since Mr. Silver is neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council, and since Mr. Silver has no authority to make application in his capacity as City Administrator (see Code Chapter 2.08) or otherwise, the application by HCA and action by Mr. Silver were both improper under Code Sections 247.02 and 215.08. Thus, the City Council does not have SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LAP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 5 jurisdiction and any hearing or other action thereon by the City Council would be improper. II. PROPER NOTICE OF THIS CITY COUNCIL HEARING HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 248.02 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65094. Code Section 248.02 requires,among other things,that the form of the notice for this City Council hearing include "[a] general explanation of the matter to be considered, including a general description of the area affected . . ." Similarly, Government Code Section 65094 requires "a general explanation of the matter to be considered." Under the current circumstances, these notice provisions are being violated because the Specific Plan is not merely a Specific Plan specifying the location and density " of uses and other matters typically contained in a Specific Plan(as provided in State law and discussed below), but other provisions of the Municipal Code are being amended or waived. For example, there are new provisions for nonconforming uses and structures without any notice whatsoever, including mentioning any amendment to Code Chapter 236; design review is not required for plans for the redevelopment of the Huntington Center as normally required for all other Specific Plan and redevelopment areas under Code Chapter 244 and many other provisions of the Code will no longer be applicable if the Specific Plan is adopted. Specific notice of these and other provisions should have been given rather than a complete lack of notification to the public. III. THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. The California Supreme Court has held that the general plan for a city is the "constitution" for future development. Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal. 3d 531, 540(1990). Since the City's General Plan is the constitution for all future development, any decision of the City affecting land use and development must be consistent with the City's General Plan. See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d. 553, 570 (1990). This requirement of General Plan consistency has been directly adopted by the City in connection with the adoption of any specific plan within the City. See Code § § 215.02 and 215.04. The City's General Plan requires that"development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 6 in accordance with the Development "Overlay" Schedule (Table LU-3)." See Policy LU 7.1.2. General Plan Policy LU 15.1.1 requires "the formulation, adoption, and implementation of Specific Plans for areas designated with a "Specific Plan Overlay" (-- SP)." The Huntington Center is designated with a Specific Plan Overlay.- Table LU-4 of the General Plan specifies the land use category for the Huntington Center as"Commercial Regional (CR)" and Policy LU 16.1.1 provides for the accommodation of development according to those schedules. The "Commercial Regional (CR)" designation under the General Plan permits, among other things, anchor department stores and automobile sales and service facilities and similar region-serving uses. The Montgomery Ward store and automotive facility are integrated facilities, and there can be no dispute that Montgomery Ward is an anchor department store. Given the foregoing and also the consistency of automobile service with region-serving uses and automobile sales,certainly Montgomery Ward's store and automotive facilities are permitted and consistent with the General Plan. These facilities should be expressly permitted and depicted on the Specific Plan. We also note that permitting car stereo and alarm installation under the Specific Plan,but not permitting Montgomery Ward's integrated store and automotive facilities, would be impermissible discriminatory zoning, as discussed in Section V below.v The Specific Plan does not comply with State law and the City's Code requirements for Specific Plans,as explained in Section IV below. As a result,the Specific Plan is not in compliance with the General Plan, and no major redevelopment of Huntington Center can occur until a proper Specific Plan is prepared and adopted by the City in accordance with the requirements of the General Plan. The Specific Plan is also inconsistent with several other provisions of the General Plan including, but not limited to, those outlined on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and those policies relating to infrastructure and service improvement demands. For example, Policy LU 2.1.1 provides for the planning and constructing of public infrastructure and serve improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan. Similarly,Policy LU.2.1.3 limits the type, location and/or timing of development where there is inadequate public infrastructure to support the proposed land development. Here, as more thoroughly discussed in.Section VIIIC below, _v See Exhibit 13A of the Specific Plan. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 7 to date, there has been no review or analysis as to the potential needs and/or impacts that the Specific Plan may have on, among other things, infrastructure, drainage, water and sewage. It seems incredulous that the City can state that development will be correlated with infrastructure needs and ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and utilities if no analysis as to what those needs are has been completedY Furthermore, Policy CE 2.1.2 states that a city-wide level of service (LOS)for links not exceed LOS "C" for daily traffic. However,no traffic analysis has been prepared for the development contemplated under the Specific Plan. Rather,the City is relying on an out-dated general traffic analysis prepared for the General Plan EIR. - - Given the numerous inconsistencies between the Specific Plan and the General Plan, the City Council should delay its approval of the Specific Plan until further revisions can be made to ensure the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan and otherwise complies with State and local law. IV. THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOES NOT COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC PLANS. Section 65451(a) of the California Government Code provides in relevant part as follows: "(a) A Specific Plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: (1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. (2) ' The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage,water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. 3� See also, General Plan Policies U1.2.1, U1.2.2, U2.1.6, U3.1.5 and U4.1.2. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 8 (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed,and standards for the conservation,development,and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and(3)." The Specific Plan does not meet these requirements of the Government Code because it does not specify in detail,the distribution or location of any uses of land. Rather, the Specific Plan has two different"Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan" exhibits (Exhibits 3A and 313) which specifically note the following: "This illustrative shows a hypothetical development scenario on the project site." The location and distribution of the uses and other essential facilities (including utilities and other infrastructure) are not specified (they are only "hypothetical") and are merely deferred to another day through potential future environmental review under CEQA and an improper site plan review process under Sections 2.6 and 2.3 of the Specific Plan, respectively, which processes are done solely by the Planning Director without any requirements for public hearing or notice, and the Planning Director's decision can only be appealed by the "applicant." This could result in any and all of the uses and other essential facilities permitted or required under the Specific Plan to be constructed anywhere, which is not consistent with Government Code Section 65451. By delegation to a future date of an essential element of a Specific Plan, as required by law, General Plan Implementation Program I-LU4 and Code Chapter 215 will also be violated by not having the Planning Commission and City Council consider the location and distribution of uses: Section 2.0 of the Specific Plan similarly violates this Implementation Program and Code Chapter 215 by allowing modifications of the Specific Plan by the Planning Director when determined by the Planning Director to be minor. By allowing this, all notice and hearing procedures under this and other Chapters of the Code are ignored and violated for amendments to the Specific Plan. In summary,the Specific Plan should be a tool to provide certainty regarding the location and distribution of future development in Huntington Center in compliance with State and local law. However, as currently proposed,the Specific Plan would create complete uncertainty regarding the development of the Huntington Center in violation of law and unlawfully delegate the authority to determine the location and distribution of land uses and essential facilities to the Planning Director. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 9 V. THE SPECIFIC PLAN CONSTITUTES UNLAWFUL DISCFJMINATORY SPOT ZONING. Spot zoning occurs where a small parcel of property is restricted and given less rights that the surrounding property, thereby creating an "island" in the middle of a larger sea devoted to other uses. Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino, 29 Cal.2d 332, 340 (1946). It can also occur where the zoning amendment may appear valid on its face, but the circumstances surrounding its adoption,the purpose of the amendment and its ultimate objective are found to be an unlawful exercise of the legislative power. G&D Holland Construction Co. v. City ot� f Marysville, 12 Cal.App.3d 989, 996 (1970); See also, Arnel Development Co.v. City of Costa Mesa, 126 Cal.App.3d 330, 337(1981) ["A City cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land and the courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance."] Here, in preparing the Specific Plan, the City and the Agency have unfairly discriminated against Montgomery Ward. The Specific Plan establishes planning concepts, design and architectural guidelines and other development standards and procedures for the Huntington Center, including with respect to amortization provisions of nonconforming uses, which do not apply to surrounding property or similarly situated property. These standards and procedures will only apply to one other property owner, which is also the same property owner that proposed that they.be adopted. In so doing, the City and the Agency are proposing to unreasonably and arbitrarily narrow the uses normally permitted. For example, Montgomery Ward's automotive center and related uses are not permitted, but other automotive work is permitted to take place on-site (car stereo and alarm installation) and on adjacent sites. These restrictions improperly limit the rights of Montgomery Ward to develop its site in comparison to the rights of owners of surrounding property similarly situated, both on-site and off-site. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Yorba Linda, 1 Cal.App.4th 954 (1991). Given the actions of the City and the Agency, it is apparent that the real motive behind the implementation of the Specific Plan is to attempt to remove Montgomery Ward and certain other businesses that are not desired by the City, the Agency or HCA for the Huntington Center by discriminating against Montgomery Ward through the Specific Plan. This is discriminatory spot zoning and not a legitimate governmental purpose for which the City and the Agency can exercise their police power. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 10 VI. THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS IN VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals against government deprivations of property without due process of law. U.S. Const., 14' Amend. and Cal. Const., Art. I § 7. If a governmental action is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, such action will be declared unconstitutional and a violation of substantive due process. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 47 S. Ct. 114(1926);see also,Lockary v Kayfetz, 917 F.2d 1150(9'Cir. 1990) [government conduct that is malicious, irrational or plainly arbitrary will not be sustained]. , The premise behind the equal protection clause is that no person shall be denied the same protection of law that is enjoyed by another person in similar circumstances. Hawn v. County of Ventura, 73 Cal.App.3d 1009 (1977). Here, as set forth in detail above, by proposing to unreasonably narrow the uses normally permitted in a shopping center and imposing planning concepts, design and . architectural guidelines and other developments standards and procedures in an unequal and irrational manner at the behest of and for the benefit of one adjacent property owner, including, without limitation, by prohibiting Montgomery Ward's automotive facilities while simultaneously allowing car stereo and installation, the Specific Plan will unfairly discriminate against Montgomery Ward and deny Montgomery Ward a reasonable J opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of Huntington Center. See, e.g., Hawn v. County of Ventura, 73 Cal.App.3d 1009 (1977). Also, the proposed amortization provisions which would limit "nonconforming" uses to three years are also arbitrary and unreasonable by not being applied uniformly within the City, by being inconsistent with the General Plan and by being contrary to the investment-backed expectations of Montgomery Wards (Montgomery Ward's depreciation of its existing uses and structures will expire many years after this three year period). These actions are malicious,irrational and plainly arbitrary in clear violation of the equal protection and substantive due process protections provided by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the insufficient notice and violations of the procedural requirements of the Municipal Code also constitute a denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, .g., Carey v. Piphus, 98 S.Ct. 1042 (1978). The Specific Plan is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and should not be approved by this City Council. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach. July 5, 2000 Page 11 VII. THE SPECIFIC PLAN VIOLATES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852 CONCERNING UNIFORMITY OF REGULATIONS AND VIOLATES ESTAB- LISHED LAW PROHIBITING ARBITRARY INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS. Government Code section 65852 governs the uniformity of regulations within a particular zone by prohibiting unreasonable discrimination against particular properties within a similar zone classification. Section 65852 provides in relevant part: "All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout each zone, but the regulation in one type of zone may differ from those in other types of zones." The Specific Plan is in violation of Section 65852 in that, as noted above, it restricts the uses and manner of conducting the use (must be Italian theme) generally allowed in a regional commercial center including, without limitation, by prohibiting a retail store with an integrated automotive center. Moreover,the Specific Plan provides for amortization of alleged nonconforming uses (including building design) which have not been applied in other commercial retail centers throughout the City. Furthermore, the Specific Plan is in violation of California case law in that by establishing very limited design and architectural requirements for the Huntington Center which must be implemented within three years, the City and the Agency are attempting to unlawfully restrict the type of businesses allowed to operate at the Huntington Center for the benefit of one adjacent property owner. "The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations." Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137 (1804). See also O'Hagen v. Board of Zoning.. Adjustment, 19 Cal.App.3d 151 (1971); McDonald's Systems of California. Inc.v. Board. of Permit Appeals, 44 Cal.App.3d 525, 548 (1975). The design and architectural &de- lines are being established to promote an"Italian"village atmosphere for the benefit of one adjacent property owner. The conceptual plans and rendering submitted to the City and the Agency do not include Montgomery Ward or other tenants currently on site. Basically, by imposing the planning concepts on the future development and/or rehabilitation of Huntington Center which are required to be implemented within a very short time period, the Specific Plan is imposing unusual and unnecessary restrictions for the purpose of unlawfully limiting Montgomery Ward's business on its own property. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 12 VIII. THE ADOPTION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN WILL VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MUST BE PREPARED. A. The City Must Prepare and Certify an EIR for the Proposed Specific Plan. 1. Overview of CEQA. CEQA was enacted in response to the well- documented failure of state and local governmental agencies to consider fully the environmental implications of their actions. Selmi, The Judicial Development of the California Environmental Quality Act, 18 U.C.D.L. Rev. 197 (1984).4' The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that CEQA must be interpreted liberally"to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Laurel Hei is Improvement Assn. v. The Regents of the University, of California ("Laurel Heights I"), 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 (1988), quoting from Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 (1972). Two of the central purposes of CEQA are to inform governmental decision. makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project and to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. Guidelines-§§ 15002(a) (1) and (2). The EIR is the heart of CEQA. Guidelines § 15003(a). As noted by the California Supreme Court, the EIR: "is the primary means of achieving the Legislature's considered declaration that it is the policy of this state to'take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the 'environmental quality of the state.' (§ 21001, subd. (a).) ... Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public , officials, it is a document of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public,being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it The Office of Planning and Research has promulgated guidelines to implement CEQA. 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines"). SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 13 disagrees. [Citations]. The EIR process protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." Laurel Heights I, supra, at 392.5' CEQA provides for a three-tiered environmental analysis. First, the lead agency determines whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. Guidelines§ 15061. If the lead agency concludes that the project is not exempt from CEQA, the lead agency then conducts an initial study to ascertain whether to prepare an EIR or a negative declaration in connection with the project. The lead agency may only adopt a "negative declaration" when the initial study concludes that "there is no substantial evidence ... that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" and further CEQA review is unnecessary. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(1). CEQA applies only to "discretionary projects." Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(a) and (b)(1); Guidelines § 15268(a). A discretionary project is one which "requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations. Guidelines § 15357. 2. Fair Argument Test Requires an EIR. If the administrative record contains substantial evidence that any aspect of a project"may have a significant effect on the environment," the lead agency must prepare an EIR. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100; Guidelines §§ 15002(f)(1), 15063(b)(1) and 15064(a)(1).6' Put another way, s� An EIR serves "to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has in fact analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68, 86 (1974). An EIR also allows the public to "determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials,thus allowing for appropriate action on election day should a majority of the voters disagree." People v. County of Kern, 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 842 (1974). "The report ... may be viewed as an environmental'alarm bell'whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." County of Inyo v. Yorty, 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810(1973). Professor Selmi pointed out that one of the reasons that courts are permitted to closely (continued...) City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 14 "... if a Lead Agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68 (1974))." Guidelines § 15064(g)(1). (emphasis added). See also Friends of"B" Street v. City of Hay Ward, 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002 (1980). A trial court is entitled to independently review an agency's determination that there was no evidence upon which a fair argument could be made that an EIR was required. As the court stated in Friends of"B" Street, supra: "if there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact,evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a Negative Declaration, because it could be 'fairly argued' that the project might have a significant environmental impact. Stated another way,if the trial court perceives substantial evidence that the project might have such an impact, but the Agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR, the Agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed 'in a manner required by law'. (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5.)" 106 Cal.3d at 1002. (Emphasis added). Under the fair argument standard, deference to the lead agency's determin- ation is not appropriate and its decision not to require an EIR can be upheld "only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary." Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317-18 (1992). The fair argument standard requires the reviewing court to employ "a certain degree of independent review of the record, rather than the typical substantial evidence standard which usually results in great deference being given (...continued) examine CEQA decisions is that public agencies"are subject to political pressure to avoid the full EIR process" which is certainly the case here. Selmi, supra, at 227. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 15 to the factual determinations of the agency." Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas, 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602 (1994). The Supreme Court has concluded that the interpretation of CEQA "which will afford the fullest possible protection to the environment is one which will impose a low thresholds requirement for preparation of an EIR." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, at 84. Given the magnitude of the proposed development under the Specific Plan and the anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts associated with demolition and construction, including as explained move fully below,the Specific Plan is a"project" under CEQA that will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR. B. The Specific Plan Is a Project Under CEQA. Public Resources Code Section 21065 defines project as "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical activity which is directly undertaken by any public agency." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065; Guidelines § 15378(a); see also, Goleta Union School District v. Regents of the University of California, 37 Cal.AppAth 1029, 1030 (2d Dist. 1995). The enactment"and amendment of zoning ordinances has been determined to be an activity undertaken by a public agency that are subject to CEQA. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea'v. Board of Supervisors, 183 Cal.App.3d 229 (1986). Here, the Specific Plan is seeking an amendment to the zoning of the property from CG (General Commercial) and CG-FP2 (General Commercial - Flood Plain) to Specific Plan No. 13. Accordingly, the Specific Plan is a project for purposes of CEQA review. C. The City and the Agency Must Undertake CEQA Review Before Proceeding With the Adoption of the Specific Plan. Public agencies shall not undertake actions relating to a proposed public project that would have a significant adverse effect on the environment, or limit its choice of alterations or mitigation measures, before complying with CEQA. Guidelines § 15004(b)(2). Under this standard, agencies may not make a formal decision to proceed with use of a site without first completing the CEQA review. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 16 In the instant case, should the City approve the Specific Plan, or the Agency take any action based thereon, it will be in violation of the aforementioned provision of CEQA. The Specific Plan establishes a master development plan including, without limitation, planning concepts, design and architectural guidelines and other development standards for the Huntington Center. There has been no review or analysis in accordance with CEQA of the impacts relating to,among other things, changes and limitations of uses, new permissible heights,utilities,traffic and circulation,and the effect of removing the site from the Flood Plain Overlay District. This and other analyses are all left to another day after the new standards under the Specific Plan are adoptedY This will also preclude any consideration of alternatives. Moreover,once approved,any future development will only be subject to site plan review by the Planning Director,rather than a public hearing process before the Design Review Board, the. Planning Commission and/or City Council.$' Furthermore, the Planning Director can even make amendments to the Specific Plan without any public notice or hearing if he determines they are "minor." Thus,by approving the Specific Plan before undertaking the appropriate and required environmental review,the City is essentially limiting its ability to have any further decision-making authority in connection with the future development of Huntington Center. This is in violation of CEQA and is be allowed. D. The Elements of Tiering Are Not Met. Tiering is a process provided for by the Legislature in order to allow agencies to avoid repetitiveness,wasted time,and unnecessary premature speculation. See Cal.Pub. Res. Code §§ 21065, 21093(a); Guidelines § 15152. To qualify for the use of tiering, later projects must: (1)be consistent with the program, plan,policy, or ordinance for which an EIR has been prepared and certified; (2)be consistent with applicable local land use plans and zoning of the city, county,or city and county in which the later project would be located; and(3)not trigger the need for a subsequent EIR or supplement to an EIR. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b). In addition, '-� See Sections 2.3, 2.6, 3.3.9, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.5.4C, 4.1.3 and Exhibit 7B of the Specific Plan. si See Sections 2.3 and 2.6 of the Specific Plan. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 17 before deciding that tiering may be used with respect to a later project, the lead agency must prepare an "initial study or other analysis" to assist it in determining whether the project may cause any significant impacts not analyzed in a prior EIR: Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21094(c); Guidelines § 15152(f). Here, the City and/or Agency have not prepared an initial study to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts of the Specific PlanY In fact, to date, there exists no complete or legally adequate environmental analysis of. (i) the proposed conceptual plans contemplated by the Specific Plan; (ii)the development of these specific acres or analysis of the proposed design and architectural guidelines; (iii) a program of mitigation which if implemented would eliminate any and all potential for adverse environmental impacts; or (iv) whether tiering would be appropriate under CEQA. Independently,we have compared the City's General Plan EIR to the Specific Plan, as presented in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. This comparison shows that tiering will clearly be in appropriate because the Specific Plan is not consistent with the General Plan and that many potential significant adverse impacts of the Specific Plan were not previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As a result, before any further action is taken on the Specific Plan, an initial study will have to be prepared and the proper environmental review under CEQA must be performed. E. The City and the Agency Have Unlawfully "Split" the Project for Purposes of Environmental Review. As noted above, the term "project" has been broadly defined under CEQA. "Project"means"the whole of an action,which has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. . . ." Guidelines § 15378(a). All phases of project planning, implementation and operation must be considered in the initial study for a project. Guidelines § 15063(a)(1). The term "project" refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretional approvals by -'� The City's own past course of conduct indicates a need for environmental review of the Specific Plan. For example,environmental review under CEQA for both the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and the McDonald Center Specific Plan was undertaken prior to any action by the City. SHEPPARD, MULLIN" RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 18 governmental agencies. The term "project" does not mean each separate governmental approval. Guidelines § 15378(c). Under CEQA, a project must be fully analyzed in a single environmental document. An agency may not split a project into two or more segments with mutually exclusive environmental documents. Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. Coua of Inyo, 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 165 (1985). Similarly, an agency cannot overlook a project's cumulative impacts by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole. McQueen v. Board of Directors, 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1144 (1988). In Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo, supra, a county split a shopping center project into two segments, the first part consisting of general plan amendments and zoning classifications, and the second part involving a tentative map approval and road abandonment. The public agency prepared a separate negative declaration for each project segment. Because the project applicant had requested related discretionary approvals at different times, the county had failed to understand that it was dealing with a single project. The court overtured the negative declarations and the project approvals, holding that an agency cannot prepare mutually exclusive environmental documents for a single project. Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area, supra, at 165-67. The project description in a CEQA document must include: "an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonable foreseeable conse- quence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects." Laurel Heights I, supra, at 396. In Laurel Hei is I, the Regents proposed the relocation of a biomedical research facility to a portion of a building located in the residential neighborhood. The EIR for the project failed to analyze the cumulative impacts of the anticipated full use of the building as a biomedical facility within a few years. The California Supreme Court rejected the Regent's argument that,because the proposed expansion had not been formally approved, the EIR's analysis could be limited to the project in its initial form. Evidence in the record indicated that, despite the lack of a formal approval, the Regent's ultimate plans were clear. Therefore, because the expansion was reasonably foreseeable, and was SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 19 likely to change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects, the EIR should have discussed at least the general effects of the reasonably foreseeable future uses and the anticipated measures for mitigating those effects. Laurel Heights I, supra, at 396-398. "The fact that precision may not be possible . . . does not mean that no analysis is required." Id. at 399. Another case that illustrates this principle is Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, 88 Cal.App.3d 397 (1979). In Whitman, an EIR was prepared in connection with an application to drill an exploratory oil and gas well, which omitted discussion of a contemplated pipeline if the well proved productive. The court found the EIR inadequate and explained that"[t]he record before us reflects that the construction of the pipeline was, from the very beginning within the contemplation of[the] overall plan for the project and could have been discussed in the EIR in at least general terms." Id. at 414-15. (Emphasis added.) Under the current circumstances, the Specific Plan suffers from the same problems that occurred in Laurel Heights I and Whitman. First,there has been absolutely no environmental analysis performed in connection with development requirements, permitted uses, location of uses and exemptions from City procedures and requirements and all other matters that are set forth in the Specific Plan. Second, any potential analysis, actions and mitigation measures that may be associated with the actual development of the property are deferred to another day, which is an attempt like Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. CoIM of Ingo, supra,to split the general plan and zoning classification(Le,the Specific Plan)from subsequent required approvals(site plan review by the Planning Director with no public notice or hearing required with appeal rights only by the "applicant," etc.). This is an egregious violation under the current circumstances because of the attempt of the City and the Agency to say that the Specific Plan was covered by a very General Plan EIR. As a result, in accordance with CEQA, the City and the Agency need to properly prepare an EIR or other environmental document under CEQA prior to the approval of the Specific Plan. F. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Would Unlawfully Defer Environmental Review. CEQA requires that environmental review and the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures occur at the earliest feasible state in the planning process. Cal. Pub. Res. Code§21003.1. CEQA also provides that any proposed negative declaration should only be prepared for a project when "revisions in the project plans or proposals made by SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 20 or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. . . ." Cal. Pub. Res. Code§21080(c)(2). The case of Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Ca1.App.3d 296 (1988),illustrates these principles. In Sundstrom,the public agency approved a use permit for a motel and restaurant that included a private sewage treatment plant. The initial study did not analyze the environmental impacts of the treatment plant,but instead required that the developer prepare a hydrological study after the approval of the negative declaration. The study was to provide a basis for establishing additional mitigation measures for the project. The court held that the public agency violated CEQA by including a condition that contemplated revisions to the project after the final adoption of the negative declaration. The court further held that the deferral of environmental review for the treatment plant ran counter to CEQA policy, which required environmental review at the earliest feasible time in the planning process. The court also noted that any mitigation measures added by the administrative staff as a result of this study would be exempt from public scrutiny since the public agency had already approved the negative declaration. The entire Specific Plan and the procedures set forth therein are an unlawful deferral of environmental review. First,no initial study was prepared for the Specific Plan. to analyze potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures incorporated into the project, since environmental review would only be done with site plan reviews by the Planning Director which will be exempt from public scrutiny. As a result, neither the impacts nor the proposed conditions for mitigation are analyzed, including those for or relating to uses, light, glare, noise, aesthetics, traffic and circulation, geotechnical, hazardous waste, air quality, parking, flooding, construction and utilities, and each are deferred to another day. This type of deferral of environmental review and mitigation is not permitted under CEQA or the Guidelines. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 21 G. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Will Result in an Unlawful Failure to Undertake a Cumulative Analysis of the Project's Environmental Impacts. An environmental document must discuss "cumulative impacts" when they are significant. Guidelines § 15130(a). However, even if a cumulative impact is not deemed significant, the document must explain the basis for the conclusion. Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 429 (1985). "Cumulative impacts" are defined under CEQA as two or more individual effects which, when considered together,are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b). By failing to prepare an Initial Study and undertake any environmental analysis under CEQA there will be no analysis of potential "cumulative-impacts," which is not permitted under CEQA. IX. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, on behalf of Montgomery Ward,we request that the City Council incorporate Montgomery Ward's proposed comments and changes to the Specific Plan, revise the Specific Plan in accordance with state and local law and comply with CEQA prior to any further hearings on this matter. V truly yo , Jon a an C. Curtis for SHEPP , MULLIN, RICHTER& HAMPTON LLP LA:LCC\LED100\70178013.2 cc: Mr. Ray Silver Mr. Howard Zelefsky Mr. David C. Biggs Ms. Jane James Gail C. Hutton, Esquire Paul D'Alessandro, Esquire SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP City Council City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 22 Murray Q. Kane, Esquire Mr. Douglas Gray James C. Hughes, Esquire Mr. Spencer H. Heine Mr. Loren H. Hohman Corey E. Light, Esquire EXHIBIT "A" Deficiencies/Inconsistencies of General Plan and General Plan EIR With the Specific Plan No. 13 ... . .. . .. . ...... . .... . ....................... .......... .......................... ........... .-ifi.... ......................... ................... ....................................... ....... ...................... ................ ........... ec n::N 11:inetiV: I .. ........... Genera::*-Pjah: 1:1i.G. ........... Sb ssue::*:*:*,*:*:. . . ..PRO... I.......................- ............I............... ........**' '* .............. ......... Land Use LU 2.1.2: requires EIR notes the policy but does Inconsistent. Delays the that the type, amount not analyze or provide an analysis of infrastructure and and location of explanation as to the effects of services to a later date and development be this policy or its only requires review by correlated with the implementation. Planning Director (§§ 3.3.9, provision of adequate 2.3). supporting infrastructure and public services. LU 2.1.4: limits the Inconsistent. Delays the total additional new analysis of infrastructure and development citywide services to a later date and for commercial to only requires review by 3,165,000 sf until Planning Director (§§ 3.3.9, highway 2.3). improvements done. LA:LCC\OTHER\100\70176279.2 .............. ........... ....... ............................ ........ ..............I........................................ .................... ........ ................ ......... . ..........*......*.......... ....................................... . ..... ................. ................................................................ h.. ......... : .. ........................... .... ............ ...........................,............................ .......................... .................................... .- ............ ... ...........:.......................... . Ge...e ral. General: ............. .... ....... .:. . P1aft:N.... .43..........-.. ............ ..... ............... . ....- ................. Tables LU-4ALU-5: Inconsistent. Limits the land use category of permitted commercial regional Huntington Center as uses by eliminating automotive Commercial Regional facilities, such as Montgomery (CR); Part of Ward's. (Exhibit 13A) SubArea 5A - regional serving Montgomery Ward's store and commercial uses automotive center are permitted in the CR integrated facilities. land use category; Montgomery Ward is an Height of 4 stories anchor store and its automobile Table LU-2a: land services are consistent with use schedule - permits regional-serving uses. anchor department stores and automobile sales and service facilities. I-LU4: requires the Inconsistent. Only requires the Planning Commission Planning Director to approve the site and City Council to plans and project development. review and approve (§2.3) prior to major Illustrative Conceptual Master Plans redevelopment or fail to specify the location and developed property. distribution of uses. (Exhibits 3A and 313) LA:LCC\O=R\100\70176279.2 -3- ..... ........ ...........:.:.....::...::..... .. ............ ... ............. ..................................... ............................,.......-.....................I....................................I.'...'.................................................................................................................."..:.':................................".................................................................................................. ............A.......N..................-.-......-..I 1.:...................'.............-.................................I...................................................U Pa GenerAflanTIR .. . pe ..... ........ .. . ... ............................ 11 1.... I............... ..... ................................ ............ ..... . ...... ..........I........... ...............I..........................................*.......,.....*.... .*......I.......*.-....*.. .:....:.. .:.....:..,..........I.................. I-LU 12: requires Inconsistent. Planning Director to analysis of traffic make environmental determination. impacts and a Eliminates all public comment period. program for (§2.6) implementation of mitigation measures for adaptive re-use of existing structures. LU 7.13: allows for EIR notes these polices but provides Inconsistent. Only allows the continued no environmental analysis about the existing stores to stay so long operation of non- implementation or effects of not as they meet all Specific Plan conforming uses. implementing them (p.5.1.17). Guidelines (§4.1.3, § 3.5.4Q. LU 10.1: provide for Inconsistent. Prohibits many the continuation of existing uses. (Exhibit 13A) existing retail and commercial uses. I-LU 13: requires Inconsistent. Review taken Design Review Board away from DRB and provides to review projects that the Planning Director shall subject to approve or deny the project. discretionary Moreover, only applicant can approval. 4 appeal. Eliminates all public hearing processes. (§2.3) LA:LCC\O=R\100\70176279.2 -4- ................ .... ...... .............. .. ...... ....... ....... ...... ........ .................-........ ... ..................................................................................-... . ....................................................................... . .............................................................................. .......................... ........ ............I..................­...,,.,.,.­,.,...,­....................... .........- ............................................................................... ....................... ............... .......... ....................................... .............--.1. T.. ssup ...........................................................*............. .j..11.....j.......n.......*..­.........................................................................................................................*. G.....t.....h.....e"...'.M.........................i.....-.P........I..............E.....I.............. .............................. ­S:pe0if c....P1a..n....N: o**43 .... . ......... .. ....... Air Quality I-A 1: refers to Table AQ-5: lists total CO Inconsistent. The only formal development review emissions at 151,775 environmental review is done by process as the means (SCAQMD Threshold - 550) Planning Director (§2.6). to implement all air CO concentrations would quality policies. exceed both the one-hour and eight-hour state standards anticipated that the policies would be implemented through the development review process, on-site inspection processes, fee collections and incentive programs presence of CO hotspots never fully mitigated and require Stmt. of Overriding Consideration (p.5.4-17). Lk-LCOOTHEM100\70176279.2 -7- ....... ..................... ..... ......................................................................................................... . .. ......................................................................................... .. ............................................ .. ..... ................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................ . .. ..... ............... . ....... ......................................................... ............................... ............................ .......................... PI —11 su < :: �..e.a. Pa,................. ........Ge....e... ....:..a.....:.......:..........:........................:........:.........: .. ...c.... ...... ..: .:. ,.......::...........:......... ..... ...... .. ............... ...................................................................................... .................................................................................................................P...... .......................... ................................................ .. Noise N 1.2.3: requires Exterior Noise standard: No noise analysis has been development in all 6OdB(A) anytime for done in connection with the areas where the commercial (p.5.5-4) Specific Plan or the project ambient noise level Interior Noise Standard: contemplated therein. exceeds an Ldn of 60 55dB(A) anytime for Improper to do at a later date dB(A), to conduct an commercial (p.5.5-6) with other environmental acoustical analysis The noise predictions in EIR review. Again, only Planning and incorporate are based on ADTV on Director has approval rights. special design primary roadways in the City. (§2.6) standards; I-N 4: Did not have date for assumes proposed secondary streets or local project developed to streets (p.5.5-13) go through site plan Implementation of the General review and Plan would increase ambient environmental review noise levels throughout the process to do noise City. (p.5.5-14) "What evaluation. remains unknown is the effectiveness of the policies that call for retrofitting existing uses (p.5.5-16). LA:LCC\O'I HER\100\70176279.2 -$- ............ .... ......--.1........................ . . ....... ......... .......... ............................. . .................. ........ .... ................................................................:: —. .............................. ......... ............................ ...... ...... ..................... ............ ........ .... ................ ............o................. .................................. ...............—...... .... ............................. ... Cf�.—*** .............. ...................... .............. ::::*........ ..................... ssue:... . . .............. n 4T JR . ............................... J' ....... n'i&4l:-Pl'a'...if............... G e 6 e 1; 1 4if ZpeC**'i&*:P1an No .............. ..... . ...... .......................... .............. . . ........................................................ ............................................I... ...... ................................................. ..... Geology and EH 1.1.4; EH 1.2.1, Land use policies of GP link growth No assessment as to the Soils (site 1.2.2; 1.3.4; 1.1.3 to the ability to provide adequate impacts on geologic and not on fault (requires infrastructure and public services. It seismic hazards has been line) seismic/geologic is necessary to assess the importance undertaken in connection with assessment prior to of geologic and seismic hazards on the Specific Plan or the project construction in an the provision of these services. contemplated therein. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Aesthetics I-UD 6: Requires Inconsistent. Only requires Design Review Board review by the Planning to review all projects Director - no design review in Redevelopment board process (§2.3). Project Areas. Water LU 2.1.1 (see above) Projected 1,110,944 gallons of Improperly delays review U 1.1.1 projected water demand (p.5.12.1-6) (§3.4.1). U1.3.1, 1.3.2; 1.4.1 future water demand exacerbated and could not be accommodated w/o construction of additional facilities (p.5.12.1-7). LAICOOTHERU00\70176279.2 -9- ^ ° Sewage U2.1.6: requires Projected 947,500 gallons of sewage Inconsistent. Final review for sewage capacity be generation (p.5.12.2-8). later time (§3.4.2). available before building permits are issued through development or design review that sufficient capability Storm U 3.1.5; U3.2.1 Same as water and sewer. Economic ED 2.4.1: encourage Inconsistent. Conceptual Plans Development and assist existing fail to include Montgomery commercial owners to Ward, an anchor tenant for modernize and over 30 years on site. (Exhibits expand their 3A and 313) commercial property. -T0- | ........... ... ......... ....... ..........::.:::........**........**... ................................... - . . .... .:... ................................... ..... ............... *­-...-*....:.:, ....................................... .............................................................................................................................................................. ....................... J-1.........................................:.. ..... ........... ­............ ......................— .......................... . ...... .......... ........................ P thera an ...................... ..........................................................- a : ....... ssue:­­ .......... ........ GOn. 'r-AF I....fi:E1R . . ": ii8b­e­ ific'PlAhAd............................................ .................................................................. ....­..........-............- . .... C ............................ .......................................... ........................................ ........................ ......................... ....................... ........I........ ............................. ...................................... ...... ..... ........ Cumulative Section 4.0 - Makes generalizations No assessment of the cumulative Impacts regarding approximate gross square impacts of the Specific Plan or the footage of commercial but does not project contemplated therein has been include a discussion of the cumulative done. Improper and inconsistent impacts of the proposed Specific Plan environmental analysis for approval project. only by the Planning Director. (§2.6) possible delayed attainment of State and Federal ambient air quality standards. (p.5.4-16) Would be an inevitable increase in ambient noise as a result of GP. (p.5.5-17) 1. The City's accepted LOS for arterial links is LOS C. Thus, a significant adverse traffic impact would result if implementation of the Draft General Plan would result in LOS D or worse. For traffic signal-controlled intersections - LOS D. Thus, a significant adverse traffic impact would occur if implementation would result in LOS E. (5.3.2 of EIR) LA:LCC\O=R\100\70176279.2 ` SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW FORTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90071-1448 WRITER'S DIRECT LINE TELEPHONE(213) 620-1780 OUR FILE NUMBER .(213)620-1780 FACSIMILE (213) 620-1398 100-92503 [WARDS] jcurtis@smrh.com June 28, 2000 HAND DELIVERED o =' '7, City Council ^� CD City of Huntington Beach �, ;_ 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 p > Re: City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Hearing on Wednesday, July 5, 2000/Zoning MaR Amendment No. 00-01/Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 (The Crossings Specific Plan) Dear Mayor Garofalo and City Council Members: On behalf of Montgomery Ward, LLC ("Montgomery Ward"), enclosed please find selected pages from the current draft of Specific Plan No. 13, identified as "The Crossings at Huntington Beach," ("Specific Plan") with comments and suggested changes noted directly thereon (see comments and changes that are typed or "blocked" because the underlining of other words and sections were changes proposed by City Staff). Many of the comments and changes noted by Montgomery Ward were considered by the Planning Commission,and the Planning Commission has recommended that they be incorporated into the Specific Plan. As previously communicated to the City Council,Montgomery Ward certainly has the experience and expertise with respect to the planning and redevelopment of major retail centers, given that it has over 250 stores in locations across the country,so Montgomery Ward would be pleased to`discuss at the City Council hearing the reason and necessity for these changes: Montgomery Ward continues to have serious concerns and objections as to the impact and the legality of certain other provisions of the Specific Plan, proposed implementing procedures and related actions of the Redevelopment Agency of the City- of Huntington Beach. Under separate cover, these concerns and objections will be set forth in detail. It is believed,however,that if the requested changes are made, comments LOS ANGELES 0 .ORANGE COUNTY ■ S A N DI EGO 0 S A N FRA'NCISCO SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach June 28, 2000 Page 2 addressed and an appropriate owner participation agreement is entered into with Montgomery Ward which commits Montgomery Ward to redevelopment, that each of these concerns and objections can be appropriately addressed so that the redevelopment of Huntington Center can proceed forward without delay. Montgomery Ward will be present at the City Council hearing to answer any questions that you may have. J, L1YNCR.ICHTER bmitted, C. urtis for SHEP & HAMPTON LLP LA:LCR%E'A100\70178234.1 Enclose cc: Mr. Ray Silver Mr. Howard Zelefsky Mr. David C. Biggs Mr. Gus Duran Ms. Jane James Gail C. Hutton, Esquire Mr. Douglas Gray James C. Hughes, Esquire Mr. Spencer H. Heine Mr. Loren H. Hohman Corey E. Light, Esquire *Montgomery Ward believes it is not realistic for the City to anticipate a one phase project. Montgomery Ward is concerned about the administration of this Plan as to how it would affect the remodeling of the Montgomery Ward store. IM YI EM ENr1'A'I'I ON 2.0 ADMINISTRATION The City's Planning Director shall administer the 'Text Amendment and action by the Planning provisions of the Cronin,;s at I lwltinglon Beach Conunission and City Council. Specific Plan in accordance with the Stale of California Government Code, Subdivision Map Act, the 2.1 DEVELOPMENT CONS"IRUCTION PHASING Iluntin-;ton Beach Municipal Code, and the City's PLAN General Plan. *The proposed Specific Plan project is anticipated to The Specific Plan development procedures, occur in one (I) phase. The existing Village Retail red;ulalions, standards and specifications ,shall (Barnes & Noble Staples, and Circuit City) and an supersede the relevant provisions of the City's Zoning ) 1 , ' Y Y renrainin is Department Stores (such as, Burlington Code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Coat factory, Montgomery Wards, or�Mervyns) will Ordinance) is They currently exist or may be amended receive major exterior renovation, new enhanced in the future. Any development regulation and paving, and landscaping. The denwlifion, building reyuil•ement non addressed in the Specific infrastructure and utility work of the new Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations construction, will be scheduled and built such That the in place at the time of an individual request: remaining center remains in operation with nlininitum The Specific Plan may be amended. The Planning inconvenience to the remaining tenants. Construction tici Director shall have the discretion to. determineis anticipated to takeL4-36 months from start of if is n a requests for modification to the Specific Flan are n. nri►ror•or major'' 2.2 METHODS AND PROCEDURES Minor modification is it simple amendment to the The methods and procedures for implementation of exi►ibils and /or text which does not change the . the Specific Flan shall be on a project by project basis. meaning or intent of the Specific Plan. Minor The adoption of the Specific Plan alone will not modifications may be accomplished administratively require infrastructure improvements to the project by the Director with a report to the Planning area. Physical improvements will only coincide with Commission. Major modifications are amendments to lice commencement of the first project and approval of the exhibits and/or text which are intended to change a Site Plan Review. The Specific Plan is a regulatory the meaning or intent of the Development Concept, document and is not intended to be a Development Desi�;n Guidelines,or Development Regulations. Major Agreement. modifications require a Zoning The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 15 June 7, 2000 A Site Plan Review approval shall be valid for a period SMcific Plan, and all other applicable of years.-Additional one year extensions may be provisions of the City's adopted codes three''--requested for a maximum of r&wo-years. Such an and regulations;and extension request mu made in writing by the original applicant, property owners, and/or • The site is physically suitable for the authorized designee,it minimum of thirty days prior to type and density of development the expiration of the current approval. If construction proposed;and activity does not commence within the approval or extension period, the entitlement shall be terminated. • The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause All final decisions on site plan review proposals shall serious health problems or substantial Ixv the responsibility of the Planning Director• environmental damage or substantially L.4 PARCEL MAPS their avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;and The project area may be subdivided through a Parcel • The design of the subdivision or the Map process. Parcel Maps shall ve prepared type of improvement will not conflict consistent with the Maier Plan Concept to facilitate with easements acquired b the lie public development. - 'These maps shall identify the at large, for access through or use of, infrastructure and improvements necessary to property within the proposed support the anticipated projects,subject to review by subdivision unless alternative the City's Public Works and Fire Departments. easements, for access or for use, will be Upon recordation, Parcel Maps may be further provided. divided and/or adjusted by filing a subsequent L.5 REUSF,/CHANGE, OF USE REVIEW Parcel Map or a Lot line Adjustment, pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. A Any proposal to reuse and/or change the use of a Tentative and Parcel Map may be approved, or previously approved and constructed development, conditionally approved by the Planning Director and within the project area, will be subject to additional the City Engineer providing the proposal is found to review by the Planning Department. The additional be in compliance with the Specific Plan review will follow the same procedures outlined in the In order to al prove the 'Tentative Map the Planning Site Plan Review process. A "like for like" change of Director shall make the following findings: use shall only be subject to the requirements for a new certificate of occupancy; however any new construction beyond that shall require a new Site Flan • The proposed 'Tentative Map is Review. In addition any proposed physical consistent with the General Flan, modifications to the existing structure and/or site The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 17 June 7, 2000 , FT . y 5 .I..I 1 m�.7's' ``� �Ss• ? ", ' \'•� ��•.: O�FC In ryiry' ■lyya�� %! 7 r 7'7 l)4,11 w/Ir ly r Zf r9 .tl t1'y 1 -/ \`,``V�{IrtM ,..,..,.1 ��f4 r ,.'/ 7: �. 11\��l.' I,t+.�{'{I'�rM.'i1(�1{j, ':�%y�, �•, � , 232 I 'c�' �� 41• ..,.. 'SIII'T•1 � _ •i�. , �� - ii' 1 11 102 11 eJ f` t �fy iv s s w K r S� Ail, '- ;� `, W A. V. �J/ Li' •... _ _ _ FJ .�.- _ _ may a- �'�, _ !•'� /J��i/y�II� ]u It ') y �]- - yl Ste• ... -{� .� - - .'• 1� � .�u •,' V � .,t1'_ � OY 1.I I�1 _ '� ! � ^ -�♦-- r � � _ Yyh1!��� � _ 1 '��!%/i '11 - -� � V �. � f�.' .1�. � � - { 1 �. � __ �' =L= .�,5 � 11 1 9 I• J1'Y � �•, 1� �h• � I •�':�� �� 1!1j- i IPI 11 :Llu •11 `I I 1", I'_'d l = i I� lul 11•full yl I�.�rlr '.�ry�ll•�� •'• L9 111.,.n,1 I Ln-1 1, I lu: 1 j_"_•w' ` .a I�: lla—....x.,s._er..__-�I ._�i-rL—==_at:--- _.�_-_..,__....-...��4..�•,I� 4. L-eV`EI� __-. _ ___•.` f7 i'— �.. .__. ._._— -.— :=_-C 'r—•i'•. The Plan should include the existing Montgomery Ward buildings(see attached Plan). Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan The Parking Garage is on Montgomery Ward's Property and a statement should be made in this Specific Plan that the construction of the Parking Garage is subject to an agreement being entered into with Montgomery Ward. Exhibit 3A No/e. 7711,s illusli:Nir4 shollw rr hylkOelic al Jc•!c•filllment sc•rn:uicl on Ihrllwjc•c•I silt•. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 21 June 7. 2000 PLAN ATTACHED BY NIONTGONIERY YARD - — " - -—=� 111 I 11 Il.11..0 1 utll H.T.III-M.- ..IJI..I - 72 IS) ;;b,l e�W k„jlnil—T if�ll �: �Pb t& 4 1` i 23 € 35F - _ 319-told Ind c 1 1 III .11 .1.11•I:11 11 III ' .. „ It; ! � _ �{t�fllll�iuul ae��ll��lwl� •�:; rrv. - � � � � � � - � � - _� '�-� 1=�_ j�It�alNll�ll{Ip �' - " I '�i14Y11tfl�IIIIIR feel Lion* o.� 23i I ' millYNtII� -, LJ _ Q O = t� = rop f3 m dMC3=X jib ag ng Zw I ii)• 14 •('11 11••I Ills 't•1 1 R!:7'ql ..,q N 1 11•ill• IIMnl4 In•1••W II• all Ilq•1 lIICII 1 1 I•I 1 IPI 11' 11 NUNN1ImlllI pm 0 I NGE VEN —• I� , EZRALOW RETAIL MASTER SITE PLAN MASTER SITE PLAN The Crossings 1t Huntington PROPERTIES ® , , , , _ WARDS SHOWN IN DEVELOPMENT I ' j - — crwfli AVr Nur J j r,�.�..,.jl••ir;.'li'I�ylu�`,�:�I'�{IIIJII":i'f 11`�';':�II'i✓+:;.i• .�.. ..__..- .- - � �-��..,, • r� :.•' .'4'Z�iI:+�IT! !<!I';''ft;+f''I�•li�11':llfli'�� .. -:'�J`=��� ' �� ;�rn�nrin�r�rl-[rr>r[rrnm�i•,rr" �i'I��''i'`.i�!fi •ir• •>!s' �iir" •+M• •.� I �-'••<<;� _'�: ; ��s r!il;l'I llillh lil •111111111i11�41anl.i i► :±F -- +� y j 1�ii ! -" •'' S�,I, ! 1•.9 Ir. �•< �I'Irl:*+will r . _ �1., '., '. II :I: _! ,:1 'r �I°I:III:I� ry, , �•+ �. - - '�=� 'ra = �•� �' U�F� °4 CENi[NAvfNkJ[ -'I- I _I:: `j- .I Ill I�', l'�' 1�: .�: �. .``: '.,•, 1 /<' . •I t ill 5t.�•.J I':rl - _ -- .T •:,� \ - / t. I V I I'11 1 1 I!+ IiIIII i _ ••� k •� ` Ili*11iT lilTl ! �; `� . 41 .� •»: L�;:,;. O r ,�; .���Is�lili�W!l il+Flw :� /' �� � . i I 1 _(, - :?./� ,. ,r {M��f' N�IK. `•. 'C,t!)i " (n� I I " _ InaA'' I iao�i•'7;' {. 07 7i�9i .S�`.. <C II 1 I T� _ _. ..r. -- -.r_ - _ -- - � �e� =1- = _- -_ •T -t: r- ;,� �•• j�K 1' '�•7,?•� I �� r, A — _ _ a •il !1 = -.,i: '1♦ 1v :: 1. ; • .1 t ! '.71•::li Llll:•' J �'Ili''''I!'"UI I .:UIIIL:IUL!l! •I + �„ + • I,nn nl I '+ 1 I : ,.,_ 1.: : 1 I 1"' • 11 r,, In:I I lullw:{�I I•'I 1 I •, I I+� �;'U: J'11 t' .II• i� J. ( e I: u .� .!�J �r—.f.— ....lJ• _ .. lei. jl1l�1:.. =C+ 111.. 1:_ :•� .tNl ..J .Ill .�. I ylµUi, L:R AVENUE The Plan should include the existing Montgomery Ward buildings. See Exhibit 3A regarding the Parking Garage and it should be noted that prior to construction of Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan the Parking Garage the ingress and egress to this end of the shopping center for Y customers needs to be addressed in a manner acceptable to Montgomery Ward. Exhibit 3B Note: 711is ilhish:llive shows a hypothetical al cl'c'vchy n ent scenario on the pnt ja-I silt•. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 22 June 7, 2000 D EV EL 0 1 W ENrl' CONCEFF .�.1� GENERAL I)I;VI:I,OI'MENT 1'I,AN The Crossill;{s al Ilunlin;{Ion Leach Specific Plan The Crossings at Huntington Beach provides fur a devclopmcnl concept provides for it planned retail, ranee of employment opportunities in professional,.. dinin;ti, and entertainment conll-flex in the northern retail, service, food service, and entertainment; and portion of the City of Iluntinglon Leach. The Specific will broaden the employment base of the conlmlmily. 11.111 csl.lhlishes the general type, location, The Specific flan establishes a clear development archilecitiral style and characler of all development concept to assure the facilitation of a cohesive regional within file site's boundaries, while allowing fir shopping center. Design measures encompassing site ci-calive design ideas on individual projecis consislenl planning, area landscaping, building architecture, with an overall conccpl. streetscapes, pedestrian linkages, setbacks and signage have beetileskiblished. Adherence to Ihese details and The: C;rossin,-o at Huntington l;each will be tl 63 acre to the established Design Guidelines will create a ►vaster planned regional commercial retail, dining;, unique and integrated development. j and entertainment facility wil{1 supporting services. The Specific flan is designed to allow for development The illustrative conceptual master plans (Ul ibil 3A k in a manner Ihal is compatible with the Surrounding 311) depict scenarios.tttilizing the various guidelines coll11nt1nily and City of Iltullinglotl Beach. The described in pile Specific .Plan. The pitons provide C'rossin,'4s ill 11111111I1g1011 Beach Specific Plan provides potential layouts identifying building orientation and :111 opporlunily for tl variety of qutllity regional serving placement, parking design and access, roadway commercial uses, consistent will► the City's General configuralion, entryways and landscaping. The plans t'lan• are not intended to reflect tut ultimate design situation because a large variety of other development patterns The Crossill�s al Iuntington Beach Specific flan and activities play evolve which are also consistent provides the framework and guidelines necessary to with the Specific flan policies, guideli►1es Sold create a unique, higli duality, visitor serving, red{tilations. The project statistical stunnla►y is shown retail/dining/cnlertai►unenl complex. The site's on Exi ibit 4A and 4I3 and hypothetical conceptual proximity to regional transportation systems make the floor plans are shown in Exhibits 5A and 5B. area ideal for a variety of compatible uses and aclivities. The development concept is designed in concert with the area's history of c:onin ercial activities Montgomery Ward proposes an alternative conceptual Master Plan which and the community's need for a strong self-sufficient recognizes the potential for concurrent individual development by the ecollo►11y developer and Montgomery Ward. i The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 23 June 7, 2000 The Specific Hall rear{ni'r-es that allhough the main C0IISI1'11L'Ii0II Of the JWLL iecl will ol:cm, it one lime, [lie ullillmic huildoul of the properly nury not occur inur►cdialrly. In fact, huildin;� lruls may be established withoulassociated huilding conslruclion bul shall be I_i►uls pctl in .I park-like selling until such lime as develol)lr►cnl is pro nosed. Therefo►-c, Il►is ronin2 (loclin►el►I anticipates flllure expansions of the development silo. In order to address this concern, flexibility has been incorpoi-Aed into file Specific Plan I)eveloplmenl Key{Nations (Section I'OUO. This flcxibilily in development "4110clincs is intended to accommodate fulurc m,u'kel (rends and tenant needs, wilholll saeril'icin('; the inICIlded lily ch.u'acle►•01'the project At what point will a final Master Plan be prepared and will there only be a Site Plan Review for such Master Plan? The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 24 June 7, 2000 TI- ERI-ER JANCHORS RETAIL RESTAURANTS TOTAL I.�1;i1�i01,177c.?N %i�hc'cicvrrc�lL�•lrc'�l h/h;%/�) NEW C'0JV S7RIJC:'770N 77walcv• 100,000 .I rrc'h�ua 175,000 Relai/ 470,187 /��'.+l;rurrurlti 77,246) :Icicljljc>/r lc�,tilr'j/�C'cvrlC!' 71,800 8947233 S U 13'1'CT1'A 1, EXISTING: 70 REMAIN rrc'lrc v:,; 82,000 Sll,ip Cwrlc'r' I06,000 Keslaw,,wrls 7,300 /:•rrr,(a 18,240 -203,540 SU11TT1'AI, T O T A 1, 1001000 2572000 656,227 84,546 17097,773 A4 oh•: :t ic:r c Ash-it nNions:civ:cpp- xini:Nc:r»cl nary c•haltye"rs Ntc/ is do vcicyvc1. Project Description (statistical summary) Exhibit 4A The square footage under"Existing to Remain"does not include the Montgomery Ward buildings. Please add 181,110 square feet for the retail store and 27,000 square feet for the automotive center. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 25 June 7, 2000 THEATER ANCHORS RETAIL RESTAURANTS TOTAL DEMOLI77ON - -..._...........--- - .......-...-......... - 7i)hc'tle-w7oishotl /7,23/ NEW CONS7RUCHON 771rahv• 100,000 it uc•lhorw 175,000 Kelm/ 343,556 R slaunwits 771246 dililioll to.vl i/)C 011/0r 71,800 767,612 SLJBTOTA1, EXV TING TO REMAIN Anc•hols 211.488 Sl il)Ci.'ttle]. 106,000 Reslaturtttls 7,300 Ranks 82240 - 333,028 SUBTOTAL TOTAL 1 1 M000 386488 656,227 ' 841546 1,100,640 N��Ie~ Arc:•r�li.+lrihrrlien.+:rrc•:q�/�i��.�•inrrrlc rurrl nr:q�r/r:rr���e rrs llrc ln��jrcY isrlrveln/kcl Project Description (statistical summary) [See comments on Exhibit 4A regarding the 1:X�11b11 4)3 quare footage of the Montgomery Ward buildings. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 26 June 7, 2000 } FkN HR AVENUV-41T. • r Y } 1, .� 170 I, /, N I t ' _ _. t� t - •I -_ -,- - CENTER AVENUE Go , t t + , .. r { y� iF I _a t : - .1 -:........_....., .. ... r/RlroifR'. " •�1(/�•V 't!i�l:ii"I::�.i �' i i ::.' ll I..rCF-.._•:5. w� or3i'Ti R_1 �!� 1•I ';t '' I i`I ! }, ;ncs•d. ,; ._..�''� LI K FV r (�,! 'i.}��Ll.i.}...;I, . ';�` I li __ ,T il_.�� �:.� r• f :4 �/•• ,.il:i 1 i�:.:.,1 t �,�r ���'' , I • 'i! b 'tT rC' C 9' 4 �1.�.�' \�I' :�. � 1.. ': ••t�..�.wu. hilij : , ,_. Z t!...! .Is.. ti �wii tvl Yi' ( wN. •Ili•'I'ii +�I. r. •. Q , -- I .I 7L•w 7r J O I w=, N+J{'C%,nh+U " .,as 7� ,i wr•P7. /r� `•„ '• } 9��8G {'I '",iN.r tll A7.4Nr of ur,v.•a' �� �yr' 'a, .�,'•'(,i t It ,,,,;,;; lip, U)� ; r 7• ••.'� r• r°�'•,�„�tt.{` •'1..•• }I,I t .i �.J.. I tf j Y ��i: �1: .i• } `I, ! t °`�.' •vrriv�:.• r�} ,t 0 .� f,' ! } t _ _ IN.1111oll- }� .`• 7.r }.il... :.i.aU. 1 ',I� ... . :.... : '1 I�' I I ; IIMO '�.• .. fCf ,,.I,,: I'.I' �• 1f11'f _J Il .., L.,l,..11l::l.l..:.:. ( ,tffi.61.. 't..':I1:9!I;:L! ,Lr L:IIC!II.:,IL. lI:.I_;Ir•__-- 111 i � : •� � �. .,nll:alll_{,�.L;IGid'.iIIIEIIII 91111:!li;(�;I lii.:!I:DI,III!'lif EdINGER AVENUE t Conceptual Floor Plan ' See comments on Exhibit 3A and 3B. Exhibit 5A Level 1 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 27 June 7, 2000 ' I -au'nunhrr�!unuurrrnnnlulrtr•nnrr- •1 , •••III r;. ,;; -� ,;�. >� -. -. yI IHlilllllil'4.4 HII ni.IliHlllll ,IHII III'!. ,� A .: .I `CJNTEN.IVFNUE ��iO .r..w II i L•I,ttllllll!IILIIIIHIIIIII:.11llllgllll.11llii { ::j.. I• t •/a+//J!1!a VFW J � '.:!! :!{III'',!I ! I \ �•.."yam° p:il uw , �.� I..•. t•Ullr Nl +. � '' O a � - .' ' I� I ,. I •I�.I%"t�}•1µ_.e',' L _ .'•:��• _..31-.:llli.:_.:1.::.., 1!e{,�! •.\. tt�:'�• :' - r-.-+-^"..`^'".'_^'L E-W l .M Ir �y�' i p,xl t. ia, ill!, iil ,i /a3."u. \�` •,II}. .� Q {I i •� •t I •I � ------._._.__ I - '`i __.... ..,�... ., I � '•--1 yI.MI,yA.r f�" , I I I+ ' , r'.1 — J•i �- I "�...I 1! mot• _...I 1`G�, ,. 1'!it •. .'� ` t' I ! I •1 t ! ..... I ' I •I ' .rr i t ! ' •I 6' i I � I •: !!:'ll!I1ttH l 'ik: , ,i .(,-11' �;- � .-1_ �.^!-f� �'x'� .'1 I=•.p ,• 11 A 111 ;I •.S Hill 11111• III=Ill !!I !!: III. Illf - ::::ur t':!Ili,a:� I .... ......_ • ...IIC.II!...i ....•�! Ill:li.l..!'r -- a, • , i {1EDINGER AVFNUE Conceptual Floor Plan See comments on Exhibit 3A and 3B, Exhibit 5A Level 2 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 28 June 7, 2000 •: � �-'i III ':'1'! i i ,�':' I I'I:.•.:. _ _ .�.�� �• •FIIII lllllrl'1(IIr I'!1!IIII Ir1 f11101!'I ;:;1° •I � ;:.. it 1 - tllfi j'llllllli I filli l.11ll;llll' . ..s.• =d ' 14111111� 'III" I ! . - l J ! ' "•� ifllllllf :I.1 .I_ _ _ _ ;il =_ _- �� - _�-• • �--: : , _ � .� _ � _�; ��� �, . :�. •' ' moo, �'_ f __ -: 1 — .I : I^ ± •�- ) �: •.\'stjlVTfN AVfNIff. ♦ �Co _{(S 1 i .._: - )411 r:0y I.,r;l i %_, i.{� — I- y_ ; .. t t: l.• \ `�t/ ill r unln,a.uu uuuw:l.nuu!!t=.luw r r J 1 , ?j. ...- � ..-.. '' /� !• -ram, ': . .r'--�,;.i :r I .•. �� ' �; . 1 r 1 ws�/, I i /J', ti.�(Q�; Ali!'. 'lln. I I. ,•.:,\ • I ' ..ws ar f � Af .��! i i � / <��. ,�,f ills'�l;l:ll"I•!•.� 1 �!/// ,y:• i ! } •' i 11 I ,1C111:.- 'IlIL:L, •r.► "TIT ml_; i� , ....-.... /f�///j/�,, �%7��._..I.�L� , -'..i ,��! �/ �t J'.��:i1 .�� 'IRII'!I"'i�. �1,t•• QJ., i � l I� � 'I •1 I � [%�'�/ t(/"' �R!t � 1 11�1! r,u' ttl'ay� 1 t I �..n.-M-011 f ••,•Y I j • i i '! I I�:`�wi.) �' J s I J T.: ��: •, :1. s;, i r•. l /,/!I .r �i;�ii,.J+, fI i- I) ,a• ' 1: l �l. q^ '.r, •: 1 •; I i •_ !•Ilth t.,ril„' it t"':1.1: ':�':.., :1.. ,•�il, . All t.' 1` _ I:.. J •i� I= '�•'- - -t- ll. , . . 5' t I — .. ;l-t y •..., �Y— -t._ .1_ _ _ tl•I 1, ' _::!Fi "1.....:.I:.111,::I.. 1• I'll..' .I I..t•'.�I.::li:..l 111�':.�.If .._..... (;,;'1 .i� ! I ry,. I�1 s s •', �1 i EDIryGER AVENUE ,. t See comments on Exhibit 3A and 3B. Conceptual Floor Plan Exhibit B Level ' The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 29 June 7, 2000 11.i,. . •!1�:11!:II'.. '!I..I!.,!Et.11l!'I:':'i:;II:IIIIi• -._-1'_� '. Flr!!Itll'IIIfi444 T.04Ik11�1"III"11111'RJII"I (l'1•�1 !,�' I : t x t ;; ~�' ��. d1111c11111141111 INH111hIINO/Itri , �; `'•�FIJT[N nV[NUE' �iO _�(5 .. I -h Illltllll1111111111.Itllllllllllllllllllllll I, _.. _j`, rt../,: �:' - __^ :_: 't= i , ,.• ��'• :\: 9�- ' It ' '� �.'•n ('lailii'li'_•ur�;•. •t....� ,( ;I 4" � t r.. . 1''• I, !' :, :'ijt.. ' I Q 1 it I �i I �}i �.F ii, t'�;.._.:I .r. .:r !. ` ..t_ I' `I_jNi�s -- -- z- • {IJL.IILu i F' '� - - n: ..77 n l � ,�....� IL.! � .II.II i "U_. .. .�,� ...F..ai:::e:!J :IL!!_ f:J,!JjG.!J..d!.iL:a!104UU1111Ut!IL_'!L!IIlltUi . •!I:'..I:.IL'iUli'I_;.a.IL'll..!,t!:I!.:'L. I _ 11 EDINGER AV NI)l: f" Conceptual Floor Plan See comments on Exhibit 3A and 3B. Exhibit 5B Level 2 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 30 June 7, 2000 The obieclive of the Specific Plan is to implement the goals and policies of the Iuntington Beach General 3.1 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USES Plan by defining the physical development of the Crossings at Huntington Beach site. Included in this The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan approach are the establishment of land use, recognizes unique development opportunities within circulation, infrastructure, landscape and the project area. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to architectural design characteristics for the project create a distinct cluster of activities and allow for area. The Specific Elan consists of a number of major individual project development and tenant occupancy components which will guide the development process to occur in a timely manner, within an overall Master including the Circulation Plan, Public Facilities Plans, Plan Concept. This approach recognizes development Landscape Concept, Design Guidelines, and patterns, market conditions and establishes sufficient Development Regulations. flexibility to provide for the opportunity of a variety of activities within the Specific Plan area. Any reuse, subdivision, or new development shall be subject to [lie provisions of the Specific Plan. Refer to The City of Huntington Beach General Plan identifies Section 2.3 Site Plan Review. typical permitted uses under the Commercial Regional land use category. 'These uses include, but are not The Specific Plan identifies and requires sufficient limited to, anchor department stores,, outlet stores, infrastructure and public facilities to adequately and promotional ("big box") retail, retail commercial, efficiently support any and all anticipated uses and restaurants, entertainment, professional offices, activities. 'These improvements will coincide with any financial institutions, and similar regional-serving upcoming development project. This upfront effort uses. will allow for buildout of the Specific Plan in an include some commercial bus' i as auto expedited manner, subject to compliance with the repair, which ' a oval serv'ng commercial Specific Plan and the Environmental Analysis. ure activities for the area will depend on market conditions and may include a variety of The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan activities consistent with the City's General Plan. 'These identifies effective land planning and design development activities may be either an expansion of regulations techniques in a flexible formal which can existing facilities and/or independent new projects. take advantage of ideas and opportunities presented by The project area can accommodate a total future tenants and users. development of 1,100,640 square feet of regional commercial uses. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 31 June 7, 2000 .l]� y ;1 + ease: y ! I• �.},. �I.. �� " �I i (�:AIFR AVFNIJE vY0j 1110 I � 1 E • I � 1 ( ►' �qFF ' : { : 1 1 �: t •••• �, Asa I I a�•.a sweat : I : _ _ aeN•ea . •e•NN• i�- IIM ___1 so I 'I ti rl ��... .1 .1 '.: tel: "'�i i m;! f' :;...I i ti �it . . , I. �i• Ilt ..�I — i .I' ,1 ! !.. i (_ :��.: i' �' _ :� � •'i- ;t 1,. W I : q'::.:II: ,; ' "!' .., ••N•N•e••• e••e•••ee. e•N••N••e..••••e••• I , I. .:� I'..Ilf:.l!:.:' e•`N•.bs� •ds�:li�t�l i•41•I►st►.a�i•e••• .. . •••es•.•••a��..��Nle ~'• '� .: ., ,-, '� Abe - - EDIN(-FR AVENUE / See comments on Exhibit 3A and B. 11 Pedestrian Plaza Walkways Plan Exhibit 6A The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 32 June 7, 2000 e I � I I I j a I •' .1 c 1;mlt AVENUE �00 :1...................:... QI- ± _ •••��:- y:�!-.III •��� ,. .... K is Y,• � .... ., 1' .:i� -_I:.,•...: ' .•i: .. .. ' � :. / .��f•� /M � ..., I•. �e"7n"';�', t .%'"yl: ''r% �! u p NN�•MtM• •••••• I• r//'�' l•. I ,f_•y..�/ :.1 <C\ hl'IIIII'II'''WAi:i ,1 1; -,a• ;�. 2{{ jj _ .,;_.,,;,�;,^'•'r ,E• ?!':;y:',?:•, N:�.; *I�Ilillll�lTll••II� j •' it I� ' •••••N••••N••••' !:. :1.L. IS!I'�I `�•- �� is// ✓ �—�S' '1 !t .i� /, ,.:.;.;,r.:..• .:t.. a,� _ � � .;, -�, Ill,::i�!II:III _ •tr• w�r r , 'I• •�. r Yr �� Mf J... / 1: ! e.n/;i51 .. � yr, _' ... I I! I j� � r�. 11. .r, I i2 ,.� �-�-i r.l.�� -i= -- - - _ v/r,.� :_�'r -_ Si: I:• :%:�.`` �i;:'.%!ice O•`� '• ` (�i•1 r -!i i j I IIII.A.;; _ _►_ - `,;:�.�4 E :I. 'I + .• . I I , ! f ! 1' IYI 1� .7 5{•m:f�; :.:': T :1:. •-_: 1 c�.. I. 1'.1•1: t �.1 7 I:tc I•�i m!II .•• 11 .: .c111i�i.•l lli�idiyLliililN��l i��i l �IHiii�".....__�.••• iAli4i:611164::iij �j•i•�i. `•`' IF 4 EPINGER AVENUE See comments on Exhibit 3A and 3B. Pedestrian Plaza / Walkways Plan Exhibit GB The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 33 June 7, 2000 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USE POLICIEs: Strada, the Plaza and the Colonnade. A pedestrian Any expansion beyond the initial site; plan walkway system is also used to connect the Crossings approval, shall he llu•ou,�h the site plan review process at llttnlin,;ton l;etu:h Willi I-Mblic transportation facilities-and suri-ounding nelwork of public streets (see Exhibit 6A and 610. 3.1.2 I:ctail, dining, enter(aulnicilt, and related uses PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AND WALKWAYS POLICIES: drawin,{ Il•oni a regional commercial/niarkel area shall he the prinuu•y intended activity within the pro,jccl area. 3.2.1 Individual developments and activity areas Within the specific plan area shall be linked through a PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AND WALKWAYS series of pedestrian walkways which culminate in in interconnected system of pedesh•ian plazas creating a f I . The Crossiiv s at I lunlinAlon Beach Master P vv'iely of��peti spaces. lan r identifies open space areas which can accommodate L.L A pedestrian walkway System Will link or q outdoor commercial activities, seasonal recreation and ` enleo,tinnicnt activities, and castial pedestrian connect all fulure developnienf pads to the central tneelin,� places. 'These pedestrian plazas become the portion of the Crossings al I luntinglon Beach. ccnlral focus of a number of conunei•cial nodes within llte project area. In addition to the major plaza areas, 3•L.3 All pedestrian walkways shall be designed ,uui (here are a number of entry nodes which serve as the landscaped consistent With the overall theme of the inlerfacin,{ links between the vehicular and the Crossings at Huntington Beach. pedestrian ,u'eas. 3.2.4 *Pedestrian walkways as shown on Exhibit GA and The clusterin,- of open space plazas are connected 613 shall be incorporated on the Landscape and tlu•ou,411 pedestrian walkways. 'These walkways also Technical Site flans and shall comply with American serve as a link between the variety of Village Disabilities Act requirements. The walkways shall conuncrcial facilities and the Entry Plaza, the Village include shade Trees, seating every 200 feet, decorative pavers,and (see cross section on page 41) "Montgomery Ward needs to have an opportunity to review the Landscape and Technical Site Plans. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 34 June 7, 2000 'I'.I'IIIGiIIt!i{I-• •,!•,l,!'l rl�X�il till ills:.; ^,�" _.. ... :•.rnmi!ili:r;•i•;r•:�r•i�ri �Milli I1111111PItIVIIIIIII ill,If1111111,11I1111 ,1 � Y 1 d F N _IIII+I�I..:I....I!.,.:I _ _Y _ _ _• _Y � 1 I I. "' _ !•. � , + ' j tllll(lillllllllll�lll lillllllllllll' u►W-ll!I,:r I i� I, I{ i y y ^� :IN i IYi Ii:t lerl � I,..:I!"I., .[ ci. - - I I I l i.• '+\ E -._�llllllllll� / f i I I - ° c n_ ❑ c= _ it ;']•. '�_ t '�I .�:(NI[R AYfNI/E. .r, l`` j I _ c _ , _ I 1 aw u. t �i. i :.i =.: _ I _;; _ .,' I. •,,1.1, 4, ,ii^!, ..�.. !1/fK W-0 IM S I 1 I _A. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ I_ ,. :y.I� /f• !¢; 1WtllAWlillLU WllJuuwlllllllll 1l ::.� ri:- 'I -_- :! j .. 'j. ..( 1.. .i.: '+�• .:Il�ei:., •,: ,� "rip ��w' , �•H.!r\I/ILM a(.• _ •�. J•il;l-Slllllf!:Ili�"II� I �I i r rwal t��•+1%1 .IIG �.'• q>r ly •-�.Y 7O >+, tl '�� , i•� '�li ! al.tir it ... .s.: _ YultM '1�`\\ • , WM•\I. N` :"-. .... ..,1�, \ I I � I � I. �' r:a..:l.uu►tsuu:�'_ f 11: i `•'�.•,� , I. �_ I <,;. �.• .• :;;:;:•, rttllnrrl t 11,.° - �'�' . i rf! • „wn � ,t .. ... ..............�,.........,.. - �'i- .•,Y.I,t •�V•. 7 t III' I ``'\ � � � 1.. •j;:Y,'r:,••"' ���r'. ''inUlllll!I'Ilhq �, �,r'1 w,r�a�, ,,.Ij ,, 4M'If ,rM'yX••' rZ,N,' AM•K 1 g .� .i .; .j ri '.j' rn w• ' � 1 .MwS!i, IFI'r 11 111111,111'I'rq M_ I i •1 1 '\ M. 1 1 • I I I I . ... ..... ..... . .. ............. _.._..-....... _...............-....... ........ !"".. 11 .. "• .:; } pp 3 ( I' •i iP;Pillllll i - `s` 1 d t•• I 1 I j � :. I i r uri4 _ �1•J J - -T- 1 rr - = •t�r'— ,i ' :•I - '.IId:I I11.111 L'11 t.::+:I!.:IL:C:LIdl.lil.ilaltlll4!711� ........... ....... .� tl&IJ:L:,,!Ifilll!!!Illllllllglllli_I l:l:,.:s,l,l .11ll:l:!Idill:il:;t:Ni!!I :1!11!I:11!lll llll:isi -I III t4� i ..- __ •ij �,1' .. ... •i :I `„` �� .[DINGER NUE..:....... ... .- -.-......_-.. .. •i'i: ,I " I 1 ' ' I See comments on Exhibit 3A and 313 and a Traffic Study • ""'' " M••• should be prepared for the development of a Circulation Plan. y ' Circulation Plan Proposed New Center Ave. Driveway Existing Off-Ramp Exhibit 7A The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 35 June 7, 2000 ERAVENUkl*�.! _ I � ;I^rlr'tr•.ra•Il;:.i..,.r 1:In•�u•,ni;:::r.! -'r!'�ij,�mnntrin?�,~.:: ..__ .- �avl\ ;.�:�!.�.=.��.` iitit r riina �rtrtmrtrtrmm�rnmrrnrm .!t ki le•A rtmrmrt ;IiQi;III II. a I1�I `G _;.i ;Y r _'i .i :Y ._••. I �.1 HHHHHIIINI 1H I+I I I�!II:,' II;:II, ,II;;l 1 ;( _ a , �59 Nlfl N.f —3a's �.t. .:.� _1{11= I - — f`'C \` •�•� _.�.. . .:.{... I .. a... Ciy '•ill::t:lle II!!' 1 •� �..j.:. .j� :l' I' ERAVE �� if � • • i ti•..........•_.�. . �, w`�'Iw•:� auliM i{ y 9 Q�O�tJ�A:Iilll!Ii11Y:ni11!!iitl- I(\. :4ir 11 I yye { (.R"' ..• tJ Xl� ._•7 i9��a•{�j111IIt1�If I°Iii�Ilii t ... _j\\ - . I I ! � ti F 1� ,,�,:1 � �•� .il` I � ,�.i! I Y�aS �'li •I I Y �la�r ` �-\ ��, ,, ,, • •,�� ,1. ;•M, !I'1'it !I I;Jilin;.. ?At\ ! • I tat \ : :,,it.. _. ; f,.r,.:,: _ . rl�.b.;�,.�:'R�;.,-. �,W.�,�111HIIIIfIiL•IItH?�� ;w _._.. • � 1 4n •Y �AA Ar ILM �il� r�l�� �t'r •x•, ,J77 7 � _ tYtM 11.IIliIHHt1 � "�+,i.;•.,�''• I�. .I _.�.: •�. ,I; ,._.. .t loop• I 'r'r•"'•`'1 '. I ':.. ;.. ,.... ._. ._�_ , �', ,' ........... ........................ .... �.-:.....:r.:..r.........,...r.........:,..::..........( ................ Illllr. •/; 'lira Cq•i..' '`�•,r r/ :.: .: .t I r ... ,: *:. . 1 �'" ��,_�.. ..4_` ._.�•..,T.. a J 9"-t i- �Ini: t: V. :'IF:: _ j';� •,.'•v t' - •Co.,••� u'r`�, �} , ? I Y IL{ 1+rk yrt, ... _ ! j• �- �Ntlll:!III — I - - -- - - - c_a :�•11':I�u- •c�` �f` � j�� •:rl;;,. < , ..j... ._.. .. .. ..... «•tx .s.. _...: ...«: ...._ «:.•« 1&0, NM t1'�.::.,,:• 1.iLlall�ltltlluljuqulllll�!Iq�.�l�l.li11 Nnilq!I:u.l,t.!.Illl.:d 4_tuulll,l,t.ulua_In1:1►u�gllilnituf 1 w _ jNG VEND RJ__A ...... .E E E See comments on Exhibit 3A and 3B and a • .,.............•.........,.... Traffic Study should be prepared for the development of a Circulation Plan. Circulation Plan L �.,,,. .._...... o 1....,.,. ...1,.."..,.... ,..,... • Proposed New Center Ave. Driveway Proposed Off-Ramp Exhibit 7A The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 36 June 7, 2000 ... _ _. _ _ ._..ti. �X�.. Ct.NtFN A\TNtIF : •' ••� � _ ' . I"IIIR : P. WII 11 ill ..i:ii T RfTi'1Elll171liTlTliTflRTf Ril I :,1 1':�.i•:1;,1l;;'' 1 46 d - n1uallillu�ui�a riI'�I°I�flli I� , �j'i; , � 'T' 1?9 rpl lead -` .i,, r• 7.- _( :;I,? ; ;\�.�i�,�,,�,\•�'�' \�'� SAN� .0 IEGU FREEWAY 405 1.is l ! I pNTR AVENUE `Ia 319 erord lee! t ! !:ji :-�. ,�•: ":,ti„ .>�.. '\ !.Ib l I -hi III ILI111tualliL till]L it,I1JllllllIIw!l \ T Iil: !f wt, • r.l v'( : !'[;I l':I.I1lj i li:i''�1 I nw•u' Y`� •. I ( r,� i:I i ! /i a5" f ! '�.t ;. 7 " �.i,,,M,na;,,� �t.rl •1'.liiliPl�ilil,�'1�- ( .J' �`• ' ' 'II � �d�::r:,.n1Y..t�.�r!.., J•Y..:hy.:• ��,� -I11IilI Illil!:�',;I •h u• 1� ".`'. ! I � x � •s sr t �!jlIfil!fllli. '� ?'�.j•. : ' ! 1. "j - �r..,ti ..e'� •-Ta ��. .IOIMrr.Y `�w:��•, _i 1R�+Cn,y. "'?/;:•..;'••. ` ., I 'I ! I j w.• n. 1 , �-I I ►Nr N,: 1 tit if Piz ' r i.. r 'i- rl i - ::.i'r !: �;�:' 7:1 i'�_ -; ',4" ::�': rr,.;. -�J'.v.Jfrri!•, II A ! ( , i'Ifl.11'R I' IJtl.11lli 'i. niH, ;;i' - (!C.. _.) _V �}'_ ...�.: ..,-.j I911M� - - - �Illlu 1 � Ian 1, { I �d II 1 "14:,;;11111........il.`IIIILlS.:..Il!tIIII1.Si.il;llllifi f,; s_.``i uI ! AMAM ,,, L.: `lj.�_ t• �. /, \bll:i,l'i!'I!9111111_;IElfi7JULii�Ii IU alJllllelS::L.IiI:JI!ILi� �4':,:111I1„ 1:'_.ift411i1111:1':.lili,_;lsl E..RINGER..A :AVENUE • 1 .......... : ,...... `;;;�" See comments on Exhibit 7A. i .:. ,.;:'.,.. . . o -`:�•::�;......1.....,... Circulation Plan o �,"." 4'• Existing Off-Ramp Exhibit 7B The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 37 June 7, 2000 . �.: . — ui:!.it•.s[In;;n!i i 1": .11 i i!.l = RI!bltllllt111tlltll=,IAI`1Ililtlllt I!!Itilt; �!.I: ,i, !I.1, ==• _ !i f3" �Y:'°, \ I - 11!'I'if'!IIIII Crl fill !l :.I ! I. Z... I �' SAN[)IE U 1•REEWAY-40S I' ji RE ME. q _ _{- -- _ _ _ _ _ _ +� I• .� {� I •i ,�•`C.kNURAVfN\ : _hIIWLLIU1I11111111.1_ll!LtUUlll • �, ,::.,. � -� t � �'�, .i'. ... .._, =:1 �,..��_ .•� Y - 7. I: � ! +<,4.1,. � �! / '`+ , _11 3 1 il!I:Illi:.•!:� I ( / /,, .•�•.n ���' ` 11 i t!a.la ,I j" .!.f �. �T��-��'� � �;_':' ,,;,�,..•.«. MAv7 �, ' ("iliili�ll,. , • i;_.._.-.... . . ..._._....-.__ �/�-/- l� _;:-.L...la. .:.� ;::. ..:!... i .t' �� `'.illli!I!!I�I,:'I ;r: �,. '�'s'; �,, � '! 'i ('.4 FL.I../.C.:.l, � '/ Z. +� iM ! IM.Iq V ., '11u, • 'IfIII!' i!::I i f �.,, '''••" ;` , IM .. i! '.: ` ,.' ., t,' .,,' •F-_ r,_. S _ e ..I :! rllilp ..`''. rw ,f •'�• ""�. 7. / ACI I'M I ' -77 -1• {_ t �I i:: .,''C'"r'�x. _I:. _ _I-• - - ,- - i ::i_ i.:l:!_ !r , Z• j ';,�.� -.. I '!•' ;r-� ! I !. (I!.litl!Y - i;1'w6.' - 'Ill fill, +1i I --r ..•1?t:_,." �1 �i i r '; it ..O Ill....c: �', .. - .. — ..... _.a •,Kuu,,,;,, — _ :. ,I. ,! :'. ,_J 1 ', _.ill (••�,'. 1 I •' !.L...:...!::IIIiI:al!.i.:.LII!.t...l!,!,.ILp� .... r—.. 1• ^��" IIttT. .,;. t_;L,.J❑. :„ ... ,r. ;��111'I!!!:!!IIIll11;[!.!1111IL!:!alll..ldll:!tI'15 1!Il LIMA 1� :. . .,.:.:s:.,.,....,. AVENUE See comments on.Exhibit 7A. Circulation Plan Proposed Off-Ramp Exhibit 713 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 38 ' June 7, 2000 A Traffic Study needs to be prepared to determine if Section 3.3 is acceptable, 3.3 C'IRC I.ILA'1'I0N PLAN enhanced by a number of signalized entry drives and public transportation facilities (Exhibit 7A and 713). The Cirr111a1i0m I'lan illustrates the major and minor driveway entrances to the site,signalized intersections, The circulation plan relies on a hierarchy of Nis slots and bus pads supporting.lhe development circulation features ranging from major arterials to and surrounding areas, and the public street system local streets. The system is designed to acconunodale within the Specific Plan boundaries. The Circulation customer, employee, and delivery traffic to and Plan is consistent with the Huntington Beach General around the project area while discouraging through Plan's Circulation Element and the Edinger Avenue traffic from bisecting the project site. Precise Ilan of Sh-cet Alignment_ In order to efficiently facilitate new development on- Prinuuy access to the City of Iuntington Beach and site, primary access will be from interior drive aisles. the crossings at l lunlinglon Beach is provided by Direct access from adjacen.l arterials will be subject to � Interstate 405 (San Diego t'rceway). The City's General review and approval of the Director of Public Works. F Ilan designates the intersection of Beach Boulevard Primary access locations into the project area will be and Edinger Avenue as an internal node and a primary located and designed to provide full turning entry node to the City. Access to the project site is movements. The locations relate to existing driveways provided by a system of arterial highways including: and niedian designs, and are anticipated to adequately serve the projected traffic volumes for the project area. • Beach Boulevard, a north-south principal arterial Specific future development proposals may require street (120 foot right-of-way), designated as a state modifications to these anticipated access locations. . highway, a primary path/image corridor, major urban scenic corridor,and transit service route. Alternative forms of transportation should also receive careful consideration. The current 0CI'A bus route • Edinger Avenue, an east-west major arterial street passes the project area on Edinger Avenue and Center (120 foot right-of-way), designated as a truck roule, Avenue. The project Circulation Plan identifies primary palh/image corridor, and minor urban existing and proposed bus turnout locations along scenic corridor and transit service roule. Edinger Avenue and Center Avenue. As a supplement to vehia►lar access to the project area, potential future • Center Avenue,an east-west secondary arterial street access such as a light rail system and stop shall be (80 fool right-of-way), designated as a transit pursued if available, from the existing rail line on the service roule. western boundary of the site. Internal circulation is currently provided by a network In addition, the Development Concept encourages the of private drives/streets serving as access to individual creation of a pedestrian walkway system. As a tneans portions of the project area. Circulation is further of achieving a strong landscape image, pedestrian walkways are required and shall be provided ',.throughout the development to facilitate pedestrian The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 39 June 7, 2000 There needs to be an engineering report prepared to determine a"baseline"for modifications to the systems COMMI INIC:ATIONS described in this Section. 'telephone scrvic:e in the Specific flan area is provided by General 'Telephone (C� I'). Relocalion of caisling facililies and new inslallalion shall be conctu•renl wills project development. Provisions for fiber oplic c0nununicalions shall also be included in the overall rile planning For the projecl area and shall be proviclW prior to the firs) occumincy ►'eguesl. Cable lelevision service will►in I lu nlinglon Beach is t provided by Time Warner Communications. hislallation of new services shall be concurrent with projecl developmenl. SOLID WASTE; DISPOSAL Rainbow Disposal Company currently provides solid waste disposal services for the area. Based on service projections and anticipated demand increase, an adequale level of service will be mainlained. No solid wasle disposal facilities are planned to be located in the Specific Plan area. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 46 June 7, 2000 3.5.3 C'l�n'1n11�N ,�I:I:A ��llll>I:IIINI:S The Crossings ul lhnilinglean Beach is divided into several unique; spaces. The Italian Village selling will be carried out th►•ough dislirlL'live .11•chilCd1u•i11 design elements including towers, domes and arches, cobblestone streels and walks, water features and site anlenilics I11.11 rcllccl the quaint 111d h.11-I11o111UtIS lifestyle of an Italian Village. A wide color palette with eontrasling accent elements will creale a lively exeiling experience for visitors to the Crossings at Huntington Beach. (See seclion 4.5.3). � _ _ ..� .--!'I�NIIMAVFNtIF•'11 .i_ �_ I 'I' i i; •I t• .ii) '\ CENifRAVfNUF' v .S; •(r7 I I' I I I I I NYa Y• I �.1, i �•' � � •I' ••WW1! I[ •! ��l I ; i i i I. I _�. 1. 1. .11 Jet' • 1 __..._.:1._u -._1......_ 1.1_._ I: Public'' ublic Art . En Plaza - j.. ; tr Plaza i ► I. u. _ f .1..Pedestrian t 'a_ 1 �a ?I ;i a:rRlwi,s } t `C I��'1+ '�Connection ^r I MXSIX' •.�I ....II _ `�: r.' ' ; Public Art' - I. i ,._I_I« 7 Y `!x' •'}';' ' ,�'r::Y 1 .4,'. i. ,I, I+! •J' r 1t. � i ;• lr i�1�t,�.g�P., :�.f:'i, „^�: .Y'ti• ,./- Ii•HI'rl t, r Il! .. f yliu.. y �.1.: .il �alra::.•M• I1r. Ni 'ww''M' :f v'• LI'I �II f T' _ r�5 ;'W�141,.. pvwl!I; �?!;!i tx 1.1:.�.1. MM I I:lisltl{, `,;'•� "c' I ! _ 1�;?;, .Y�,l: ,�,.','j •�:�;��.r i I' _ r �q I Pub tic t ! _�...... t.• In.� .I,. ,c, ,+•.., Z �•li I Il' .. •I '' •' 'll' 'I '1 "I#a��: �.. ��, •1 .1� .r_ V,..r' i :�: Colonnade Courtyard ! Vlllage`Orada 1 :.il � : aetit; --• }^.'". :�:. .I `l: I ili :. €= r,f'r J:: !i u II l�I; :! �•. j. Village Retail ,.j` ,i. 'I .I :,� +'!' gg^ • 1, .. I i I I ilV.• I _ •- t. •"1 I.�: i. I _i..l -i 15 11,:i.r•-� m ' .a„v 1 'i". i 'C, .�� '1 •I 1 wt•r� i I•I r I '.L. •I. . . .+.-II I� 1 I - . _. ..... ,.Y1, i 1 ;,.11'1'r �l •' ' �' !.IL' 11 II. I. 14.:L.1:I.�..:U;:II fU , - 1�1� I',N;I� I •� _. -a.l:-�A.11140:1.:1 .1'':.!Ii!l4 :.1:1:,1l1..11I.i.!:..:.11:!.i li�.l:l:.ili:. ... •I..j-. ..•:'.�.:-__:t:.Il..dl..t:l:.l l:.: i:l rl:.�u.. .:►�•1 .l':1 EDINGER AVENUE See comments on Exhibits 3A and 3B and on Page 50. Common Area Locations Exhibit KA The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 51 June 7, 2000 ' I "...p I illl' I:1'I r lil II Illl''I,'::"11 fll �_/'"` •. Nmirmurr nnimmmmrmimm-m 1 '' ram..:=`; 'I,t' • 1'1 and lrN = S� 'Ir '_ ', :�.�.•VI 1 '{'• I' =_ h14H!-II!I!�111-�ii I!Ii;HH;lllh:,,,tu_r -�!± r .i � I j� - -i �'• .?�'1 ,f Yj : II// •^� � 146 , � 1 1 i=kvl i r 1 -�} L• =d i _ • r5` I •[�Infilll. •I.I: ,I � rI !. -I•. . I ..- •! ?. �,.. ;;�`,•\ �,• + •,, ..:.r ...•..\''..:\' �l)O,C� '/ ��..CFNTfHnVfNUF. �1' G 4.1 ,I:I I : Public"Art !�_f Plaza ntr Plaza i s ( ,' f ;; Pedestrian � � a t" ,:.�`.O ;=illi I Con on 7;-- "A ll N ' Y ' III;p01 V. ,• ,(^ff •'iy 1'i.�_jli 1.;..:I'�: 1 ..\4 `,`' •/ f r�`/r ,.. _ .':L°' ,.: It: :. ..... • i Public Art IF! / i ,: ,III .... ..._...- ... . .., .jr- -/ ,.--f� � p L. �.: �.��Lt � Kra;, tr'� �� li. \.I!illiiil i'„ttli� �f ! a•J .� �f[�� r.•� ,■.w a i>!1'�i./w s}-=1i l �`' _ I "�� ••,.,�•' �'-� � ' €. ' .•:� _l ` a�cl`i y v:''�,I tll l;,i1ii�._:_ I, r ~`Qr:'.',• • : Public Art ... ... ._ :_ i ..Ia;� e�'iif; r•�- _ ;c �i. •_ ���: i i �ii. - - -- �-•,1 - ::n l' f� '•\�;"- <I�F J� ;`a`i 0 i` .I Colonnade Courtyard ;ylliageS6id' ..i... : rr 1 �w .rl'Itil'I"il �t - - - r r •-, ' trr rr, r.l ���Village Retail 1 r; FM Lllalli ( t ,I', .. 1 , .. I , , ,,: i.l�.it•,V__'I I '. 11"I •�.. NU:T i' ,LEI I�i I ��1„ .. .. _ a_:. •m .. ...,.. .. .. ,i .e.asu�I _ 1 _-. '"•'' �"'• h i S Ja 1 :...... . ... . . ... 11.....Lu..::INI-II.::.I 66.:.I I�f::.:.;,=.:I ::i,lclllti - 'I! _... l•l lll';1.i± ILI.IIiIl1'lll�l'1 Illli.!:III±.a1'i IIII'i!Rh!..I:IILiIai _ HI(.ILi..iil1€h±.:: `•rl. • .. EDl[VGER AVENUE See comments on Exhibits 3A and 313 and on Page 50. Common Area Locations Exhibit 8B The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 52 June 7, 2000 COMMON AREA POLICIES: The lighting standards fail to specify the foot-candles of illumination and there are no 3.3.1 Common Area Lip;hling will create a strong, detailed specifications as to attractive night identity for the project. Seleclej the fixture dimensions, elements will be highlighted with illumination. foot-candle productivity,etc. �. These elements are selected for their ability to enhance the dimension and- add character to the building{ architecture, to promote the appropriate degree of prestige to the project, as well as to provide �. it sale and secure environment for visitors and merchants. � ..�;' " ,:f y f'r►,ki,�q lot%ix/rrrt 3.5.3.3Exterior lighting sliall be located and designed to evenly illtuninate the parking areas, including the -- ` ' parking structure. Particular attention shall be paid to the illumination of all sidewalks,connecting walkways and alcoves. All light standards shall be consistent with. respect to design, materials, color and color of light, and with the overall architectural style of the project. All lighting shall_ be confined wilhim the . -' project and shall not project beyond the project boundaries. I i:hligg al pa•,ssag Ivry i 3.5.3.2 Illumination of buildings and landscaping __,� will be indirect to creole a strong positive image. Slai►•%Ixit" Concealing light fixtures within buildings and landscaping can highlight attractive features. Use p of a variety of lighting levels at entries, plazas, ' parking lots, and other areas where evening acclivity is expected, will create an exciling night ly,,/ka,:►y%ixnur Accent%irhr►t line environment. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 58 June 7, 2000 3.5.4A New Stores and Theaters 3.5.4 ARC'I IITEC TI1RA1, GI I11)1:1,1N1:S Implementation of the Specific flan will spiny ��I' the clenienfs ul' the Crossings at lltnilin��ton generate conslruclion of numerous new in-line retail Beach archileclnre rel'Iccl that of an Italian Village and anchor slores and will likely include a multi- living cnvirocuncrtl. The Archileclural Guidelines am screen movie theater. cosign and site layout of any illicnded to csi'Iblish a eharacler, style and qualily for newly proposed structures shall comply with the each archilechlral calcgory. The calegories arc: following policies. Ncw Anchor Slores .uut 'I'heale''s NEW ANCHOR. SPORES AND '1'I-IEA'IERS Gencral Tenanl Slorcll•onts POLICIES:l:xistin;{ Major Deparlrttenf Stores and Village Retail The descHplion of these giddelines is not intended Io 3.5.4A.I Building massing and arlieulalion shall disconu•age individual innovalion and creativity, but to possess a balance in form and composition; large simply provide a framework within which an overall flat tmarficulaled building elevations shall not be sense of place will be reinforced. Building design shall perntil;tbd. The large planes of the theater and conll-)lY will, file following archileclural f-)olicies. major"Tenant walls should be enhanced wills The architectural guidelines are too broad (i.e.,what types of patterns and graphics patterns and graphics consistent will, the overall would be acceptable for the large planes of the Wards store and for any other anchor). design Theme of the center. 11 3 d, i �., is •; �' • L ff 1 I ' The Crossings at Huntington'Beach Specific Plan 60 June 7, 2000 CihNFRAI,'I'I,'NAN'I' S'I'ORr,rRON'I' POLICIES: 3.5.413.3 Tenant storefront materials may include but are not restricted to: 3.5.411.1 All storefront designs and glans shall be subject to the approval of the and the City of 4naque: 'Translucent: Ilunlington Beach. Polished metals Glass block 3.5 Slorefronis �tre encottr�tged to have multiple Smooth brick Etched glass Manes to create a variety of volumes and spaces Smooth and Rough plaster Clear glass Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete Crackle glass and to maximize each store's visibility. Porcelain and Clay file owner of each parcel Metal grillwork Painted or Stained wood Glazed ceramic tile Smooth,Rough or polished stone Powder coated or anodized metal Cast concrete or plaster (i.e. columns,cornices) M� f q, 1 Yi4is�'• '". _. , - - t lev.�tion o/Iy��ic.�!slortlit�itls showiitq v rryiirq height window rhythms and heights and canopies. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 62 June 7, 2000 ,�.5.4C Existing Major Departnlcill Slores and Village 3.5.4C.I Complete facade improvements of all Relail remaining buildings shall occur if expansions, renovations,or reconstruction to any portion of the The existing; Operating department stores ire 63 acre property are proposed. All improvements Mervyns, Burlington coal Factory, and Montgomery shall be subject to compliance with the Specific Wards. The Village Retail Center includes the Plan. building wing on the east side of the property (Barnes and Noble, Circuit City, Staples, and in-line 3.5.4C.2 'The facade improvements shall be compatible m retail). The Specific Plan is intended to require with the Italian Village archilectural theme remodeling, revitalization, and new construction discussed in Design Guidelines. m with an Italian Village theme throughout the f33 acre o properly. 'Therefore, the following policies apply to 3.5.4C.3 The renovation designs shall be subject to the any remaining depau Imcnt stores and the Village approval of the Crossings at Huntington Beach s Retail center al the time any building permit is managemenliand the City of I luntington Beach. requested for the property. 3.5.4C.4 Building materials and colors shall be guided o EXISTING MAJOR DEPAUMENT STORE AND by, but not restricted by,.the approved Common VILLAGE, RETAIL POLICIES: Area palette. National retail store materials and m colors will also be considered. B 0 V! N 7� V! O 2 - C t0 _ ,....��� �� 'lie.1 ! f.• ` � —-- � Concel2tual Facade Improvement The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 65 June 7, 2000 iz 4..t115�_:,;,•�i'�!p � �' � � {� � 3 _ •• :Y _ _ 'I � -' `' �\: 4i� I "•b�ii1.-_ .1 r'pp�1 ;�, W � �i � �. �jr � ��s-' .. ... ;`•,`\ .� . Qo ,�5 NA I..ne -_ v��JJ n•�j':.,yS �• _�• � .ap ,7r --- �.� � fig' X. I �\�•' SS i. .I � •,` ��' �: f � I j I I ul L� ..,«}. � 4- �' n •� _ -_ alto }u,, `i ` � II .. ,._ ..�. y _•,n � a_ � .`ft!_+ J a'_ (� (!fin � \',\ � � � • I (J n.I 517: .•e c«1 wi: ;,{ ` � f�9 I ' !-' 14 I. II I I ':Tr v w..�ir ♦7 J Y . . __ r..':A. \ Nr I(' / ! ll�r 7 , � •_• _ _-• ... 11• L � r1 4 ••'•' 1 I�il .1 I I ,\.!� /1, . •f ' - ;iu)"!I' '��41Ii�IT�i+'�It� in�« v FYI' i •Rr� .,.:1�1 '. - I•Ml a.' •`` ,� `' `!jrw 70 ��-��r c.�'�� �_ ,• � f M .<I.. :IM �I j� l.r"'i -��. '':.• t7�7 qP -tip it II I � � .:O - Iw,.•..• , .. ...:.. U{I 1 .i:M'l `,`�� r.r, �.. `V r?.Y G"e Gam..b -- �- p 9 .. _ « � «:r t1A' N �7 r nt - - II -1� S i _ �� '!�:'i,�ey�!:,-;11�.!.i'!! 'I lc.li-•�vl`I I _ _ i � _ - - - � ^. ' - 1: 1.11,111 � •Il• I'I 1.It �11 '1: �_.._...__-_....._ -..._-• 14---�� _ _ 1 �,-_. .......... !� —1T— _E_N_GEIi�►VFlvl��_ I i See comments on Exhibit 3A and 3B. Landscape Concept Plan Exhibit 1 1 A The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 66 June 7, 2000 L. _ _ _ _ .•-CENTER AVENUE,.:-.! li!1�1111W I I `,�' '•"M"''-II I I .i ..i ; -. Y ` 464 , k III K Tmrr-T,mrmrmlowrlf fhli�iilirLlishi ► � c o r IIIIILIIIIIINIIA PIII-HI!II :lu:u� I': - j. s ,— 'ij1fT11TTT 4 �' l,+ Go I, - _- = - i18 - ❑ +�: ',q TER AVENUE'-17 wW JK ' I �11 I' III I I 1 1 , � T � � .... _.' t a! • •�n'11 ...... A, it !4 - ... , I,"�!� ! _ w...•;' `,•(�I' `�� II•I liii+�11111�111r / i'... ti f. \ I i ul f( . \. i i '- _I_ .4 1. % ,1!4iR'`. �!I aii`�ifr7•• t.. FEZ i - *1 din i; riatllltl 1t� ! t I 1 1 Itl i 1• 1 I1111 I i 1 E(.. „ NGER AVENUE- Landscape Concept Plan See comments on Exhibit 3A and 3B. Exhibit 1 1 B The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 87 June 7, 2000 3.5.5 LANI)SCAPI: GUIPELINES The landscape for The Crossings al I lunlinglon Beach 3.).5.2 Existing healthy trees, where feasible, shall be is an role .1.,11 cwnl►Oncnl of Il)e overall project design. preserved or rt loct►led on site. If healthy trees are Phis dcsi;{r1 c0mccpl is urban in nalurc and has strong removed, replacement shall be as follows: Each dements Of :111 Italian Village. 'These elements include existing Khaphiolepis "Maieslic Beattly" removed Il)e use of stroji-4 verlical elements such as Italian shall he replaced with one (1) thirty-six (36) inch cypress and Palms at Il)e nu►in entrances in slralegic box tree or balm equivalent. All other healthy tree areas for emphasis and continuily. Some of the other species with tt ten (10) inch diameter Ir unk al clen►e►►Is Il)at I'it well will) an Ilulian Village breast hiegl)t or larger shall be replaced with Iwo environment include the following which are (2) thirty-six (36) inch box trees or the pain indi {enOus to the Culil'ornia coast. i.e.: Bougainvillea, equivalent for each free removed. Should the Ivy Geraniums, hibiscus, lupine, Azalea, Indian foregoing substitution of Iwo (2) 36" box frees be Ilawlhorn and free varieties such as Silk tree, Alder, impraclieal, the ratio may be modified to one (1) Strawberry Ircc, Deodar Cedar, Carob, Carrolwood, 36" box free with the approval of the Uirectio►• of Crepe Myrtle and the like. The Landscape Concept is Public Works. Palms may be substituted for Irees at ckr1►1pOsed of Il)ese elements as well as other elentenls, the ratio of half (1/2) foot of brown trunk height such as decorative paving, water features, public tit•t, for each one (1) inch of box sire. If the siluafion and lighlin,r, which are complementary to and assist in occurs where lher•e is not enough planfing area for Il)e impleme►►laliO11 cal' tut inlegral landscape design. the trees required, the accumulative box inches of These Landscape Guidelines establish the design trees Wray be utilized, l'or example, two (2) thirty characler and visual dualities for development within six (36) inch boxed trees could be combined into Il)c Specific flan. one seventy Iwo (72) inch box tree. l'or palms, lite requirement of eighteen feet of brown trunk for LANDSCAPE GUIDELINE POLICIES: each Iltirty six (36) inch free would work as follows: two (2) lhit•ty six (36) inch box trees could 3.5.5. I Site layout shall respect and preserve as much of be combined into one (1) thirty six (36) foot the existing site features, including trees where (brown trunk) palm. All free replacement shall be possible. A professional C01181,11ting arborisl shall subiect to review and approval and may be determine whether existing trees can be saved modified by the Director of Public Works. during consiruclion. The landscape guidelines are overly restrictive and do not permit creativity on the part of the property owner. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 68 June 7, 2000 .i.�.1, Landscape screening is intended to soften and 3.5.6 SIGNAG}: GUIDELINES blend Ilrc connection of [lie building areas with the landscape of the parking lots. Trees shall be The Signage Guidelines identify a framework to provided to soften,and visually relieve,parking and advertise a place of business"and provide directions or ulility a►•cas and to provide summer shade. information specific to that business. Attractive and effective Signage can be designed without detracting' Trash enclosure areas, where appropriale, shall be from the overall design quality of the project area.The provided with tree and shrub planting screens to Signage Guidelines also contribute to the overall soften the enclosure. Mechanical equipment and project area urban retail design theme. Design, color, transformer areas shall have landscape screening materials and placement are all important in creating aid/or low-level screen wails. Valves, meters, back signs that are architecturally attractive and integrated flow preventers, etc., shall be screened by shrub into the overall project area design. The intent is to plantings and/or low level screen walls. create and promote a quality visual environment by allowing 6nly signs which are compatible with their .i.,.�. I G Landscape lighting shall be provided in selected surroundings and which effectively communicate areas to aesthetically enhance the site. Pedestrian their message. walkways shall include adequate night fighting, for public safety and crime prevention purposes. Signs shall be designed to be archilecturally Courtyard ligh[ing shall be a minimum maintained compatible with the colors and materials of the level of one foot-candle. adjacent building. All signing shall be consistent with the Crossings at Huntington Beach's sign standards .{.r.S.17 Conservation water Measures shall be. (appendix Q. incorporated in the landscape design. A minimum of sevenly-five (75) percent of the required landscape area shall be planted with ground cover and the balance (a maximum of 25 percent) with Montgomery Ward's proposed new sign should lurf. The use of shrubs, liedges, and berming shall be approved as part of this Specific Plan. be provided to screen cars in the parking lots from street view. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 73 June 7, 2000 .1.2.14 Use. The for which land or building is 4.3.1 Permitted Uses. Permitted uses shall be required to :u r.u►,{ed, desi,;ned, or intended, or fat• which it is meet all applicable provisions of the Huntington peach occupied or maintained. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Cmie. A list of I-wrmitted uses is provided in Exhibit 13A. 4.2. 15 W,111 oi- fence. Any structure or devise forming a physical harrier. 'Phis definition shall include: wood, 4.3.2 Intensity. The maximum intensity shall be consistent concrete concrele block brick stone or other with the Cily's General Plan. ► asonry malcrial, melal, and wrought iron.etc. 4.3.3 Building height. The maximum allowable building 4.2. 1 G 'Z011e. A district as defined in [lie State Conservation height shall be seventy-five (75) feet and a maximum and 1'la►u►ing Act, shown un the official zoning maps of 4 stories. Rooftop mechanical equipment and and to which uniform rc,{ulations apply, parapet walls may exceed the maximum permilled building height by fifteen (15) feet, however 4.2.17 Zoning maps. The official zoning maps of the City mechanincal equipment shall be screened front view. Of Ilunlin,-{ton Beach which are a part of the Special thented architectural structures or elements comprehensive Zoning ordinance. such as tgwers or doilies may be allowed up to one hundred-Iwenly (120) feet. 4.3 [)EVF,I,O['MF;N'I' STANDARDS 4.3.4 Setbacks. Refer to Exhibit 14. The Development Standards shall serve as the 4.3.5 Landscaping. Landscaping shall be permanently mechanism for the implementation of the Crossings at maintained in an attractive manner in all setback and luntingIon beach land uses.The standards set forth in parking lot areas fronting on,or visible from, adjacent this section will assure that future development within public streets. The CrOSSIn„s at Iluntin„ton Beach is implemented in a ►tuuuter consistent with the intent of the project area 4.3.6 Signs. All signs in the project area shall conform to v Master Plan. The standards contained herein provide the provisions of the sign standards in Appendix U. flexible mechanisms to anticipate future needs and achieve cunt �atibilit between land uses and the l y 4.3.7 Lighting. All illumination of interior circulation C surrounding community. Slanda►•ds and guidelines are streets, parking areas, and project sites, shall be o designed to be compatible with the existing land use coordinated to provide consistent illumination 3 categories of the City. The primary land uses in file intensity. Emphasis shall be placed on areas of high Crossings at Iluntin,-4ton Beach shall be regional vehicular and pedestrian activity. light fixtures and commercial retail dinin and entertainment. d > g� standards shall be consistent with building a architectural style. Public sireellights shall comply co with the City of I luntington Beach guidelines for street �c lighting. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 77 June 7, 2000 New building consiruction of the following uses and fagade improvements to existing buildings shall be permitted within file e;rossin,{s .11 I lunlinglon Beach Six:cific Plan subject to review and approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning Direclor. ether Changes in occupancy, such as, like for like tenant changes, new tenants established within existing buildings, and/or inlensificalion cif lenant uses shall be subject to building permit plan check review to verify compliance with parking and the Specific Hall review. REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PUBLIC AND SEMI PUBLIC Aquarium Day Care racililies Ilanks and ether financial institutions Government Offices Conunercial recreation and live entertainment Public Safety Facilities rtkxt Markets (Specialty Markets-max. 10,000 sq. ff.) Utilities and Communication racililies General Retail Parking Day S 1a -surface Ilolels Motels -structured Movie'I'hcalers -valet RestauraIlls -with oulcicxw dining - wilh alcohol sales -' Willi live entertainment and dancing Pei:kraal SClviCes 011111 E Busincss and 11iWessional OTI I ER PERM I'I'I'1:U R1;1'A 11, Car slerco and alarm insiallalion, if inlegraled into an .mchor/major relail building and loc;aled within It buildin Portable earls and kiosks Note:01he7'sintiku-i/sav ina he ile77nJlleil s!/hiecl to v view 17y the!YanjifiiS 7il-eclov. 'Rec]llil es All a/llel'Gli/lnlel/l i7el'illit Permitted Uses Chart Exhibit 13A The Montgomery Ward retail store and automotive center should be added as a conforming use. The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 78 June 7, 2000, ISSUE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Minintt►nt Project Area (AC) 50 Minimum Lot Sire (AC:) None Miuinumi Lol I'ronlage None Maxinuun Buildin;{ I lei;{ht 75 feel Maximum Number ol'Slories 4 stories Maxintttnt Additional I lei,ght for parapel walls, mechanical 15 feet ec ui pmehl,conttttuniuition tutlenntts etc. Maximum Architectural I'eatUr'e Ileight 120 feet Maxinuurt Lot Coverage 50% Maxinunn I'toor Area Ratio 0.5 Minimum Setback Street side (Edinger Ave., Beach Blvd. and Center Avc.) 50 feet,or 25 feet if setback is fully landscaped Interior side (West Property Line) 10 feel Mininitim Landscaping 8%of total site; 1006 of common area Minimum Perimeter Landscaping Street side Wdin,;er Ave., [;each Blvd. and Center Ave.) 10 feet Interior side (West Property Line) 5 feet Mininunn Standard Parking Stall Size 9 feet x. 18 feet Minintttm Contlmel Parking Stall Sire 8 feet x 18 feel ; Mininrtnu Drive Aisle Width 25 feet for 90 degree stalls Minimum Parking Required Shared parking based upon joint use of parking analysis with Site Plan Review Maxinium Compact Spaces 20%of total spaces I landicapped Parking Comply with Uniform Building Code and Tille 24 Parking Structure Design Comply with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Public Amenity Requirement Minimum of Six public amenities required;Al least two public art elements and two water features within common area Wireless Communication I'acililies Comply with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 1'rans portation Demand Managentent lComplywith Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance * Buildinzs exceedin!L fifty (50) feet in height shall increase the set back by one (1) foot for each one (1) foot of building height itk-sve fifty (50) feet. The minimum set back requirements should not Development Regulations Chart apply to the Montgomery Ward automotive center. Exhibit 14 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan 80 June 7, 2000 The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 Section 3.5.4C - Nonconforming Buildings and Uses E mery Ward strongly objects to this Amortization Schedule regarding nonforming buildings and Until a development plan has been reviewed and approved by Ezralow, the City and Montgomery n implementation schedule is premature. 3.5.4C. Purpose remodel/renovation of non-conforming buildings in order to promote the public health, safe and general welfare and to bring such buildings and uses into conformity with the goals policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and The*Crossings at Huntingto each Specific Plan No. 13. This section is intended to prevent the expansion of nonconfo g uses and buildings,establish the circumstances under which they may be continued and rovide for the removal,correction,remodel; oUhange of such uses and buildings. 3.5.4C.1 Rey-ulations Applicable The following regulations shall apply to all nonconforming uses and t 1 buildings or structures non conforming due to use and/or standards as specified herein: 1. Continuation. A nonconforming use or a building or stru a nonconforming due to use and/or standards may be continuously maintained pro ' ed there is no alteration, enlargement or addition to any building or structure- o increase in occupant load;nor any enlargement of area, space or volume occupied by r devoted to such use, except as otherwise provided in this Section. 2. Additions to a Nonconforming Use Build' g. gr Structure. This section does not authorize the extension,expansion, or enlargeme of the area of land or.the area within a building or structure devoted to a nonconfo= ise,or the alteration,enlargement of or addition to a building or structure nonconfo due to use and/or standards, or permit the addition of land,buildings or structure use conjunction with a nonconforming use or a building or structure nonconforming due use and/or standards, except: a. Exterior building erations to a building or structure nonconforming due to standards when a exterior alterations comply with the design, architectural, and development licies and standards contained within the Specific Plan. b. To the a ent required by a subsequently enacted or subsequently adopted law, ordin ce or regulation, and the Director so finds. Such additions as are permitted by the bsection shall not be construed to extend the termination date of the subject nconfornung use,or a building or a structure non-conforming due to use or (gAjm\crossings\amortization (Attachment No.8.1) i earthquake,or other calamity,or by act of God,or by act of war,or by the public enem , may be re-constructed provided that each of the following conditions is met: a. Such re-construction is permitted by the Uniform Building Code. b. Re-construction is commenced within one year of the date of damag unless otherwise allowed by the Planning Commission,and be pursued di ' ently to completion. 3.4.5C.2. Termination Conditions and Time Limits The following regulations shall apply to all nonconforming uses and boil ' gs and structures nonconforming due to use,and to buildings and structures nonconfo due to standards as specified in this section. 1. Termination by Discontinuance. Discontinuance of a nonco rming use or of the use of a building or structure nonconforming due to use and/or Stan as indicated herein shall immediately terminate the right to operate or use such non nforming use,building or structure,except when extended as otherwise provided ' is Section: a. Changing a nonconforming use to a conformin ; b. Removal of a building or structure nonconf g due to use and/or standards;or C. Discontinuance of a nonconforming use use of a building or structure nonconforming due to use and/or stan as indicated herein for consecutive period of one or more years. 2. Termination by Operation of Law. Non nforming uses and buildings or structures nonconforming dine to use,shall be ontinued and removed from their sites within the time specified in this section,except en extended or revoked as otherwise provided in this section. Buildings or structure nonconforming due to standards enumerated in this Specific Plan,shall be remodele d renovated to comply with the standards enumerated in this Specific Plan within the a frame specified in this section,except when extended or revoked as otherwise provi in this section. - In the case of nonconfo g uses and buildings or structures nonconforming due to use, and those buildings or ctures nonconforming due to standards enumerated in this Specific Plan: a. Where a no orming use is carried on in a conforming structure—three years from the date of option of the Specific Plan. b. Where a onconforming use is carried on in a nonconforming structure due to an enumerated in this Specific Plan—three years from the date of adoption of the S cific Plan. C. ere a conforming use is carried on in a nonconforming structure due to standards umerated in this Specific Plan—three years from the date of adoption of the (2:ymkros4ngs%a=rdzation (Attachment No.s.2) 1. Request for Review—An application may be filed with the Planning Commission requesting extension of the time within which a nonconforming use or building o structure nonconforming due to use,or due to standards where applicable, must be disco inued and removed from its site or remodeled and renovated as specified in Section 3.4 C. The Planning Commission may accept such filing either before or after date of f expiration of such nonconforming use,building or structure. 2. A.,pplication and Procedure—Except as specifically provided in thi section,the application and all procedures relative to notification,publiq hearing and. als shall be the same as for a conditional use permit. 3. Burden of Proof—In addition to the information required' the application,the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Planning Co 'ssion the following facts: a. That to require cessation of such use,buildmi or structure would impair the property rights of any person to such an extent as to a an unconstitutional taking of property; and/or b. That such use,building or structure es not now and will not during the extension period requested: 1. Adversely affect the he peace or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area,and, 2. Be materially d . ntal to the use,enjoyment or valuation of the property of other persons loc d in the vicinity of the site,and, 3. Jeopardize, a ger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general elfare. 4. Findin s and e sion—The Director of Planning shall recommend and the Planning Commission s all approve an application for a nonconforming use,building or structure /—pp— al ed the burden of proof set forth above has been met by the applicant. 5. The Planning Commission,in approving an application for a nonconforming ure review may impose conditions it deems necessary to insure that the be in accord with the findings required. Conditions imposed by the Planning may involve any pertinent factors affecting the establishment,operation,and (g:\jm\crossings\amortization (Attachment NO.8.3) SKIN TYPE DESOLM EWb blocks the Wards entrance and must be relocated. MEWAYMDMW n fflwvwwmxwrAwwA l i stca+DAtY lMD a MOM" k41 NwW ell l to] wunx�u aanawu r. Pt0[Tl MDIUMNAt ; PKMCI aaclo" — Pn !ffr. Ye.n, f--a n-n-inm I E0� R 7 - •� �� o �mnintn"mr• -rr,� '' ,N�Ewb�16�;! a :r -� 'rc .-, •:, , — ;.. lw, m4uY1 mawMtgmrowgwomtq �HNIN�NHIN�IN M:i! .Ei� \ •• �....._.l '� ,c. \' � `•;., mr ` DM Hcaom mo wAu AUI = SAN DIE FREEWAY a A �� EDit — T00 U1W9L':IiL' u�u,lu:e:u� [Di o A 4 r - - =-' — fC)b .� EDb EDP . �Ewi ;>;�:>> ; Etk ,:; — GLWU Ewa. .,= _..,• ,���., : f �' EDb � -R � .�� �Y � HH Et>b Nlii ;� -- t •;�, \ L-.,.;r��•�- -� .��EEk EWb E0,j EWb i �.. ► � '� � A [Da I S': r� �,�l�;.Tu'9�r:,} EDC ua• i r �'�C:� EWb EWa / _ t EDb EWb EDtI BMEVARD e Y r 0-0 ,�,;s.._..... �� lII:tlI1:Ctl:111Y1f1�1111116N111WIrIa11W�y�,...+ew � IttlU11tl �Ilq ' EWb blocks the Wards entrance. Sl(:NA(:l l l(:IND �. ! IYPI I•I%(NII.11. ►VP( I)[%(KIPIIIKM TYPE D(+CKIPTION TYPE DEstKIPIK)N , EA11 I l kl 111 11 usl..ctlN1 I EMC I MC UNDAk1'I'K11111 1 hit1NI'%11N1 �EDb PEDESIkNN DIKII lk IN11 I EWa I I'KIA11kY 1'Kl lll(:I%VAI I.SIGN Il,+le..vY.dl u,luu I.D I 1'l Iv1+IM IIJII.K 1 N+nWfl ll IEM))II•KI•,1AK.I I Ili 1nKI"$AllAI.1:.N.••,a)I ( EDaI V1IM14ARDIKf('TkX1Al I EDE: I'M lilt 101111lII)KY IEWbI Sf((.NDAKYPK(W(ISVAIISIGN I EMc _._. ell — — GENTEKAVFN()E- :;•_- EMc EDi) n `pP:,(.,I..--- ". Ir EDa .�, i...�.• ITT T�_il. ::'II Il: 1'tl'`.I:) : :e '_rl EDa tu!i.l. -,,t1 I';I�:il��� E ri• :r. =_ c l�I 1i (. - r �n��•\: EWb SAN DIEGO FREEWAY 405 EDa __ EDa ' _ _: , _ _- n �\:..'•. Ea _ EDa ,: .►:u__I• 1 _I:.u�luulwul /... _ EDa =' =l EDa - - `•' �•'1� . E CON 00 a e i'I' ---- - -�; M S:�j�_x..J /��' - EDb o _ �" 1 -- -- :.�.' EWb 0 0 !�I' (i� EWb 1= -I EDb / t' n : / O 'All IIRRI' EDc ss i 1 EDb EWa ;\ EWb uuu>Iw:uu ( .•l +\ ` /Rgtf o �- I��F _ EDa - _ " ,\\\' 232' - -�` '•. ;9{II IIIIHIII4I{I�'rl13.IF— EDc EWb ~EDc EVvb di{HINIIINII{{I \ E a I �_.://.. /..:.. Y'y 77_�'� I - /... c I iu t L) 1111{{IIIII �P` EMa Wb t ! p i• I ,I ,°!; �; I .:F;-i — — —��/ — _ IwM f... 1.1i �A,,,)„ I.+wu y EDa �'• EWa js '�. 1 =, - _ EDb r;.` � ': '_ �..� /•�., EDa '` _ a3w � ED- a EDa f•-, ,11 / !>!///� ' 1' �c� :nc 41!1 1 4 fJ E—D_b E 3 __l ll-_ Da l l I Ow nc l J_ -7 1111_ ! :: I / III �II l I K.l EQ NG B�NU . T=.. EMc ...- =___� b - ._..a_._,.._...___ EMb - �A_�.--- __ EMc RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 (The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 FICA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached 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 $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS, REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: (Below • . . Only) RCA Author: HZ:SH:HF:JJ:kjl PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a I NOTICE of NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above resident of the County aforesaid; I am PUBLIC HEARING Rem is covered under BEFORE THE the General Plan over the ears age of eighteen CITY COUNCIL OF Environmental Impact g g Y and not a THE CITY OF Report certified and NTINGTON party to or interested in the below HU adopted by the Hunt- BEACH '"�°f �t�' covn- NOTICE IS HEREBY al on May 13, entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of of h the provisions P P GIVEN�I yal5,n 2000, at of the California the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a 7:0o PflA in thecity Environmental Quality Council Chambers, ON FILE:A copy of the newspaper of general circulation, printed 2000 Main Street, Hunt- proposed request is on ington Beach, the City file in the City Clerk's Of- a n d published in the City of Huntington Council will hold a public lice, 2000 Main Street, hearing on the following Huntington Beach, Cali- Beach, County of Orange, State of temsi S ng and zoning �,;a 92648 fforinspec- t. ZONING MAP by the public,A copy California, and that attached Notice is a AMENDMENT NO. of a staff report will 00-01/ZONING TEXT available to interested true and complete co a$ was printed AMENDMENT NO. parties at C' Hall or the P copy P 00-02 (THE CROSS- �n City Library (7111 INGS SPECIFIC PLAN Talbert Avenue) after and published in the Huntington Beach ): June 29, 2000. and Fountain Valley issues of said Applicant: The City d ALL - INTERESTED Huntington Beach and PERSONS are invited to the Redevelosment ' Agency of the City of attend said,hearing and newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: Huntington Beach Re- express opinions or quest: A zoning map submit evidence for or amendment and zoning against the.application as outlined above. If you text amendment to challenge the City Coun- adopt Specific Plan No.• cil's action in.court, you 13 for the Huntington may 6mfted to raising Beach Mail property. only thou issues you or ZMA: Amend zoning some else raised at June 22, 2000 the public hearing de- hom CG (General Com in this notice, or menial) and CG-FP2 in written c o r- General Commercial- respondence delivered Plain) to Specific to the City at,or prior to, Plan No. 13.ZTA:Adopt the public hearing. If Specfic Plan No. 13, there are any further I declare, under penalty of perjury, that which establishes zon- questans gease call the the foregoing is true and correct. ding' development design, elan- Planning apartment at Bards, site design, and 536-5271 and refer to g g architectural guidelines the above items. Direct to govem future de- your written communioa- velopment, requires Re- tons to the City Clerk. gional Commercial uses Connie Brockway, and creates an Clty Clerk, City of Executed on June 22 2000 amortization schedule Huntington Beach, for non-conforming uses 2000 Main Street, 2nd at Costa Mesa, California. and structures at the 63 a e property. Location: Floor, Huptington Avenue Beach, California 7777 Edinger, gnbg ch92648 e (714) 536.5227 ue, Published Huntington fic each-Fountain Valley Railroad) Projectn ndepend�nt June 22, ner. Jane James 2000 - 064-658 Signature CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT"AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: .Q4U&A aw*t ('b• DO - D DEPARTMENT:_ I MEETING DATE: CONTACT: Ja*a- PHONE: N/A YES NQ ( ) J[�j ( ) 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? Q ( ) ( ) Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) 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? 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 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications /A 21 , faxe� 6-P-10 4n4 TjD 6-ZI-DO �41 r d 6-n-Oi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, July 5, 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 MAP AMENDMENT NO.00-01/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-02 (THE CROSSINGS SPECIFIC PLAN):: Applicant: The City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Request: A zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment to adopt Specific Plan No. 13 for the Huntington Beach Mall property. ZMA: Amend zoning from CG(General Commercial) and CG-FP2 (General Commercial-Flood Plain)to Specific Plan No. 13. ZTA: Adopt Specific Plan No. 13,which establishes zoning, development standards, site design, and architectural guidelines to govern future development,requires Regional Commercial uses and creates an amortization schedule for non-conforming uses and structures at the 63 acre property. Location: 7777 Edinger Avenue(bounded by Beach Boulevard, Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue, and the Southern Pacific Railroad) Project Planner: Jane James NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is covered under the General Plan Environmental Impact Report certified and adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council on May 13, 1996, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after June 29, 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:legals:00cc07O5) SUSAN W. CASE, INC. OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 917 Glenneyr+e Street,Suite 7,Laguna Beach, CA 92651 PHONE(949)494-6105 •FAX(949)494-7418 � a CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS LIST THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT �, �p • �PiQC/IA THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED THROUGH TRANSAMERICA INTELLITECH, A DATA SOURCE UTILIZING THE.COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER DATA SOURCES. 1 THIS INFORMATION IS GENERALLY DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED. l.� �1,VlA e, . f�b YK-- SUSAN W. CASE, INC. _. /A V,, TVD kz* 1-11� JAILI� ca . l(o -C)-n CROSSINGS LABELS—,.UPDATES AND INTERESTED PARTIES 5/31/00 Mr. Douglas Gray Mr. Scott Dinovitz Mr. Jonathan C. Curtis The Ezralow Company The Ezralow Company Sheppard,Mullin,Richter, &Hampton 7545 Irvine Center Dr., Suite 200 1 23622 Calabasas Road, Suite 100 I 333 South Hope Street, 10 Floor Irvine, CA 92618 Calabasas,CA 91302-1549 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448 i Mr. c Aviv T h Mr. H ckel u man � Bruce u a Ms. Caren Manchester Tuchman and Associates Burlington Coat Factory Sheppard,Mullin, Richter,&Hampton 3435 Wilshire Boulevard,301i Floor 7777 Edinger Avenue 333 South Hope Street, 14'h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448 i Mr.Lauren Hohman Ms. Jayna Morgan Mr.Richard A. Harlow Montgomery Wards EDAW Inc. ! Richard A.Harlow and Associates Wards National Office 17875 Von Karman Ave., Suite 400 211-B Main Street 535 West Chicago Ave.,24"'Floor Irvine,CA 92614 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 Wards Plaza Chicago,IL 60671 Ms. Maureen Sloan-James j Mr.Larry Slonim Mr. Dave Hall 18593 Main Street 19792 Gloucester Lane 16291 Kim Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4114 I i I Mr. Terry Contrucci 7777 Edinger Avenue Suite 114 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 I I, I i i I I j II i 7-/9- 00 107 212 06 1 _ 107 220 58 2 107 220 59 3 Alan Gerald Chapin HUNTINGTON VILLA ASSOC Jean Patierno PO Box 25189 1800 Avenue Of The Stars 17 Hermitage Ln Los Angeles CA 90025 Los Angeles CA 90067 Newport Beach CA 92660 107 771 01 4 107 771 06 5 107 771 07 6 Jerry& Barbara Luzzi Janet Moore Elsa Wong 11022 Jordan Rd 9222 Caladium Ave 8821 Baywood Dr Whittier CA 90603 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92646 107 771 08 7 107 771 09 8 107 771 10 9 Jerry& Barbara Luzzi Kory Tyodn Kory&Jacque Tydon 11022 Jordan Rd 5092 Bordeaux Ave 16082 Malaga Ln Whittier CA 90603 Irvine CA 92604 Huntington Beach CA 92647 107 773 01 10 107 773 02 11 107 773 03 12 Eve Smiley Kramer Douglas Bowles YACOEL CLAUDE PTNR;ERILEX FA 153 Lake Shore Dr 16121 Malaga Ln#A 16111 Malaga Ln Rancho Mirage CA 92270 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 107 773 04 13 107 773 05 14 107 773 08 15 J Richard Foster Joseph Caldwell Billy Martin Garrett II 16101 Malaga Ln PO Box 8191 24605 Mosquero Ln Huntington Beach CA 92647 Fountain Valley CA 92728 Mission Viejo CA 92691 107 773 09 16 107 773 10 17 107 781 03 18 Concepcion Valenzuela Maria Yacoel AUTOMOBILE CLUB SC 8181 San Angelo Dr 8 Gretel Ct 2601 S Figueroa St Huntington Beach CA 92647 Newport Beach CA 92663 Los Angeles CA 90007 107 781 04 19 1-LO,'L1 1 78105 20 1 7 781 06 21 HUNTINGTON EXECUTIVE PARK HUN GTON EX TIVE PARK H INGTON CUTIVE PARK 16168 Beach Blvd#200 16168 Be Blvd#200 16168 h Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Bea CA 92647 Huntington B CA 9 47 107 781 07 22 107 782 08 23 107 881 10 24 HUNTINGTON EXECUTIVE PARK HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPERTIES Steven Oliver 16052 Beach Blvd 920 Foothill Blvd 15902 Monroe St Huntington Beach CA 92647 La Canada CA 91011 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 11 25 107 881 14 26 107 881 15 27 Gee Lui Nancy Sakioka Kenneth Chappell 15922 Monroe St 8292 Worthy Dr 8202 Rockview Cir Westminster CA 92683 Midway City CA 92655 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 16 28 107 881 17 29 107 881 18 30 Barbara Meyer Christopher Ramirez Sandra Starr 8192 Rockview Cir 8182 Rockview Cir 8172 Rockview Cir Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 19 31 107 881 20 32 107 881 21 33 Anthony Puglia Hoa Benson Gregory Hardy 8166 Rockview Cir 8162 Rockview Cir 8156 Rockview Cir Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 22 34 107 881 23 35 107 881 24 36 David Bender Shula Slaughter Thomas Hudson 8152 Rockview Cir 8142 Rockview Cir 8141 Rockview Cir Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 25 37 107 881 26 38 107 881 27 39 James Maryea Mario Quitoriano Philip Flores 8161 Rockview Cir 8171 Rockview Cir 3307 Hollypark Dr Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Inglewood CA 90305 107 881 28 40 107 881 29 41 107 881 30 42 Robert Keaton Armando Parra Jr. Quang Dinh 8179 Rockview Cir 8181 Rockview Cir 15881 Monroe St Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 31 43 107 881 32 44 107 881 33 45 Robert Paul Dutton Thomas&Sally Schmidt Donald &Annette Kloos 15861 Monroe St 15851 Monroe St 15841 Monroe St Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 34 46 107 881 37 47 107 881 38 48 Minh LeTam Mary Lemond Craig&Janet Monroe 15831 Monroe St 8192 Ingram Cir 8182 Ingram Cir Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 39 49 107 881 40 50 107 881 41 51 Jeffrey&Sharon McKeown Tommy Francis Haney Quang Ly 8172 Ingram Cir 8162 Ingram Cir 8152 Ingram Cir Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 42 52 107 881 43 53 107 881 44 54 Brian &Julie Flesch Victor Jimenez Minoru &Jane Yoshisato 8142 Ingram Cir 8131 Ingram Cir 8141 Ingram Cir Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 107 88145 55 107 88146 56 107 88147 57 Patricia Goplen Eric&Lynn Furuya Diane&Deborah Spangler 8151 Ingram Cir 8161 Ingram Cir 8171 Ingram Cir Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 1 881 58 107 881 59 59 107 881 60 60 ORA E CO TY FLOOD CONTR Holly Hoang Dana& Debra Hadley 8262 Crown Ct 8242 Crown Ct Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 61 61 _ 107 881 62 62 107 881 63 63 Robin &Stella Wang Sharon Dietz William Wally 8222 Crown Ct 8212 Crown Ct 8202 Crown Ct Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 64 64 107 881 65 65 107 881 66 66 Louann Watkins TRAN LOAN THI George Baldwin 8192 Crown Ct 8186 Crown Ct 8182 Crown Ct Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 107 881 67 67 107 881 68 68 107 881 69 69 Jerry Maras Larry Forbes Henry Quenin 8172 Crown Ct 8166 Crown Ct 15931 Monroe St Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 142 071 53 70 142 071 54 42 071 72 MACERICH HUNTINGTON LIMITED ORANGE CO TRANSIT TRI C OF HUN TON BEACH 233 Wilshire Blvd#700 PO Box 3 g'� City Santa Monica CA 90401 Garden r e CA.92842 Huntingto ach CA 9 48 42 071 73 14207163 74 e�_.,to FREEWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK MA ICH HU TON LIMITED Plaza R illa, 233 Wils ' e Blvd#700 730 a Ave 2032 La Colina Dr Santa Monica CA 90401 n ' on Beach CA 92647 Santa Ana CA 92705 142 071 66 76 142 071 80 7 142 071 85 78 FREEWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK MACERICH HUNTIN N LIMITED ERICH H GTON LIMITED 212 High St 233 Wilshire 700 233 1 ' Blvd#70 Pottstown PA 19464 Santa Monica CA M401 Santa Monica 90401 142 071 87 79 142 071 91 80 142 071 92 81 .� Plaza Ro i MONTGOMERY WARD DEVELOPM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY 0 7400 n Ave m 1 Montgomery Ward Plz 2000 Main St Hun ng n Beach CA 92647 Chicago IL 60671 Huntington Beach CA 92648 A*"* 406"IPW=.A 142 071 93 82 142 071 97 83 142 071 98 84 MAC RICH TINGTON LIMITED ER UNTINGTON LIMITED MA H HU GTON LIMITED 233 Wi e B vd 233 ire B 700 233 Wilshire vd#7 Santa Monic 90401 Santa Mon CA 0401 Santa Monica C 90401 142 71 9 85 142 072 02 86 7 142 072 03 87 MACE TINGTON LIMITED COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIS C0A OMMU COLLEGE DIS 233 Wilshire vd 0 2701 Fairview Rd 2701 Fair0 Rd Santa Monica CA 90401 Costa Mesa CA 92626 Costa Mesa CA 92626 142 072 0 88 142 072 08 89 142 072 09 90 F EWAY STRIAL PARK INC FREEWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK FREEWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK%JOJ 2032 Colina Dr PO Box 10446 2701 Alton Pkwy Santa Ana 92705 Newport Beach CA 92658 Irvine CA 92606 142 079 01 91,9Z 142 079 0 92 142 081 01 93 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO H TINGTO ACH CO HUNT TO� H CITY OF PO Box 285 PO 85 2000 Main Houston TX 77001 Houston 7001 Huntington Bea A 92648 142 081 02 94 14208103 95 14208106 96 Peter Chamie Peter mi S��,Ct R VELOP NT AGENCY FOR Cl 7942 Edinger Ave 790 di er Ave 2000 M St Huntington Beach CA 92647 H ti on Beach CA 92647 Huntington ch CA 2648 142 081 09 97 142 081 1 98 081 1 99 RED VEL ENT AGENCY OF CIT R VELOP T AGENCY OF CIT RED LOP T AGENCY OF CIT PO Bo 740 PO Bo 40 PO Box 40 Huntington ach CA 92647 Huntington h CA 92647 Huntington ach CA 92647 142 08 2 100 142 081 16 101 142 081 17 102 VEL ENT AGENCY OF CIT Harold Bragg Didier Camilleri PO B 740 5540 E 6th St 8172 Starr St Huntington each A 92647 Long Beach CA 90814 Stanton CA 90680 142 081 18 103 142 081 25 104 142 081 26 105 Elisabeth Lewis Cooper Leon DePicciotto Elisabeth Lewis Cooper 16000 Ventura Blvd #1000 140 N Fuller Ave 16000 Ventura Blvd#1006 Encino CA 91436 Los Angeles CA 90036 Encino CA 91436 142 081 27 106 142 081 28 107 142 082 02 108 Ruth Eleanor Wolman LINDON LEGIN CO Viola Murray 25 Healey St 28815 Grayfox St 8081 Bolsa Ave Cambridge MA 02138 Malibu CA 90265 Midway City CA 92655 142 082 06 109 142 082 07 110 142 082 09 111 , 11 Z Doandl&Hanya Galitzen Samuel Shu Chuan Wu ALDRICH ASSOCIATES 9770 James River Cir 11 Aguilar 575 20th St Fountain Valley CA 92708 Irvine CA 92614 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 14208 0 112 142 082 11 113 142 082 12 114 X-QBCO OCIATES Katherin a rson '��; Kimberly Walsh 575 2 1120 ar n Ave 80 Huntington St#407 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 D n Grove IL 60515 Huntington Beach CA 92648 142 082 15 115 142 082 16 116 142 082 17 117 Adel Salam STARK ASSOCIATES Elliott Kallick 8942 Baywood Dr 575 20th St 16261 Spartan Cir Huntington Beach CA 92646 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Huntington Beach CA 92649 142 082 19 118 142 082 20 119 142 082 22 120 Alan &Kathi Gussin Haig &Alice Dulgarian Shurley Hirshberg 18512 Santiago Blvd 826 E 62nd St 2379 Oakcrest Dr Villa Park CA 92861 Los Angeles CA 90001 Palm Springs CA 92264 142 082 26 121 142 082 27 122 142 082 28 123 TARBELL INVESTMENT CO Max Lp Georges Tsai& Hilary&Yah Chu 1403 N Tustin Ave#380 9595 Wilshire Blvd #204 20352 Everglades Ln Santa Ana CA 92705 Beverly Hills CA 90212 Huntington Beach CA 92646 142 082 29 124 142 082 30 125 142 082 31 126 Richard Edwin Parks Ming Lee Ming Lee PO Box 568 1902 Clark St 1902 Clark St Cypress CA 90630 Galesburg IL 61401 Galesburg IL 61401 14208233 127 142 082 34 128 142 082 35 129 Gilbert&P el azar4, Sung Hong Choi Ronald Beard 16132 P i Lnt�p 6861 E Avenida De Santiag 3208 Ocean Blvd Huntin on each CA 92647 Anaheim Hills CA 92807 Corona Del Mar CA 92625 14208305 130% t JA 142 0 06 131 142 083 07 132 Ching Yuan Lin Yu Lin William Gregory III 6042 Kenwick Cir 6042 is it 7922 Stark St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Lin CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 083 08 133 142 083 09 134 142 083 10 135 Tommy Garland Eldon Willard Bagstad Tit Li 8886 Plumas Cir#1125b 901 Catalina Ave 15632 Dawson Ln Huntington Beach CA 92646 Seal Beach CA 90740 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 083 24 136 142 083 27 137 142 111 18 138 FIRESTONE TIRE&RUBBER CO Adel&Soad Salam Ronald &Eva-Marie Sher 50 Century Blvd 8942 Baywood Dr 7672 Edinger Ave Nashville TN 37214 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 111 27 139 142 111 28 140 142 111 32 141 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS WEST FED HUNTINGTON PARTNERSHIP Ronald Sher PO Box 4244 PO Box 19528 320 108th Ave NE#406 Torrance CA 90510 Irvine CA 92623 Bellevue WA 98004 142 111 33 142 14Z 111 143 142 111 37 144 14S Abby Sher ME Y& L A&cN BRIDGES AMERICA SHER LANE 320 108th Ave NE#406 18837 Brookhurst St#303 Bellevue WA 98004 Fountain Valley CA 92708 142 111 145 142 1 f 9 146 142 111 42 147 BRIbGF,S MER4Q.A SHER LANE ON OUGLAS WEST FED AMERICAN&L ASSN 18837 Bro urst S 303 PO 4244 PO Box 1048 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Torrance A 90510 Stockton CA 95201 142 112 05 148 142 112 08 149 142 112 09 150 Ismael Silva Jr. HUNTINGTON BEACH#1 %SKAGG HUNTINGTON BEACH#1 16101 Santa Barbara Ln 2716 Ocean Park Blvd 2716 Ocean Park Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92649 Santa Monica CA 90405 Santa Monica CA 90405 142 112 10 151 142 321 01 152 142 321 02 153 HUNTINGTON BEACH#1 PEDIGO PRODUCTS INC PEDIGO PRODUCTS INC 2716 Ocean Park Blvd 4000 SE Columbia Way 4000 SE Columbia Way Santa Monica CA 90405 Vancouver WA 98661 Vancouver WA 98661 142 321 15 154 142 331 12 155 142 331 13 156 FREEWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK Maria Elizabeth Evans Roger Stollenwerk 2032 La Colina Dr 7562 Volga Dr 10635 Angel Ave Santa Ana CA 92705 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Fountain Valley CA 92708 142 331 14 157 142 331 15 158 142 331 16 159 Michael Dresnick Catherine Andreasen Michael Andreasen 12 Calle De Princesa 7602 Volga Dr 217 22nd St#3 Coto De Caza CA 92679 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92648 142 331 1 160 142 331 18 161 142 331 19 Cathy orga �AA- VQ Theodore Gallo Charles liz h Gra% , Zntfin;ron Vl r 5302 Berkeley Ave 764 olg r Beach CA 92647 Westminster CA 92683 nting n Beach CA 92647 142 331 20 163 142 331 21 164 142 331 43 165 Doris Waterman GOLDEN THU Roy Batelli PO Box 2753 7672 Volga Dr PO Box 599 Costa Mesa CA 92628 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Newport Beach CA 92661 142 331 44 166 142 332 01 167 142 332 02 168 Norman Bender James&Susan Klutnick Haril Whetsell 10091 Beverly Dr 17582 Berlark Cir 629 Frankfort Ave Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 142 332 03 169 142 332 04 170 142 332 05 171 Stratton Matinas Kaly Warren Hazel Boeddeker 17081 Greentree Ln 864 Vallecito Dr 7621 Volga Dr#1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Ventura CA 93001 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 332 06 172 ti 142 332 07 173 142 332 08 174 Earl2ion n 50- Richard Setian Stephen Chase 761Dr 6202 Pacemont Dr 25 Eastlake Hun Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92604 142 332 09 175 142 332 10 176 142 33211 177 Stephen Chase Nahoko Tyone Wendall& Kaleope Meadows 25 Eastlake 7561 Volga Dr 7702 Duquesne PI Irvine CA 92604 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Westminster CA 92683 142 332 12 178 1423321130 179 0 142 332 14 180 Michael Dresnick NskyDeborah Radvansky 12 Calle De Princesa 7521 of r SAP 16141 Ganges Ln Trabuco Canyon CA 92679 Hu in on Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 33215 181 ` 142 332 16 182 11 332 183 William Susman Family Trust Commons-Long C OF H INGTON BEACH 3035 Country Club Dr 6352 Reubens Dr PO 190 Costa Mesa CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington each C 92648 142 341 03 184, 1W.101 142 341 10 185 4234 186 PERRY LTD LIABILITY CO Charles Palmer P Y LTD BILITY CO THE 15621 Beach Blvd 1701 Kings Rd 15621 ach Blv Westminster CA 92683 Newport Beach CA 92663 Westmins r CA 92 3 14234118 187 142 342 12 188 142 342 14 189 PE Y L BILITY CO SPIEKER PROPERTIES LP MEMORIAL HEALTH SERVICES 15621 ch BI 17320 Red Hill Ave#165 2801 Atlantic Ave Westminst CA 92683 Irvine CA 92614 Long Beach CA 90806 14234215 190 142 342 16 191 142 342 17 192 CAVAN ASS I S LT� U S L L C Bentall BENTALL U S PARTNERS 7767 Cent 7755 Center Ave#670 1551 N Tustin Ave#845 Huntingt n ach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Santa Ana CA 92705 142 34218 193 142 34219 194 142 472 02 195 FIMSA IN S ,9"1 eONE PACIFIC PLAZA TWO SEAWIND VILLAGE 245 S s les Ave#7t PO Box 428 PO Box 579 Pas?depdCA 91101 Dana Point CA 92629 Dana Point CA 92629 142 472 03 196 142 472 04 197 142 473 01 198 OLD WORLD OWNERS ASSN WEST COAST SOCCER LEAGUE IN C,1 OF HU TON BEACH 1685 E Lincoln Ave 7561 Center Ave PO Bo 0 Orange CA 92865 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington ch CA 9 48 142 474 01 199 142 474 02 200 142 474 03 201 Bern Bischof Josef Bischof Josef Bischof 8165 Prestwick Cir 7561 Center Ave#3 7561 Center Ave#3 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 474 04 202 142 474 05 203 142 474 06 204 Bill DeCarr Richard Lewis Gisela White 25572 Saddle Rock PI 7561 Center Ave#31 16835 Algonquin St#321 Laguna Hills CA 92653 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92649 142 474 07 205 142 474 08 206 142 474 09 207 Kent Schlick Verna Wise James Burgard 11622 Kathy Ln 7561 Center Ave#22 7521 Danube Dr Garden Grove CA 92840 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 474 10 208 142 474 11 209 142 474 12 210 Wen-Ping Chang Cheng Ping Chang Horst&Anna Zobel 765 Oakcrest Ave 3430 Honeybrook Ln 3337 Wyoming Cir Brea CA 92821 Diamond Bar CA 91765 Costa Mesa CA 92626 142 474 13 211 142 474 14 212 142 474 15 213 Garth Murphy Philip Larschan Elfriede Friesenhan 1767 W Orange Ave 7561 Center Ave#14 7561 Center Ave#15 Anaheim CA 92804 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 474 16 214 142 474 17 215 142 474 18 216 Daryl &Kathleen Wise James Thomas&Rosemarie Babet H Virgil Batesole 4080 Live Oak Ln 6966 Turf Dr 8 Tremount Way Yorba Linda CA 92886 Huntington Beach CA 92644T Laguna Niguel CA 92677 142 474 19 217, 2A6 1 4742 218 142 474 21 219 Manfred Eschenburg M d Esc burg Erwin Hermanns 7561 Center Ave#19 7561 ter Ave 19 9801 Sunstar Cir Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntingto each CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92646 142 474 22 220 142 474 23 221 142 474 24 222 Verna Wise Mildred&Adb Morrill III Irwin Weiss 7561 Center Ave#22 5131 V e 'o Ave ��� 7561 Center Ave#24 Huntington Beach CA 92647 West in er CA 92683 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 474 25 223 142 474 26 224 142 474 27 225 Glenn W 0 C er e,'lvl Frank Drechsler James&Rosemarie Haskett PO Box 9140 El Azul Cir 7561 Center Ave#27 Huntingforygeach CA 92647 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 474 28 226 142 474 29 227 142 474 30 228 Humberto Lopez Howard&Joanne Boulter Dolores Eitleman 622 S Evergreen Ave 16302 Magellan Ln 7561 Center Ave#30 Los Angeles CA 90023 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 474 31 229 142 474 32 230 142 474 33 231 Richard Lewis David &Yvonne Rofer Renate Quigley 7561 Center Ave#31 18433 Santa Yolanda Cir 5795 N Tropical Trl Huntington Beach CA 92647 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Merritt Island FL 32953 142 474 34 232 142 474 35 233 142 474 36 234 Ursel Petermann Michele Weiss Ursel Petermann 7561 Center Ave#36 7561 Center Ave#L4 7561 Center Ave#36 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 474 37 235, 142 474 236 142 474 39 237 Enuke&Lina Erbacger E ke&Lina acger Ursel Petermann 54235 Vallejo 542 Vallejo 7561 Center Ave#39 La Quinta CA 92253 La Quinta 92253 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 474 40 238 142 474 41 239 142 474 42 240 Alois Galbavy Catherine Babic M Cracchiolo Frank 16549 Mount Neota St 7561 Center Ave#5m 19712 Quiet Bay Ln Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92648 �J I 142 474 43 241 142 474 44 242 142 474 45 243 Amer Masri Rios Mercedes DeLos Erwin Hermanns 21 Crockett 7561 Center Ave#44a 9801 Sunstar Cir Irvine CA 92620 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92646 142 474 46 244 142 474 47 245 142 474 48 246 Alfred Skistimas FIRST GERMAN UNITED METH CHU L A Motors Downtown 7561 Center Ave#46 5274 Mount Royal Dr 3330 S Figueroa St Huntington Beach CA 92647 Los Angeles CA 90041 Los Angeles CA 90007 142 474 49 247 142 474 50 248 142 474 51 249 WEST COAST SOCCER LEAGUE IN Amer Masri Jack Graham Merritt 7561 Center Ave 21 Crockett 7561 Center Ave#52 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Irvine CA 92620 Huntington Beach CA 92647 142 474 52 250 142 511 01 251 142 511 02 252 Werner Stenzel EDINGER ASSOCIATES%TACO BE EDINGER ASSOCIATES 7561 Center Ave#53 PO Box 4349 518 Emerald Bay Huntington Beach CA 92647 Anaheim CA 92803 Laguna Beach CA 92651 142 511 03 25311.",25,7 1 51104 4 14251105 255 FREEWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK TOW FR AY IND�25 PARK H &F PARTNERSHIP 2032 La Colina Dr 2032 La li a Dr 412 W Levers PI Santa Ana CA 92705 Santa Ana 2705 Orange CA 92867 142 511 06 256 142 511 07 257 142 511 08 2581 2(00, uI Wayne Peterson Patricia Hawn LORGE CIRCLE LTD 16102 Gothard St 7409 Lorge Cir 2752 Walnut Ave Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Tustin CA 92780 142 511 259 1425ZC 0 260 142 11 11X 261 F WAY I STRIAL PARK R LE LTD LORG IRD 2032 L lina Dr 27 ut 2752 Wal t Santa Ana C 2705 Tusti 780 Tustin CA 92780 142 511 12 262 142 511 13 263 14Z-071-(0 3 74171 SMART&FINAL INC KILROY RLTY f=.ItA iu- a3 a- 524 Chapala St 2250 E Imperial Hwy q0 PW 1ZL'P Santa Barbara CA 93101 El Segundo CA 90245 q 4" wi►SW v-1-U vd•� Skc zo( BTU&W4 �it ls, G4 JDZ/Z 142 -�1 -03 q5 142. - 071 142 - oPZ - II ll3 ckawt�e. \ie., oV"e,eAUAVjTVawit`t DisivR� 10?0Vmr) T.evr� 3. Po $aX zcao 3 11 zz2- 1 w-c ?kw� qo?a WsaKI K&*fLe -W-L-TK vUl Gi-i ku., CA I a zl0S P o D9 X 3O°6 is to TYAa.0 W L Ct• 6a&*i drove, GA g2--&4o ))Q XV t ill, 461,1►a,Zis (005f".'s 14Z - 2- 33 Iz7 %Aho ` l lo�v+- s1fr Tr'3►gI 1 iqw k4l t7V• 010I btALgSul �'I gill;Los Alawut�, tG� t3 ellev u;c i WA 94 mi _42,-)7 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 7777 EDINGER AVE#100 7777 EDI R�c`�E#101 7777 EDI �#103 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGT G BEACH CA 92647 HUNGT GT BEACH CA 92647 o 'v OCCUPANT �( OCCUP J OCCUPAN 7777 EDINGE V 104 7777 1 R AVE#107 7777 AVE#10S HUNGTING N ACH CA 92647 H GT GTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 '�L c. , OCCUPAN ll0 OCCUPA W OCCUPAN vQ' 7777 ED GE VE#110 7777 AVE#111A 7777 G VE#112 HUN N N BEACH CA 92647 HU TING ON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 OCCUPA OCCUPANT J� OCCUPANT J 7777 NGE VE#113 7777�ED E E#114 7777E GE E#115 HU TIN N BEACH CA 92647 HU N BEACH CA 92647 HUN INGTON BEACH CA 92647 OCCUZER `� OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 7777 E #118 7777 EDI R #119 7777 E GE E#11SHUNGACH CA 92647 HUNG GT BEACH CA 92647 HU TIN ON BEACH CA 92647 OCCUPANT ` OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 7777 EDI R #120 7777 EDINGER AVE#128 7777E GE E#131c HUNG T GT BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HU IN ON BEACH CA 92647 V Q.! ' G . OCCUPA OCCUPANT �� OCCUPANT J 7777E GE AVE#149 7777 E GE E#151 7777E E E#16S HUN IN ON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTIN N BEACH CA 92647 HUN INGT N BEACH CA 92647 OCC NT V OCCUPANT `�� OCCUPANT J 77 EDI R AVE#171 7777 ED ER E#173 7777 ED ER E#175 HUNG GTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTINGT N BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 OCCUP T v� OCCUPANT OCCUPAN J 777 DIN RAVE#176 7777 ED E #178 7777E GE AVE#182 HUNGT TON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTING ON BEACH CA 92647 vap OCCUP OCCUP OCCUP 7777 E G AVE#1K 7777 EDI G AVE#1S 7777E IN AVE#200 HU TING ON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 OCCUPANT �l� OCCUPANT OCCUPAN 1I 7777 EDIN E#202 7777 EDIN R E#203 7777E AVE#211 HUNGTI N BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTI T BEACH CA 92647 HU I TON BEACH CA 92647 OCCUPANT vtN OCCUP T OGCU NT J 7777 EDI ENABEACH VE#213 7777 IN ER AVE#214 7777 DI ER AVE#215 HUNG CA 92647 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGT GTON BEACH CA 92647 OCCUP T OCCUP T OCCU 7777 IN RAVE#2W 7777 IN RAVE#3K 7777 E!�N ER AVE#57 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 �� • J� , 147-- 332.- Otp 4?2- OCCU N�EAVE OCCU NT ��" 777 D #6W 777 ED ER AVE#91 207-71 MZ"LdL" La44-0- HUNGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HU NGTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 IMP 142. - 331 - lq IS�Z 142- 331 - I- I OD 14Z - 332. - 15 �oQX lna�✓d- s{'i P.�' TIR. PA, i k, pl wl& TFL pe a�r►acE¢ 1 � - 84 g ��� �la�l l�. Dr• 75g 2 V-1 WYLL LM . u c ln,►Ma..v� Tw- L�o1�D� ► cpi q2 ze l�uvlt'1 �N t ,aGLt CPt PO DlDy- 4231 '� q 2�v 4-7 Rz$� 142- Z' IS IaJO 14Z- 34 Z.- 1$ 1�3 142- 4�� -23 221 ON2 �1��PI�- ftsbVl, 40 LL ) Itil l Sla t h YriAYY l 1� �laaa(� ?755 CW�X W,,iXS -i� �70 75(e1 C¢-hie-� fNL. 23 A,LLM v5t K.tc&. k, CA \1 pX vwv1 CA �tU,W(1 � b 2 0l Cal, CA 924 4-7 `?�S Real-7 142- 47�-25' 2-Z3 C Vx, 4,¢,v►v) W. ?sel "ky &va. ;�- aS �U4491" R21a 47 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B" MAILING LABELS -January 13, 1999 i President ;1 Hun on Harbor POA 10 FANS H.B.Chamber of Commerce Box John Miles 2100 Main Street,Suite 200 Suns each,CA 90742 19425 Castlewood Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Judy Legaa 2 William D.Holman 11 Sue Johnson Orange County Assoc.of Realtors PLC 19671 Quiet Bay Lane 25552 La Paz Road 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Laguna Hills,CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 P eat 3 Mr.Tom Zaaic 12 Edna Littlebury gos a Bo Chica New Urban West Gldn St Mob.Hm.Owners Lea. 16 Bo Chica Street,Suite 312 520 Broadway Ste. 100 11021 Magnolia Blvd Hun a ach,CA 92646 Santa Monica,CA 90401 Garden Grove,CA 92642 S et Beach Community Assoc. 4 Pres.,H.B.Hist Society 13 Pacific Coast Archaeological ] Pat 'es,President C/O Newland House Museum Society,Inc. Bos 5 19820 Beach Blvd P.O.Box 10926 un Be ,CA 90742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Attn:Jane Gothold I President 5 Community Services Dept. 14 ! County of Orange/EMA 9 Huntington Beach Tomorrow j Chairperson Michael M.Ruane;Dir. PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd. ! P.O.Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Julie Vandermost 6 Council on Aging 15 County of Orange/EMA BIA OC 1706 Orange Ave. Thomas Mathews 9 Executive Circle#100 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 P.O.Boa 4048 Irvine Ca 92714-6734 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 . I I i Ri Spicer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Department ] Seacliff HOA Orange County EMA 81 est ,12th Floor 19391 Shady Harbor Circle P.O.Box 4048 Los Aa es,CA 90017 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 927024-48 E.T.I.Corra1100 8 John Roe .161 County of Oraage/EMA ] Mary BeII Seacliff HOA Tim Miller 20292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 Surfdale Lane P.O.Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 927024048 John Scandura 9 Lou Maaaone 16 Planning Dir. Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HOA City of Costa Mesa 17492 Valeworth Circle 19821 Ocean Bluff Circle P.O.Box 1200 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Costa Mesa,CA 92628-1200 h:langel..phlbl PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B" MAILING LABELS - January 13, 1999 Planning Dir. 21 Dr.Duane Dishno 29 Country View Estates HOA 3 L City of Fountain Valley HB City Elementary School Dist Carrie Thomas 10200 Slater Ave. PO Box 71 6642 Trotter Drive Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92648 i Planning Director 22 Jerry Buchanan 29 Country View Estates HOA City of Westminster HB City Elementary School Dist Gerald Chapman 8200 Westminster Blvd. 20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shire Circle Westminster,CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Planning Director 23 James Jones 30 HB Hampton HOA City of Seal Beach Ocean View Elementary Keystone Pacific Prop.Mangmt Inc. 211 Eight St School district 16845 Von Ka—an Avenue,Suite 20 Seal Beach,CA 90740 17200 Pinehurst Lane Irvine,CA 92606 j Huntington Beach CA 92647 California Coastal Commission 24 Barbara Wmars' 31 1 Sally Graham Theresa Henry Westminster School District Meadowlark Area South Coast Area Office 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 5161 Gelding Circle 200 Oceaagate,loth Floor Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 California Coastal Commission 24 Patricia Koch 32 Cheryle Browning South Coast Area Office HB Union High School Disnct Meadowlark Area 200 Oceangate,loth Floor i 10251 Yorktown Avenue j 16771 Roosevelt Lane Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 . i Robert Joseph . 25 CSA 33 CA Coastal Communities,Inc. Caltrans District 12 730 El Camino Way#200 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 3347 Michelson Drive,Suite 100 Tustin,CA 92680 Irvine,CA 92614 Irvine,CA 92612-0661 I I for 126 Goldenwest College 34 Bolsa Chica Land Trust cal 'd Waste En£Agy. Attu.Fred Ovens Nancy Donovan O. He Care Agency 15744 Goldenwest St 4831 Los Patos P.O. a 35 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Santa Aa CA 9 02 New Growth Coordinator 27 OC County Harbors,Beach 35 Bolsa Chic!Land Trust' Huntington Beach Post Office and Parks Dept Paul Horgan,President 6771 Warner Ave. P.O.Box 4048 207-219t Street Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Marc Ecker 28 Huntington Beach Mall 36 SEHBNA Fountain Valley Atta.Pat Rogers-Laude 22032 Capistrano Lane Elementary School District 7777 Edinger Ave.#300 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-8309 17210 Oak Street . Huntington Beach CA 92647 Fountain Valley CA 92708 h.langeL•phlbl )ckway, City Clerk V.S.pc� untington Beach ,f the City Clerk I Box 190 J'U':i 2 2. j Beach,CA 92648 H NA.ET E 9 2 L: !^, vx -3/t)f3 A Vk 1927 136/2' 142 474 51 249 Jack Graham Merritt 7561 Center Ave#52 Huntington Beach CA 92647 T LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING )ckway, City Clerk untington Beach C;' USn I the City Clerk I Box 190 n Beach, CA 92648 C Ir!M ET E R 4 07 I - S-1 [ING 4f, a.-c=—A ?V-w 6a"� W egptvo,, CA q2-'&4C> RETURN T1 LEGAL NOTICE - P TO S E N D Kffi nu atI I i r,� To mu 0 [0,0 MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REQUESTING: Planning Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01/Zoning TO* Amendment No. 00-02 (The Crossings Specific Plan) TODAY'S DATE June 16, 2000 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: GC.� APPROVED BY: Ray Silver City Administrator 6/16/00 12:08 PM Connie ` City of Huntington ts:,, f; \t�LT°N U.S.POSrAc;E Office of the City Clerk a rr-, P.O. Box 190 �� y JUN22'00 !- 0 l�,70 ; Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r C A H METER,4 7R rl i. :xx. S.fi CH 927: 6� 3in0 142 474 11 209 SINGT Cheng Ping Chang l fir 3430 Honeybrook Ln �+""'"'"•. ��' Diamond Bar CA 91765 _ CHAN430 9176SLJ017 IB99 13 07/01/00 O z� FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SENDCHANG j 9 sDR 2eA ND AR CA 91 DIAMOND BAR CA 91765-36b:5 FC�UNTY Lp`` RETURN TO SENDER r� v LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING 't Connie Brockway, City Clerk 'T 0tv City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 5 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 A 927 06/23/00 14N71 53 7.0,73 4e MACERICH HUNTINGTON LIMITED ING N' �ta Wilsh e Blvd#700 ► Monica CA 90401 NT1 LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Ord Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 JU102'03 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -5 CA Vi CA 927 0&-23/010 107 771 09 8 ING Kory Tyodn 40, 5092 Bordeaux Ave Ke Irvine CA 92604 TYOD09a 9a&0410-47 IN IS 06/a7/00 RETURN T SENDER Rh- NO FORWARD ��AN F��� UNABI�E - - -RETURN QI/NTY E D E R 4;�-- LEM. r E BLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach K; 7.'%'A. id Office of the City Clerk P P.O. Box 190 A11122'00 J U. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Al H M-E T E:R 142 332 14 18 Deborah Radvansky 16141 Ganges Ln � TINGTpy Huntington Beach CA 926 7 L IN-Lj t-r US T N 1 L EGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING K 0 V, 11 11 111111111111fill fill 11111111111 111111IJ1111111 111111 1 If 111111 I Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach N cc °A1 u.S. Office of the City Clerk �`P.O. Box 190 �� 22'00 �:� 0 Huntington Beach,CA 92Wr30."- C H METER, 142 511 12 262 SMART&FINAL INC 524 Chapala St INGTQ,r Santa Barbara CA 93101 v SMAR5a4 931013005 1499 06 06/a7/00 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND SMART & FINAL INC S PO BOX 51a377 '•jam ��i=„Nv �` LOS ANGELES CA 90051-0377 � TY LEGAL NOTICE 3, .r &f Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �aG V ON U.S. Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 �" '_i JUH22'00 n �{ �f r< <; i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ""' lL"Q: Ca H METE?4 -'"'11 > x 3.H Cif 927 .6/23-100 142 083 10 135 Tit Li 15632 Dawson Ln INGTQ , Huntington Beach CA 92647 �L T(�Il Nasv-::..:�..- rea:r+srvr t 131 1 O' JE�DER �,1-_L_ _ --- -r' n 'r r`u... R� iQUNTY ��` LEGAL NOTICE— P I� I IG _ p ' . . , . . -__ .__'�'' I�,I,,,,I,I,II,,,I„li:,l,,,,lll is�t�il�:i.ii�;►�.�lii:�sF�i.itis� Fii.. l.i:.i �� Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach G22'�G u.s.Office of the City ClerkP.O. Box 190 ';�6' cHuntington Beach, CA 92648 /'' ors 0 ` � Or A '9e-7 06/2/00 142 083 07 132 �vNTIN6tpr William Gregory III 7922 Stark St 9y Huntington Beach CA 92647 RE i ri - NTI LEGAL NOT EIC`IRING 11 it l ili l ill i i `j i ii it i ii: il ,ii 1 i t. .,••..,...::r.'.,-',�,i, ,.n.'-p,���� 1 ii3 3 itliti t4 1 3fi. { ililli ! 111Si{ �{ !{ 11 rit. !t3 tli!( Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �;s � U.S.r°"$"`'` LU Office of the City Clerk_ - r P.O. Box 190 „ ) JU J22'00 ��� ' �J A Huntington Beach,CA 92648 jJj�(/ Cr 7 7 142 111 32 141 Ronald Sher INGTp , 320 108th Ave NE#406 Bellevue WA 98004 NOT o s CAM AS AD ; t u w -------- ---limal.E RMIRM To LEGAL L .NEARING Ta � L�`.+�►�'a��3���.� 111111{III1iII11111 oil 11L11ItIi{illlJ1111ll�1111 till ItIII{II , Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 16 °^V Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 ,�'_ JOP122'00 ; , r 4 J Huntington Beach, CA 92648 w(3 ti 1 -- J tZ fT y G A H METER $.H Cfi tab/c3i'U4 14211133 142 ��NjIN6Ta1' Abby Sher 320 108th Ave NE#406 Bellevue WA 98004 NOT hS CD -_ - i-k T GAL N ,cr-. P C.HEARING yy J ) J --^•+�+.++�.....,..._._...._.,,, •7 •3.1� .rc�a 5°c�a/C.11' Cl l�,I1,Ul1�1111it't Ill 1111Ill„1,1'1I1�,1�I1 fill 11,IIttlt,lill Connie Brockway, City Clerk e City of Huntington BeachOffice of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190U Huntington Beach, CA 92648H METER,4,,"V?.-?l *t a�ac S 14 rf.+ 927 ryc3/�30 142 331 12 155 Maria Elizabeth Evans 7562 Volga Dr � gIN6TO,y Huntington Beach CA 92647 9 s RETURN FA :TURNit's.:_aTO SEP�DEiR n. ccunro�i E:T NTY LEGAL NO P1�tiI1RING /�� Il�tit. -i+W-SM11rr�`t�_riM+aprxs Ill titEl?�i�11111111{11{1111i113111�t�lS� lfilStflillilll�lt� ��� Connie Brockway, City Clerk U.S.j,f Q City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk CN'2-D) Ju L 5 P.O.Box 190 u.V3 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 %-tTURNED 'L a; A TOFR Nm. ETER S Vj 11t)T IYELV V5 142 111 27 139 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS WEST FED ING PO Box 4244 11 Torrance CA 90510 T1 HEARING LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC Connie Brockway, City Clerk 0 A, City of Huntington Beach A, Office of the City Clerk 5 J!" -21r")(i S Vo P.O. Box 190 :3 41 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 C 14 08308 133 Tommy Garland ING 8886 Plumas Cir#1 125b MA Huntington Beach CA 92646 �OUNTI LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING - • r P ....,....fit.-.•,►•..`.�. V.'"�. ._... ,�4y�'� _ ,. .,��-�,. • - :fir .�_. � _. .ti i,. '� --- -- ;'i'A'�" � .. .. .. .. _ Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach w�:. LJUN22- n�$°,,..._..•rsr�<. �! n n' 11.5.Y't�S?AtiFOffice of the City Clerk P.O. BOX 190 _ ' s �v i e ..: .� n„ 'CC i' S Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E A i.. 00 f'-0 o.� c� 0.1c"it "d R, C CHECKED i:10pk .' S.PA rA 927 05i23i00 -142-082-22 120 IM6Tpr Shurley Hirshberg � IMP Palm Springs CA 92264 ! AV uMTy LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING tf 1 I )J 1 1+r 1 1 1i 1 1i 'j'2���01�1 I ltt�llatillti�►ttirt��tr�t��rt:rrtif111tt��ltllr�trflrttrtlr!! Jane James The Crossings at Huntington Beach - Specific Plan No. 13 Cit of Huntington Beach FCity of Huntington Beach ;developme,ntAgency M V# > HUNTINGTON BEACH Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-0 1 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-02 • Amend zoning from CG and CG-FP2 to Specific Plan No. 13 • Establish zoning, development standards, and architectural guidelines to govern future development 9 Req�ire Regional Commercial uses 4 No development proposed at this time The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 Jane James B ac groun • Hun ington Center built in 1960s • Thrived in 1970s-'80s; obsolete in 1990s • General Plan update 1996 - Regional Commercial with Specific Plan Overlay • Elim nate large scale boxes, create highly artic ilated facades, convey visual relat onship to street, exterior periphery to contain shops, restaurants, display windows, and include public art Bay • Ma erich began Specific Plan pro ess in March 1998 • Ezr low Company purchased site No ember 1999; excluding approx. 13 cres owned by Montgomery Wa ds The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 2 Jane James S e ific Plan No. 13 - Four Sections • Introduction: Section One —P irpose and Intent —ALithority and Procedure —State Mandated Requirements =ections c Plan No. 13 - Four • Implementation: Section Two —Site Plan Review — Environmental Determination —R�quest for Deviation —Specific Plan Amendment The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 3 Jane James Specific Plan No. 13 - Four Sections (cont'd.) • Development Concept: Section Three —General Development/Conceptual Plans —Open Space and Pedestrian Walkways Spe ific Plan No. 13 - Four Sections (cont'd.) —Design Guidelines • Italian Village Character • Site Planning Guidelines • Common Area Guidelines • Architectural Guidelines • Landscape Guidelines • Signage Guidelines The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 4 Jane James e ific Plan No. 13 - Four JL Sections cont'd. • Development Regulations: Section Four — D velopment Standards — P rmitted Uses • Appendices Is- • n -june 20, 2000 PC i Lction • Issu s Matrix - Attachment No. 2 to RCA • Amortization Schedule — D ems structures and some uses non- conforming — R quires termination of non Regional C , mmercial uses within 3 years — R quires remodel, facade i provements matching Italian Village within 3 years The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 5 Jane James Issues (cont'd) • Automotive Repair — Montgomery Wards requests auto repair — Staff recommends none • Not Regional Commercial • Drivle-Through Restaurants — E Izralow requests drive-throughs — Staff recommends none Issues (conk'd� • Not appropriate for gateway/entry • Typically fast food, not Regional Comm'I; detract from premium restaurants • Corporate design not Italian Village • Trendy uses may convert to less desirable The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 6 Jane James Issues (cont'd) • Specific Plan Exhibits — P deleted Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan, Floor Plans, etc. — PC recommends revising exhibits to depict Montgomery Wards' footprint — Staff recommends retaining exhibits (except Project Description) and revise fc r Wards Plan ing Commission Action - une 20, 2000 • p roved with Modifications (See Matrix-Attach. No. 2) —A ortization Schedule —A to Repair as Regional Comm'I — Drive-Throughs as Regional C mm'I w/ modified conditions —S ecific Plan Exhibits —Minor Language Amendments The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 7 Jane James Videotape Presentation tzf Reeo-m endation • Ratify City Admin/Executive Director Action for Specific Plan • App ove Specific Plan No. 13 with Moc ifications — D Mete Auto Repair and Drive-Throughs — Include Exhibits — Consistent with Regional Commercial goals and policies — G nsistent with Economic Development g l als and policies to stimulate business The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 8 Jane James oaf 'Recommendation cont' -O — Identifies unique Design Standards and Architectural Guidelines; requires future development of Italian Village atmosphere consistent with Urban Design Element — Identifies infrastructure necessary to s rve future development in compliance w th Circulation, Growth Management, PZlic Facilities and Public Services, and Utilities Elements S a Reco- m-mendation-Fcon-t )j - — Development and design regulations s ipulate implementation of an exciting, vibrant, and high quality architectural style and design theme for future regional shopping, dining, and entertainment complex 0 HUNTINGTON BEACH The Crossings at Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13 9 " 'TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 30TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010 PHONE 213.385.8000 • FAX 213.385.0595 July 5, 2000 HAND DELIVERED AND SENT VIA FASCIMILE (714)375-5087 ^', City Council ~ City of Huntington Breach n 2000 Main Street ` Huntington Beach, California 92648 ' Ci Re: City Council Meeting on Tuesday. July 5, 200 Re Adoption of the Specific Plan for the Huntington Center Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach: This Firm represents Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc. (`Burlington") in connection with the above-referenced matter. As you may know, Burlington is a tenant in what is commonly known as the "Huntington Center Mall" ("Huntington Center"). Huntington Center is owned by Huntington Center Associates, which is a subsidiary of Ezralow Retail Properties and The Ezralow Company(collectively referred to as "HCA"). Today,the City Council will consider whether to adopt the Specific Plan as the zoning for the entire Huntington Center. Burlington objects to the adoption of the Specific Plan on the grounds that certain City administrators and officials for the City of Huntington Beach (the "City") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach(the "Redevelopment Agency")engaged in a scheme and course of conduct wherein they acted outside the scope of their authority, including without limitation, declaring the Specific Plan to be a"City-initiated project,"without giving any notice to Burlington(and other interested parties), and without following the City's own rules and regulations relating to the prol2er procedures when seeking to establish the Specific Plan as the new zoning for Huntington Center. In addition, Burlington objects to the Specific Plan because it is in direct contravention to the Redevelopment Act and established law, and which, if passed, seeks zoning which calls for the demolition of Burlington's leased premises, which, therefore, amounts to a"taking"of property without"due process"of law. The events and circumstances that led to the City application for adoption of the Specific Plan has caused Burlington to file two lawsuits -- one in federal court and the other in state court--against the City and Redevelopment Agency, and HCA,respectively. Briefly stated,the Redevelopment Agency and HCA have conspired to engage is a scheme and course of conduct to strip Burlington of its rights as a tenant in the Huntington Center unless Burlington agreed to a rent increase of almost four times that for which it is required to pay under the Burlington Lease. M N�Q\_rw City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 2 The purpose of the letter is familiarize the City Council with the chronology of events which led Burlington to seek redress from the courts in an effort to preserve and maintain its status as a tenant in Huntington Center. The first suit(as explained in further detail below) was filed against the owner/landlord' of Huntington Center for Breach of the Burlington Lease. The second suit was filed in Federal Court against the City and Redevelopment Agency. Both lawsuits concern the redevelopment of Huntington Center and the combined efforts of HCA and the Redevelopment Agency to strip Burlington of its long-term leasehold interest as a tenant in Huntington Center. Finally, as further discussed below;this letter with apprise the City Council of the legal ramifications and liabilities that the City and Redevelopment Agency will incur in the event this particular Specific Plan is adopted by the City Council, as well as the legal ramifications and liabilities which the City and Redevelopment Agency have exposed themselves to as a result of the June 5, 2000 memorandum authored by Ray Silver. It is not Burlington's intention to prevent the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Burlington wants to be a part of it. When Burlington first became a tenant of Huntington Center, it was assured by Former Landlord that Huntington Center would undergo redevelopment with the participation of Burlington. Indeed, Burlington's lease expressly preserved Burlington's tenancy in the event of redevelopment. In a June 22, 2000 memorandum, Tom Livengood, Planning Commissioner for the City, stated it best when he wrote that a Specific Plan should be adopted that"provides more flexibility and provides some protection for the three (3) existing anchor stores." Mr. Livengood further stated that the Specific Plan which calls for "[o]nly 80,000 square feet . . . for existing anchors" sends"[t]he message, no room for Burlington or Wards."' The City Council should not reward HCA and the Redevelopment Agency for their surreptitious backroom negotiations, but rather instruct and direct the Redevelopment Agency to work with Burlington, Montgomery Ward,' and HCA in order to reach common ground as to how each respective tenant, as well as HCA and the citizenry of Huntington Beach, will benefit from the redevelopment of Huntington Center. In the alternative,the City Council decision should be continued in order to consider the legal issues raised in this letter. ' Huntington Center Associates (HCA") is the owner/landlord of Huntington Center. 2 Mr. Livengood's June 22, 2000 memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and is also attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit"16". ' Burlington joins and concurs with the objections raised by Montgomery Ward in its letter to the City Council. City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 3 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS IF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS THE SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUNDFACTS.............................................................................................................6 BurlingtonLease...............................................................................................................6 Ezralow and HCA Purchase Huntington Center...............................................................7 Burlin on's Negotiations With HCA...............................................................................8 Redevelopment Agency and HCA Hold Secret Closed Door Meetings to Discuss Redevelopment................................................................................9 The Redevelopment Agency Gets Involved in the Redevelopment of Huntington Center...............................................................................9 HCA Elects to Raze Burlington's Demised Premises.....................................................I I Burlington Files Lawsuit Against Ezralow and HCA to Enforce Lease.........................I I City Administrators and Officials Interfere With Burlington's Lawsuit.........................12 I. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT............................................12 A. Overview of the California Community Redevelopment Act.............................12 B. The Redevelopment Agency Has Failed to Provide Burlington with a Reasonable Opportunity to Participate in the Redevelopment ofHuntington Center...........................................................................................13 II. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S ACTIONS AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA..................................................15 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 4 A. The Redevelopment Agency's Actions and the Specific Plan Are In Violation of Equal Protection, Substantive Due Process and Procedural Due Process as Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution...................................................................................15 B. The Redevelopment Agency's Actions Amount to Tortious Conduct Under California's Statutory and Decisional Law..........................................................17 1. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfered With Burlington's Contractual Relationship With HCA..................................17 2. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfered With Burlington's Prospective Economic Relationship with HCA..................18 3. City Administrators and Officials Conspired to Induce HCA to Breach its Contractual Relationship With Burlington.............................19 III. EZRALOW'S RESPONSE TO THE RFP CANNOT BE LEGALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT PROPOSES A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT VIOLATES THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND ESTABLISHED LAW............................................................19 A. The Specific Plan Is Not in Compliance with the General Plan..........................20 B. The Specific Plan Does Not Comply with State Law and Municipal Code Requirements for Specific Plans..........................................................................20 C. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Will Violate the California Environmental Ouality Act, an Environmental Impact Report Must Be Prepared......................21 1. The City must prepare and certify an EIR for the Proposed SpecificPlan............................................................................................21 a. Overview of CEOA.....................................................................21 b. Fair Argument Test Requires an EIR..........................................23 2. The Specific Plan Is a Project under CEOA............................................24 3. The City and the Redevelopment Agency Must Undertake CEOA Review Before Proceeding with the Adoption of the Specific Plan........24 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 5 4. The Elements of Tiering Are Not Met.....................................................25 5. _The City and the Redevelopment Agency Have Unlawfully"Split" the Project for Purposes of Environmental Review.................................26 6. The Adoption of the Specific Plan As Currently Contemplated Without Environmental Review Would Unlawfully Defer EnvironmentalReview............................................................................28 7. The Adoption of the Specific Plan As Currently Contemplated without Environmental Review Will Result in an Unlawful Failure to Undertake a Cumulative Analysis of the Project's Environmental Impacts................29 IV. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................29 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 6 BACKGROUND FACTS The Huntington Center is part of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan"), which was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City on or about December 16, 1996 by Resolution No. 3343. "Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project,"dated August 1996 ("Owner Participation Rules"), were adopted as required by California Community Redevelopment Act to govern the participation of property owners in connection with redevelopment under the Redevelopment Plan. Burlington Lease On April N, 1995, Burlington entered into a long-term lease agreement ("Burlington Lease")with MCA Huntington Associates, L.P. ("Former Landlord") whereby Burlington would occupy 133,500 square feet of space as a tenant in a portion of Huntington Center for a term of thirty(30)years. In addition, Burlington has other property rights pursuant to certain Reciprocal Easement Agreements ("REA"). At the time the Burlington Lease was being negotiated, Former Landlord advised Burlington that Huntington Center would undergo redevelopment in the near future, and that the Redevelopment Agency would be involved in the redevelopment because Huntington Center was located within a City designated Redevelopment Project Area. With that in mind,the Burlington Lease was specially drafted to include certain provisions addressing Burlington's rights in the event Landlord elected to redevelop Burlington's demised premises. In particular,the Burlington Lease provides that Landlord reserves the right at any time during the term of the Burlington Lease to renovate,reconfigure and/or modernize Huntington Center, including Burlington's structure. The lease further states that Burlington shall have the right to approve the conceptual design(the"Design") of the reconfigured Huntington Center in the event Landlord elected to raze Burlington's structure. The following lease provision sets forth the procedures to be followed by both Burlington and Landlord in the event Landlord elects to redevelop Burlington's demised premises: Landlord shall, at its sole cost and expense, prepare and deliver to Tenant a conceptual design (the "Design") for the reconfigured Shopping Center showing the approximate location of the New Premises as well as the location of other buildings and other improvements to be located in the reconfigured Shopping Center. Tenant shall have the right to approve the Design of the reconfigured Shopping Center including the location of the New Premises which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If Tenant City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 7 shall not approve the Design,Tenant and Landlord shall use their best efforts to cooperate and agree on all of the modifications necessary to obtain the approval of Tenant to the Design, and Landlord's project architect(the"Center Architect")shall promptly revise the Design to incorporate all such modifications which are mutually acceptable to Landlord and Tenant. In the event Landlord and Burlington(despite their best efforts) are unable to agree upon the Design for the reconfigured Huntington Center including the location of Burlington's structure, Article XVII of the Burlington Lease provides for arbitration of all "Unresolved Issues". The lease states,in pertinent part,that: The Unresolved Issues shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration as follows: Landlord and Tenant shall each within twenty (20) days of receipt of the Center Architect's Notice designate one person, as hereinafter provided, to represent it as an arbitrator. The arbitrators so appointed by Landlord and Tenant shall within ten(10) days following the aforesaid twenty (20) day period designate one additional person as arbitrator to the end that the total number of arbitrators shall be three(3). The appointment of all arbitrators under this Section shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the other party. Any person designated as an arbitrator shall be knowledgeable and experienced in the development and design of regional shopping centers, but shall not be in the employment of either Landlord or Tenant, directly, indirectly or as an agent,except in connection with the arbitration then proceeding. The arbitrators shall meet or otherwise confer as deemed necessary by the arbitrators to resolve the Unresolved Issues and a decision of a majority of the arbitrators will be final and binding upon Landlord and Tenant. The decision of the arbitrators shall be in writing and shall be made as promptly as possible after the designation of the third (3`d) arbitrator, but in no event later than thirty(30)days from the date of the designation of the third(3`d)arbitrator. A copy of the decision of the arbitrators shall be signed by at least two(2)of the arbitrators and given to each party in the manner provided in Section 2 1.10 of this lease for the giving of notice. Ezralow and HCA Purchase Huntington Center Prior to August 1999, Huntington Center was owned by Macerich Huntington Limited Partnership ("Macerich"). Macerich purchased the Huntington Center from Former City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 8 Landlord. On or about August 5, 1999, The Ezralow Company and Ezralow Retail Properties (collectively referred to as "Ezralow")entered into an agreement with Macerich for the purchase of Huntington Center. Prior to closing of that transaction, Ezralow assigned all of its rights and obligations under that purchase agreement to HCA, a subsidiary of Ezralow. After the assignment from Ezralow, HCA proceeded with the purchase transaction, which closed on or about November 16, 1999.4 Ezralow and HCA acquired Huntington Center for the purpose of redeveloping it into a retail and entertairunent center pursuant to prospective redevelopment agreements with the Redevelopment Agency. HCA seeks to redevelop Huntington Center with the help of Ezralow, which is in the business of developing commercial real estate. As indicated in the Specific Plan, HCA's redevelopment plan will require the demolition and removal of much of the existing improvements on the site, including Burlington's demised premises. Burlin on's Negotiations With HCA In the later part of 1999,Douglas Gray,the President of Ezralow Properties, sent to Burlington a large 100 scale preliminary site plan for the proposed redevelopment of Huntington Center. The plan proposed Burlington's participation as a tenant in the redeveloped Huntington Center. On or about September 23, 1999, Mr. Gray, on behalf of Ezralow, contacted Burlington in connection with opening discussions regarding Burlington's interest in participating as a tenant of the redeveloped center. Mr. Gray offered Burlington space within the redeveloped shopping center only if Burlington leased space at a cost of$22 per square foot,plus taxes, CAM charges, and insurance. In addition,Mr. Gray's proposal sought to decrease Burlington's space within the redeveloped mall by approximately 50,000 square feet. Notwithstanding Mr. Gray's offer to increase Burlington's rent to $22 per square foot, the Burlington Lease states that Burlington's rent shall remain the same ($6 per square foot which includes CAM charges) in the event Landlord elects to raze or redevelop Burlington's demised premises. In particular, the Burlington Lease states, in pertinent part, that: The Fixed Minimum Rent and Common Area Costs for the New Premises shall be the same as the Fixed Minimum Rent and Common Area Costs applicable to the Existing Premises. Ezralow's offer was not acceptable to Burlington due to the proposed rent increase of almost four times that of the rent provided by the Burlington Lease and the proposed 4 Pursuant to that transaction, HCA purchased all right, title, and interest of Macerich in and to the land on which Huntington Center is built and the improvements located on such land, and HCA was assigned all right,title, and interest of Macerich as landlord under the leases in effect for Huntington Center. One such lease is the Burlington Lease. City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 9 decrease in Burlington's square footage. Accordingly, Burlington rejected Ezralow's offer. On or about November 1999, Burlington requested that Ezralow and HCA deliver to Burlington any proposed redevelopment plans concerning the redevelopment of Huntington Center or proposed alterations of Burlington's demised premises. Ezralow and HCA, however, refused to deliver such plans. In addition, HCA refused to consult with Burlington concerning the nature of the plans being submitted by HCA to the Redevelopment Agency. Redevelopment Agency and HCA Hold Secret Closed Door Meetings to Discuss Redevelopment The Redevelopment Agency, HCA, and Ezralow held several secret closed door meetings relating to HCA's purchase and redevelopment of Huntington Center. One such meeting occurred on or about November 15, 1999,the day before HCA actually took title to Huntington Center. No tangible evidence (e.g., minutes)were kept of said meetings, even though the Brown Act requires that public entities keep a record of any meetings with third parties relating to the business of the public entity. Mr. Murray Kane, of Kane Ballmer& Berkman was present at this meeting. Burlington was not invited,nor was it informed at the time that such a meeting was going to take place. In December, 1999, Burlington met with Mr. Gray and other representatives of Ezralow in order to discuss redevelopment of Huntington Center as well as Burlington's location within the shopping center. Mr. Gray advised Burlington that if it did not accept Ezralow's rent increase from $6 to $22 per square foot,the Redevelopment Agency has assured Ezralow and HCA that Burlington's leasehold interest would be condemned. Mr. Gray further stated that Burlington had no redevelopment rights once the Redevelopment Agency was brought in to condemn Burlington's lease. Simply put,unless Burlington accepted Ezralow's extortionate rent increase, the Burlington Lease--which preserves Burlington's tenancy in the event the shopping center undergoes redevelopment--would be condemned by the Redevelopment Agency. As alleged in Burlington's federal lawsuit against the City and the Redevelopment Agency, Ezralow made such threats after it received assurance from the Redevelopment Agency that Burlington's leasehold interest would be condemned. From the time period of December 1999 to the present, Ezralow has cut off all communications with Burlington, and refuses to abide by the provisions set forth in the Burlington Lease. The Redevelopment Agency Gets Involved in the Redevelopment of Huntington Center On or about March 3, 2000,the Director of Economic Development for the City of Huntington Beach sent a Request For Proposal ("RFP")to all persons or entities that qualified as an owner within Huntington Center. The RFP's requested that said owners submit Statements of Interest and Requests for Development Proposals in connection with entering into a Owner City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 10 Participation Agreement("OPA")with a qualified owner.' Within the time required by the RFP, Burlington submitted to the Redevelopment Agency its Statement of Interest and Response to the RFP (`Burlington Response"). HCA also submitted a response to the RFP by a letter from their attorneys, Whitman Breed Abbott& Morgan LLP, by letter dated May 2, 2000 ("HCA Response"), which included as its alleged redevelopment concept the City of Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13, entitled"The Crossings at Huntington Beach" (the"Specific Plan"). Prior to HCA submitting the HCA Response, HCA submitted an application to the City for the establishment of the new Specific Plan as the zoning for the entire Huntington Center. This application is dated March 31, 2000, but, oddly, acknowledged in the"Official Use Only"box as received by the City on March 30, 2000 and distributed by the City on March 16, 2000. The City's Planning Commission held study sessions on May 9, 2000 and May 30,2000 to consider the Specific Plan, and a formal Planning Commission hearing was held on Tuesday, June 13, 2000, which was continued to a special Planning Commission hearing that was held on June 20, 2000. Burlington received written notice -- in which HCA is referenced as the "applicant"for the Specific Plan--of a Planning Commission hearing for Tuesday,June 13, 2000. However, on June 5, 2000, Ray Silver, City Administrator and Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, unilaterally declared by memorandum dated June 5, 2000, that the City and the Redevelopment Agency were the"applicants" for the Specific Plan because it was a "city-initiated project." Despite the fact that Burlington has operated its business in Huntington Center since 1995,under one of the proposed Specific Plan exhibits, Burlington's building is excluded from the new Huntington Center. The RFP that was sent to Burlington does not mention the ' Specific Plan and, rather, requests that any submission in response to the RFP provide for a redevelopment concept for the site which includes a"[d]escription of proposed uses and the arrangement of these uses." Neither the City, nor the Redevelopment Agency, nor HCA ever contacted Burlington in connection with the development of the draft Specific Plan even though HCA is obligated to seek Burlington's approval in connection with any proposed redevelopment or razing of Burlington's demised premises. ' Section 200F of the Owner Participation Rules defines "Owner"as "any person, persons, corporation, association,partnership, or other entity holding recorded fee title to or a long-term lease of real property in the Project Area for so long as such Owner hold such title or long-term lease." City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 11 HCA Elects to Raze Burlington's Demised Premises On or about March 20, 2000, HCA submitted to the Redevelopment Agency a Specific Plan 12 which showed that Burlington's demised premises would be razed and that Burlington would no longer be a part of the redeveloped Huntington Center. On or about March 31, 2000, HCA submitted an application with the Planning Commission for the establishment of the new Specific Plan as the zoning for the entire Huntington Center. Thereafter, and starting on or about April 4, 2000, combined with numerous letters and requests in writing, during April and May, 2000, Burlington undertook to obtain as much information as possible from the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Such information included a request for information as to any meetings,notices,plans submitted, and documentation relating to Huntington Center which the Redevelopment Agency was required to produce upon request, as required under the Brown Act. The Redevelopment Agency,however, engaged in a scheme and course of conduct to conceal documents specifically requested by Burlington and failed to disclose scheduled meetings between the Redevelopment Agency and Ezralow in relation to the redevelopment of Huntington Center, including,but not limited to, intentionally not informing Burlington of a Staff Meeting on April 13, 2000, a Planning Commission meeting(or sometimes referred to as Study Sessions)dated May 9,2000, and a Design Review Board Meeting on June 1, 2000. In addition,the Redevelopment Agency intentionally withheld and continues to withhold documents which were requested by Burlington. Burlington Files Lawsuit Against Ezralow and HCA to Enforce Lease On or about May 24,2000, Burlington filed a lawsuit against HCA and Ezralow in the Superior Court of Orange County--Central Justice Center, for breach of the Burlington Lease. The lawsuit alleged that Ezralow and HCA were in breach of the Burlington Lease when it refused to deliver to Burlington conceptual plans in connection with the redevelopment of Huntington Center, and when it submitted development plans to the Redevelopment Agency without seeking Burlington's approval to said plans. In addition,the complaint sought injunctive relief in order to prevent Ezralow and HCA from submitting plans that have not been approved by Burlington. On June 1, 2000, Burlington gave notice to Ezralow and HCA that Burlington would seek ex partteb relief from the court in order to obtain a temporary restraining order to 6 All parties appeared on June 2, 2000 but the judge assigned to the case was unavailable. The matter was put over to the following Wednesday June 7,2000 at the request of Ezralow. The judge heard the ex parte on June 7, 2000. City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 12 prevent Ezralow and HCA from submitting development plans and zoning applications relating to the razing of Burlington's demised premises without seeking Burlington's approval to said plans. HCA represented to the court that it was no longer the applicant for the Specific Plan, but that the Redevelopment Agency and the City were the new applicants. The judge requested that the Agency provide a supplemental declaration stating that it was the new applicant. City Administrators and Officials Interfere With Burlington's Lawsuit In anticipation that a temporary restraining order would be granted by the court due to the fact that Ezralow submitted a development plan that was in contravention to the Burlington Lease, on June 5, 2000, Ray Silver,the City Administrator and Executive Director of the Agency, wrote a memorandum wherein he, in his capacity as the City Administrator, declared that the Redevelopment Agency and the City would be the applicants for the Specific Plan which was initially submitted by HCA.' After considering Mr. Silver's memorandum and the accompanying declaration of Mr. Zelefsky,the Court deemed Burlington's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to be moot considering that HCA was no longer the applicant. Mr. Silver's June 5, 2000 memorandum was the impetus for Burlington's lawsuit filed in federal court. The claims for relief sought in the lawsuit against the City and Redevelopment Agency are described in detail in Section II below. I. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT. A. Overview of the California Community Redevelopment Act. The California Community Redevelopment Act(Health and Safety Code, sections 33000, et seq.) ("Redevelopment Act")was established to provide local officials with the ability to form redevelopment agencies that would be responsible for the planning and implementation of programs designed to rehabilitate blighted areas in American cities. The fundamental documents governing a redevelopment agency's activities is the redevelopment plan. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the redevelopment plan should be a very general document,providing the redevelopment agency with great flexibility to accommodate changing market conditions, development opportunities and the desires and needs of owners to participate in the redevelopment program. Co=of Santa Cruz v. City of Watsonville, 177 Cal. App. 3d 831 (1985); see also, In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal. 2d 21 (1964). ' Attached as Exhibit`B"is a true and correct copy of the June 5, 2000 memo authored by Mr. Silver. City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 13 As noted in County of Santa Cruz v. City of Watsonville, supra, at 841: By exercising certain of its powers to implement redevelopment, a redevelopment agency may induce private investment in an area. The success of any redevelopment project is dependent upon whether private lenders,developers,owners, and tenants can be persuaded to participate in the process. Thus, a redevelopment agency is unique among public entities since in order to achieve its objective of eliminating blight it must rely upon cooperation with the private sector. Redevelopment is also a process which occurs over a period of years. These realities dictate that a redevelopment plan be written in terms that enhance a redevelopment agency's ability to respond to market conditions, development opportunities and the desires and abilities of owners and tenants. The Redevelopment Agency's power to implement redevelopment, however, does not give the Agency carte blanche authority to set aside constitutional guarantees of"due process of law,"nor does it give the Redevelopment Agency plenary power to stray from its own rules and regulations which govern redevelopment. B. The Redevelopment Agency has Failed to Provide Burlington With a Reasonable Opportunity to Participate in the Redevelopment of Huntington Center. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33339, a redevelopment plan must include a provision for participation by owners conditioned upon their agreeing to develop or rehabilitate their property in conformance with the redevelopment plan. Health and Safety Code section 33339 provides, in relevant part: Every redevelopment plan shall provide for participation in the redevelopment of property in the project area by the owners of all or party of such property if the owners agree to participate in the redevelopment in conformity with the redevelopment plan adopted by the legislative body for the area. In addition, section 33380 of the Health and Safety Code provides that: An agency shall permit owner participation in the redevelopment of property in the project area in conformity with the redevelopment plan adopted by the legislative body for the area. Moreover,while a redevelopment plan is not required to have provisions granting City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 14 priority to current business owners of the property subject to redevelopment,pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33339.5,the redevelopment agency is required to adopt rules for owner participation and for preferences to businesses prior to the adoption of the redevelopment plan. Section 33339.5 states,in pertinent part: Every redevelopment agency shall extend reasonable preference to persons who are engages in business in the project area to reenter in business within the redeveloped area if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed by the redevelopment plan. Indeed, section 302 of the Owner Participation Rules, which were adopted by the Redevelopment Agency, mandates that"Business Occupants engaged in business in the Project Area shall be extended reasonable preference to reenter in business within the redeveloped area if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed by the Plan and these Rules." The Redevelopment Agency, however, has failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for Burlington to participate in the redevelopment of Huntington Center in spite of the fact that Burlington has requested a right to participate in such redevelopment. As stated above, on March 3, 2000,the Redevelopment Agency sent out its RFP to Burlington and other owners and tenants located within the Mall. The deadlines for the owners and tenants to submit a Statement of Interest and Development Proposal in response to the RFP were April 17, 2000 and May 2, 2000,respectively. In accordance with the time limits set forth in the Redevelopment Agency's RFP, Burlington submitted a Statement of Interest by April 17, 2000—expressing its interest in participating in the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Prior to and during this time, however, the City and the Redevelopment Agency were having meetings with HCA and Ezralow regarding HCA's specific development proposal and, apparently, developing an elaborate scheme and schedule to exclude Burlington and others,but at the same time give the appearance of complying with the Redevelopment Act and its own Rules. For example, beginning on March 30, 2000 (one day prior to Burlington's Petition to Compel Arbitration, and one day prior to HCA's application and more than one month prior to the HCA Response to the RFP), City staff began having meetings with HCA regarding its RFP—specifically the proposed Specific Plan —without any written notice to Burlington. Thus, at least two weeks before the Redevelopment Agency had received any other Statements of Interest or Development Proposals and prior to the expiration of the Redevelopment Agency's self-imposed deadline for those documents,the Redevelopment Agency was already implementing a scheme with HCA for HCA's development of Huntington Center and the taking of Burlington's demised premises. Such actions were in direct contravention of the Redevelopment Act. Indeed, the Redevelopment Act requires that once owner participation is invited,the Redevelopment Agency City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5,2000 Page 15 has a legal d1a to treat all project applicants, including current owners,with"reasonableness" and"in good faith." In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal. 2d 21, 60 (1964). The Redevelopment Agency's actions,however, were neither reasonable nor in good faith. In fact, the Redevelopment Agency's actions were especially egregious considering the RFP was vague in its requirement for a development concept, and since we now know that the HCA Response to the RFP (the proposed Specific Plan) is an alleged"city-initiated project." This "city-initiated project"of the Specific Plan was never disclosed or made public until after a formal Planning Commission hearing had been noticed. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Redevelopment Agency and the City have been in collusion with HCA for HCA to take Burlington's demised premises through the Redevelopment Agency's power of condemnation, and thereby allow HCA to escape the Burlington Lease,which requires that HCA seek the approval of Burlington before electing to redevelop Burlington's demised premises. These actions are in direct violation of State and local law and should not be further condoned by the City Council. II. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S ACTIONS AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. The power of state and local governments to regulate land use is expressly limited by the "due process"and"taking"clauses of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides that"[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty,property, without due process and wall; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In addition, state and local land use regulations are also, of course, subject to the Fourteenth Amendment's"equal protection"clause. Consequently, denial of equal protection may be the basis of a successful challenge to land use regulations which are alleged to single out the challenger for more onerous treatment than other landowners who are similarly situated. A. The Redevelopment Agency's Actions and the Specific Plan Are In Violation of Eaual Protection, Substantive Due Process and Procedural Due Process as Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals against government deprivations of property without due process of law. U.S. Const., 14'Amend. And Cal. Const., Art. I § 7. If a governmental action is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, such action will be declared unconstitutional and a violation of substantive due process. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Really Co., 47 S. Ct. 114 (1926); see also, Lockary v. Kayfetz, 917 F.2d 1150 (9"'Cir. 1990) (noting that government conduct that City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 16 is malicious, irrational or plainly arbitrary will not be sustained). The premise behind the equal protection clause is that no person shall be denied the same protection of law that is enjoyed by another person is similar circumstances. See Hawn v. County of Ventura, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1009 (1977). Here, as set forth in detail above, by engaging in negotiations with HCA and considering HCA's Specific Plan before receiving any other development proposals, by"hiding the ball"that the Specific Plan was actually a"city-initiated project,"by pursuing an improper RFP process to give the appearance of complying with the Redevelopment Act and the Redevelopment Agency's own Rules,the Redevelopment Agency will unfairly discriminate against Burlington and deny Burlington a reasonable opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of Huntington Center. See,,e.g., Hawn v. County of Ventura, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1009 (1977). These action are malicious, irrational and plainly arbitrary in clear violation of the equal protection and substantive due process protections provided by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the insufficient notice and lack of ability to participate also constitute denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Carey v. Piphus, 98 S. Ct. 1042 (1978). By adopting the Specific Plan,the City Council is condoning and furthering the illicit application process that was undertaken by the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Indeed,the City's own Zoning Ordinance requires that all property owners be included on the application. In particular, section 215.08 of the Zoning Ordinance states, in pertinent part,that: An amendment to reclassify property to a SP District may be initiated by a property owner or authorized agent,the Planning Commission, or the City Council. If the property is not under a single ownership, all owners shall join in the application,and a map showing the extent of ownerships shall be submitted with concept plans and materials. As it stands now,the City and the Redevelopment Agency are the only applicants. The law is clear, Burlington, HCA, and Montgomery Ward should also be included on the application. As a matter of fact, HCA initiated the application process for the Specific Plan, but it was replaced as the applicant via the June 5, 2000 memorandum that was authored by Mr. Silver. Mr. Silver did not have the authority to initiate the application on behalf of the City and the Redevelopment Agency because section 215.08 mandates that all owners join in the application, including HCA, Montgomery Ward, and Burlington. In furtherance of a conspiracy to interfere with Burlington's lawsuit and the Burlington Lease, Mr. Silver intentionally excluded Ezralow as an applicant. In the event the City Council approves the Specific Plan, it would be putting its stamp of approval on a City-initiated zoning document for which the City does not have the statutory or legal authority to initiate without naming all owners as co-applicants. Because the City and the Redevelopment Agency are applying for the zoning change (in violation City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 17 of their own rules and regulations), both the City and the Agency have exposed themselves to liability. The foregoing actions are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and should not be condoned or allowed to continue by the City Council. B. The Redevelopment Agency's Actions Amount to Tortious Conduct Under California's Statutory and Decisional Law. 1. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfered With Burlington's Contractual Relationship With HCA. J Tort liability may be imposed upon a defendant who intentionally and improperly interferes with the plaintiff's rights under a contract with another person if the interference causes the plaintiff to lose a right under the contract or makes the contract rights more costly or less valuable. See Allen v. Powell, 248 Cal. App. 2d 502 (1967). The acts which induce the breach need not be unlawful. It is sufficient if they are lawful, but without justification. Id. The actions of Mr. Silver in the instant case were both unlawful and without justification. First, Mr. Silver's unilateral act of substituting the City and the Redevelopment Agency as the applicants for the Specific Plan was an ultra vices act done for the sole purpose of interfering with Burlington's efforts to enforce its lease with its landlord. Second,the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for the City of Huntington Beach ("Zoning Ordinance") clearly sets forth the law with respect to initiating the process to reclassify property to a Specific Plan District. In particular, section 215.08 of the Zoning Ordinance states, in pertinent part,that: An amendment to reclassify property to a SP District may be initiated by a property owner or authorized agent,the Planning Commission, or the City Council. If the property is not under a single ownership, all owners shall join in the application,and a map showing the extent of ownerships shall be submitted with concept plans and materials. Mr. Silver did not have the authority to initiate the application on behalf of the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Moreover, Section 215.08 mandates that all owners join in the application, including Ezralow.-In furtherance of a conspiracy to interfere with Burlington's lawsuit and the Burlington Lease, Mr. Silver intentionally declared the City and the Redevelopment Agency as the applicants for the Specific Plan. City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 18 2. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfered With Burlington's Prospective Economic Relationship with HCA. The tort of Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage protects those expectancies involved in ordinary commercial dealings. See Youst v. Longo,43 Cal. 3d 64 (1987). The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are (1) an economic relationship containing the probability of future economic benefit; (2)knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship; (3) intentional wrongful acts by the defendant to disrupt the relationship; (4)actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) plaintiff is damaged by such actions. Zimmerman v. Bank of America, 191 Cal. App. 2d 55, 57 (1961). In the instant case,there is an economic relationship between Burlington and HCA in that Burlington is leasing 133,500 square feet of retail space for a term of 30 years (expiring in 2025). The Redevelopment Agency, however,knew of Burlington's Lease with HCA, and interfered with said relationship when it endeavored to commit numerous acts which were both unjustified and illegal. For example, the Redevelopment Agency, HCA, and Ezralow had several secret closed door meetings relating to HCA's purchase and redevelopment of Huntington Center. One such meeting occurred on or about November 15, 1999, the day before HCA actually took title to Huntington Center. No tangible evidence (e.g., minutes)were kept of said meetings, even though the Brown Act requires that public entities keep of record of any meetings with third parties relating to the business of the public entity. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency concealed(and it continues to conceal) public documents which they are required to disclose (pursuant to the Brown Act) upon request. Burlington has asked for such documents for over the past four months only to receive 14 documents and a response that it is holding back documents because it feels it does not have to produce them at this time. Finally,Mr. Silver (and other City administrators and officials) interfered with Burlington's private lawsuit by declaring, in a June 5, 2000 memorandum, that the Specific Plan was a"City-initiated project" and therefore declared the City and the Redevelopment Agency as the new applicants. This was done a few days after Burlington sought injunctive relief from the court in an effort to preserve its lease rights as a tenant at Huntington Center. But for the acts of Mr. Silver and Mr. Zelefsky, Burlington would have been granted provisional relief and HCA would have been restrained. The acts of Mr. Silver(as an agent of the City and the Redevelopment Agency) was intentional and pre-meditated. Mr. Silver's June 5, 2000 memorandum was intentionally calculated to directly and illegally intervene in Burlington's pursuit to vindicate its contract rights against HCA. The ultra vires acts of Mr. Silver went against every notion of constitutional due process and fair play. Simply put, Mr. Silver(acting on behalf of the City and the Redevelopment Agency) illegally manufactured evidence that he City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 19 and HCA knew would counteract and defeat the then pendingex parte application for temporary restraining order. The June 5, 2000 memorandum by Mr. Silver was orchestrated and fashioned to directly counteract the private suit. For the foregoing reasons,the City and the Redevelopment Agency intentionally interfered with Burlington's prospective economic advantage. 3. City Administrators and Officials Conspired to Induce HCA to Breach its Contractual Relationship With Burlington. The tort action of conspiracy to induce breach of contract applies the general principles of civil conspiracy to the tort of inducing breach of contract(or interference with contractual relations). A tort action will lie against third parties to a contract who,pursuant to a conspiracy, have wrongfully induced or procured the breach of contract. See Wise v. Southern Pacific Co., 223 Cal. App. 2d 50, 64 (1963). Mr. Silver and other City and Redevelopment Agency officials conspired to induce HCA into breaching its contract with Burlington by assuring Ezralow and HCA that Burlington's leasehold interest would be condemned so long as HCA omitted Burlington from its redevelopment plans, by engaging in negotiations with HCA and considering HCA's Specific Plan before receiving any other development proposals, by"hiding the ball"that the Specific Plan was actually a"city-initiated project,"by pursuing an improper RFP process to give the appearance of complying with the Redevelopment Act and the Redevelopment Agency's own Rules, and by concealing public records from Burlington in an effort to conceal the redevelopment process being undertaken by HCA and the Redevelopment Agency. Burlington will have its day in court, and it will establish that the City and Redevelopment Agency conspired to strip Burlington of its rights to participate as a tenant in the new Huntington Center. III. HCA'S RESPONSE TO THE RFP CANNOT BE LEGALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT PROPOSES A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT VIOLATES THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND ESTABLISHED LAW. The HCA Response is a development proposal that is the Specific Plan. As described below,this Specific Plan proposed by HCA violates the City's General Plan,the City's Municipal Code and State law. The Redevelopment Agency cannot now choose HCA as the "developer"based on a proposal (Specific Plan)that is unlawful. To do so would result in the Redevelopment Agency proposing to contract with HCA through an OPA to undertake unlawful acts, and the Redevelopment Agency cannot contract to undertake unlawful acts. If the Redevelopment Agency were to do so, it would violate State law, including the Redevelopment City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5,2000 Page 20 Act, and be acting in an arbitrary,irrational and unreasonable manner,which provides additional grounds of violation of each of the principles and laws set forth above. A. The Specific Plan Is Not in Compliance with the General Plan. The City's General Plan requires that"development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and in accordance with the Development `Overlay' Schedule (table LU-3)." See Policy LU 7.1.2. General Plan Policy LU 15.1.1 requires "the formulation, adoption, and implementation of Specific Plans for areas designated with a Specific Plan Overlay. Table LU-4 of the General Plan specifies the land use category for the Huntington Center as"Commercial Regional (CR)." The Specific Plan does not comply with State law and the City's Municipal Code requirements for specific plans as explained in Paragraph B below. As a result, the Specific Plan is not in compliance with the General Plan, and HCA's response cannot be accepted because it is not consistent with the General plan. B. The Specific Plan Does Not Comply with State Law and Municipal Code Requirements-for Specific Plans. Section 65451(a)of the California Government Code provides in relevant part as follows: (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: (1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. (2) The proposed distribution,location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in plan. (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources,where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 21 necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and(3). The Specific Plan does not meet these requirements of the Government Code because it does not specify in detail the distribution or location of any uses of land. Rather,the Specific Plan has two different"Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan"exhibits which specifically note the following: "This illustrative shows a hypothetical development scenario on the project site." The location and distribution of the uses and other essential facilities (including utilities and other infrastructure) are not specified(they are only"hypothetical") and are merely deferred to another day through potential future environmental review under CEQA and an improper site plan review process under section 2.3 of the Specific Plan,which process is done solely by the Planning Director without any requirement for public hearing or notice. This could result in any and all of the uses and other essential facilities permitted or required under the Specific Plan to be constructed anywhere, which is not consistent with Government Code section 65451. By delegation to a future date of an essential element of the Specific Plan, as required by law, General Plan Implementation Program I-LU4 and Municipal Code Chapter 215 will also be violated by not having the Planning Commission and City Council consider the location and distribution of uses. Section 2.0 of Specific Plan similarly violates this Implementation Program and Municipal Code Chapter 215 by allowing modifications of the Specific Plan by the Planning Director when determined by the Planning Director to be minor. By allowing this, all notice and hearing procedures under this and other Chapters of the Municipal Code are ignored and violated for amendments to the Specific Plan. In summary,the Specific Plan should be a tool to provide certainty regarding the location and distribution of future development in Huntington Center in compliance with State and local law. However, as currently proposed,the Specific Plan would create complete uncertainty regarding the development of Huntington Center in violation of law and unlawfully delegate the authority to determine the location and distribution of land uses and essential facilities to the Planning Director. C. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Will Violate the California Environmental Quality Act,• an Environmental Impact Report Must Be Prepared 1. The City must prepare and certify an EIR for the Proposed Specific Plan a. Overview of CEQA. CEQA was enacted in response to the well- documented failure of state and local governmental agencies to consider fully the environmental implications of their actions. Selmi, The Judicial Department of the California Environmental is City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 22 Qualily Act, 18 U.C.D.L. Rev. 197 (1984).8 The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that CEQA must be interpreted liberally"to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language."Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. The Regents of the University of California("Laurel Heights I"),47 Cal. 3d 376, 390 (1988), quoting from Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal. 3d 247,259 (1972). Two of the central purposes of CEQA are to inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project and to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(1) and(2). The EIR is the heart of CEQA. Guidelines § 15003(a). As noted by the California Supreme Court,the EIR: is the primary means of achieving the Legislature's considered declaration that it is the policy of this state to `take' all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state.' (§ 21001, subd. (a).) . . . Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is the document of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed,can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees. (Citations). The EIR process protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. Laurel Heights I, supra,at 392.9 CEQA provides for a three-tiered environmental analysis. First,the lead agency 8 The Office of Planning and Research has promulgated guidelines to implement CEQA. 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines"). 9 An EIR serves "to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has in fact analyzed and consider the ecological implications of its action." No Oil, Inc. v. Ci , of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 86 (1974). An EIR also allows the public to "determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials,thus allowing for appropriate action on election day should a majority of the voters disagree." People v. County of Kern, 39 Cal. App. 3d 830, 842 (1974). "The report . . . may be viewed as an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." County of In yo v. YortX, 32 Cal. App. 3d 795, 810 (1973). City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 23 determines whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. Guidelines § 15061. If the lead agency concludes that the project is not exempt from CEQA,the lead agency then conducts an initial study to ascertain whether to prepare an EIR or a negative declaration in connection with the project. The lead agency may only adopt a"negative declaration"when the initial study concludes that"there is no substantial evidence . . . that the project may have a significant effect on the environment"and further CEQA review is unnecessary. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(1). CEQA applies only to"discretionary projects." Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(a) and(b)(1); Guidelines § 15268(a). A discretionary project is one which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations."Guidelines § 15357. b. Fair Argument Test Requires an EIR. If the administrative record contains substantial evidence that any aspect of a project"may have a significant effect on the environment,"the lead agency must prepare an EIR. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100; Guidelines §§ 15002(f)(1), 15063(b)(1) and 15064(a)(1).10 Put another way, . . . if the lead agency is presented with a fair arm that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not half a significant effect. (No Oil. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d 68 (1974)). Guidelines§ 15064(g)(1).(emphasis added). See also Friends of`B" Street v. City of Hay Ward, 106 Cal. App. 3d 988, 1002 (1980). A trial court is entitled to independently review an agency's determination that there was no evidence upon which a fair argument could be made that an EIR was required. As the court stated in Friends of`B" Street, supra: if there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support the decision to dispose with preparation of an EIR and adopt a Negative Declaration, because it could be `fairly argued' that the project might have a significant environmental 10 Professor Selmi pointed out that one of the reasons that courts are permitted to closely examine CEQA decisions is that public agencies"are subject to political pressure to avoid the full EIR process"which is certainly the case here. Selmi, supra, at 227. City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 24 impact. Stated another way, if the trial court perceives substantial evidence that the project might have such an impact,but the Agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR,the Agencies action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed ` in a manner required by law.' (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5.) 106 Cal. 3d at 1002. (Emphasis added). Under the fair argument standard, deference to the lead agency's determination is not appropriate and its decision not to require an EIR can be upheld"only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary." Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal. App. 4t' 1307, 1317- 18 (1992). The fair argument standard requires the reviewing court to employ"a certain degree of independent review of the record,rather than the typical substantial evidence standard which usually results in great deference being given to the factual determinations of the agency." Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas, 29 Cal. App. 4ffi 1597, 1602 (1994). The Supreme Court has concluded that the interpretation of CEQA"which will afford the fullest possible protection to the environment is one which will impose a low thresholds requirement for preparation of an EIR." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, at 84. Given the magnitude of the proposed development under the Specific Plan and the anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts associated with demolition and construction,the Specific Plan is a"project"under CEQA that will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore,the City and the Redevelopment Agency will half to prepare an EIR. 2. The Specific Plan Is a Project under CEQA. Public Resources Code section 21065 defines project as an"activity which may cause either the direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical activity which is directly undertaken by any public agency." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065; Guidelines § 15378(a); see also, Goleta Union School District v. Regents of the University of California, 37 Cal. App. 4t' 1029, 1030 (2d Dist. 1995). The enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances has been determined to be in activity undertaken by a public agency that are subject to CEQA. See City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, 183 Cal. App. 3d 229 (1986). Here, the Specific Plan is seeking and amendment to the zoning of the property from CG(General Commercial) and CG-FP2 (General Commercial -Flood Plain)to Specific Plan No. 13. Accordingly,the Specific Plan is a project for purposes of CEQA review. 3. The City and the Redevelopment Agency Must Undertake CEQA Review Before Proceeding with the Adoption of the Specific Plan. Public agencies shall not undertake actions relating to a proposed public project that would have a significant adverse effect on the environment, or limit its choice of alterations City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 25 or mitigation measures, before complying with CEQA. Guidelines § 15004(b)(2). Under this standard, agencies may not make a formal decision to proceed with use of a site without first completing the CEQA review. In the instant case, should the City approve the Specific Plan, or the Redevelopment Agency take any action based thereon, it will be in violation-of the aforementioned provision of CEQA. The Specific Plan establishes a master development plan, including without limitation,planning concepts, design and architectural guidelines and other development standards for Huntington Center. There has been no review or analysis in accordance with CEQA of the impacts relating to, among other things, changes and limitations of uses, new permissible heights,utilities,traffic and circulation, and the effect of removing the site from the Flood Plain Overlay District. This and other analyses are all left to another day after the _new standards under-the Specific Plan are adopted. This will also preclude any consideration of alternatives. Moreover, once approved, any future development will only be subject to site plan review by the Planning Director,rather than a public hearing process before the Design Review Board,the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Furthermore,the Planning Director can even make amendments to the Specific Plan without any public notice or hearing if he determines they are "minor." Thus,by proposing to approve the Specific Plan before undertaking the appropriate and required environmental review,the City is essentially limiting its ability to have any further decision-making authority in connection with the future development of Huntington Center. This is in violation of CEQA and is not allowed. 4. The Elements of Tiering Are Not Met. Tiering is a process provided for by the Legislature in order to allow agencies to avoid repetitiveness, wasted time, and unnecessary premature speculation. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21065, 21093(a); Guidelines § 15152. To qualify for the use of tiering, leader projects must: (1) be consistent with the program,plan,policy, or ordinance for which an EIR has been prepared and certified; (2)be consistent with applicable local land-use plans and zoning of the city, county, or city and county in which the later project would be located; and(3)not trigger the need for a subsequent EIR. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b). In addition,before deciding that tiering may be used with respect to a later project,the lead agency must prepare an"initial study or other analysis"to assist it in determining whether the project may cause any significant impacts not analyzed in a prior EIR. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b); Guidelines § 15152(f). Here,the City and/or Redevelopment Agency have not prepared an initial study to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts of the Specific Plan. Accordingly, before City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 26 the City can approve the Specific Plan, an initial study will have to be prepared. In fact,to date,there exists no complete or legally adequate environmental analysis of: (i)the proposed conceptual plans contemplated by the Specific Plan; (ii)the development of these specific acres or analysis of the proposed design and architectural guidelines; or(iii) a program of mitigation which if implemented would eliminate any and all potential for adverse environmental impacts. Thus, before any further action is taking on the Specific Plan, an initial study will half to be prepared and the proper environmental review under CEQA must be performed. 5. The City and the Redevelopment Agency Have Unlawfully"Split"the Project for Purposes of Environmental Review. As noted above, the term"project"has been broadly defined under CEQA. "Project"means "the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly . . . ."Guidelines § 15378(a). All phases of project planning, implementation and operation must be considered in the initial study for a project. Guidelines § 15063(a)(1). The term"project"refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretional approvals by governmental agencies. The term"project"does not mean each separate governmental approval. Guidelines § 15378(c). Under CEQA, a project must be fully analyzed in a single environmental document. In agency may not split a project into two or more segments with mutually exclusive environmental documents. Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo, 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 165 (1985). Similarly, an agency cannot overlook a project's cumulative impacts by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole. See McQueen v. Board of Directors, 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1144 (1988). In Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area, supra, a county split a shopping center project into two segments, the first part consisting of general plan amendments and zoning classifications, and the second part involving a tentative map approval and road abandonment. The public agency prepared a separate negative declaration for each project segment. Because the project applicant had requested related discretionary approvals at different times, the county had failed to understand that it was dealing with a single project. The court overturned the negative declarations and the project approvals, holding that an agency cannot prepare mutually exclusive environmental documents for a single project. Id. at 165-67. The project description in a CEQA document must include: an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonable foreseeable consequence of the initial City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 27 project; and(2)the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. Laurel Heights I, supra, at 396. In Laurel Heights I,the Regents proposed the relocation of a biomedical research facility to a portion of a building located in the residential neighborhood. The EIR for the project failed to analyze the cumulative impacts of the anticipated full use of the building as a biomedical facility within a few years. The California Supreme Court rejected the Regents' argument that, because the proposed expansion had not been formally approved,the EIR's analysis could be limited to the project in its initial form. Evidence in the record indicated that, despite the lack of a formal approval,the Regents' ultimate plans were clear. Therefore, because the expansion was reasonably foreseeable, and was likely to change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects,the EIR should have discussed at least the general effects of the reasonably foreseeable future uses in the anticipated measures for mitigating those effects. Laurel Heights I. supra, at 396-398. "The fact that precision may not be possible .-. . does not mean that no analysis is required." Id. at 399. Another case that illustrates this principle is Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, 88 Cal. App.-3 d 397 (1979). In Whitman, an EIR was prepared in connection with an application to drill an exploratory oil and gas well, which omitted discussion of a contemplated pipeline if the well proved productive. The court found the EIR inadequate and explained that"[t]he record before us reflects that the construction of the pipeline was, from the very beginning within the contemplation of[the] overall plan for the project and could have been discussed in the EIR in at least general terms."Id. at 414-15. (Emphasis added). Under the current circumstances,the Specific Plan suffers from the same problems that occurred in Laurel Heights I and Whitman. First, there has been absolutely no environmental analysis performed in connection with development requirements,permitted uses, location of uses and exemptions from City procedures and requirements and all other matters that are set forth in the Specific Plan. Second, any potential analysis, actions and mitigation measures that may be associated with the actual development of the property are deferred to another day, which is an attempt, like Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area,to split the general plan and zoning classification(i.e.,the Specific Plan) from subsequent required approvals (site plan review by the Planning Director,etc.). This is an egregious violation under the current circumstances because of the current attempts of the City and the Redevelopment Agency to say that the Specific Plan was covered by the very general General Plan EIR. As a result, in accordance with CEQA,the City and the Redevelopment Agency need to properly prepare an EIR or other environmental document under CEQA prior to the approval of the Specific Plan. City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 28 6. The Adoption of the Specific Plan As Currently Contemplated Without Environmental Review Would Unlawfully Defer Environmental Review. CEQA requires that environmental review and the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures occur at the earliest feasible state in the planning process. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21003.1. CEQA also provides that any proposed negative declaration should only be prepared for a project when"revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment with occur . . . ."Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2). The case of Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988), illustrates these principles. In Sundstrom,the public agency approved a use permit for a motel and restaurant that included a private sewage treatment plant. The initial study did not analyze the environmental impacts of the treatment plant, but instead required that the developer prepare a hydrological study after the approval of the negative declaration. The study was to provide a basis for establishing additional mitigation measures for the project. The court held that the public agency violated CEQA by including a condition that contemplated revisions to the project after the final adoption of the negative declaration. The court further held that the deferral of environmental review for the treatment plant ran counter to CEQA policy,which required environmental review at the earliest feasible change in the planning process. The court also noted that any mitigation measures added by the administrative staff as a result of this study would be exempt from public scrutiny since the public agency had already approved the negative declaration. The entire Specific Plan and the procedures set forth therein are an unlawful deferral of environmental review. First, no initial study was prepared for the Specific Plan to analyze potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures incorporated into the project, since environmental review would only be done with site plan reviews by the Planning Director. As a result, neither the impacts nor the proposed conditions for the mitigation are analyzed, including those for or relating to uses, light;glare,noise, aesthetics,traffic and circulation, geotechnical,hazardous waste, air quality,parking, flooding, construction and utilities, and each are deferred to another day. This type of deferral of environmental review and mitigation is not permitted under CEQA or the Guidelines and forms yet another unlawful.proposal that is a part of the HCA Response. City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 29 7. The Adoption of the Specific Plan As Currently Contemplated without Environmental Review Will Result in an Unlawful Failure to Undertake a Cumulative Analysis of the Project's Environmental Impacts. And environmental document must discuss "cumulative impacts"when they are significant. Guidelines § 15130(a). However, even if the cumulative impact is not deemed significant,the document must explain the basis for the conclusion. Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, 176 Cal. App. 3d 421, 429 (1985). "Cumulative impacts"are defined under CEQA as two or more individual effects which,when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b). By failing to prepare an Initial Study and undertake any environmental analysis under CEQA,there will be no analysis of potential "cumulative impacts,"which is not permitted under CEQA. III. CONCLUSION Considering the multitude of legal issues raised by the inadequately prepared Specific Plan and the unlawful acts undertaken by City administrators and officials,the City Council should reject the Specific Plan and require that the Redevelopment Agency work with Burlington, Montgomery Ward, and HCA in preparing and submitting a new Specific Plan that conforms to the Burlington Lease and established law. In the alternative, the City Council decision should be continued in order to consider the legal issues raised in this letter. Respectfully submitted, TUC N & ASSOCIATES AVIV L. TUCHMAN Counsel for Burlington Coat Factory EXHIBIT A �( CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication ter-- Planning Department TO: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning FROM:, Tom Livengood, Planning Commissione4 DATE: June 22, 2000 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 13- CROSSINGS The Planning Commission deleted Exhibits 4A and 4B (Project Description—Statistical Summary)by straw vote: I believe the attached revision of Exhibit 4B provides a better description of the overall site square footage. New and existing construction is combined. The revised summary provides more flexibility and provides some protection for the three(3) existing anchor stores. This is a request for you to review this and include in the staff report to the City Council. The 4A summary was not acceptable. Only 80,000 square feet was allowed for existing anchors. Mervyn's store is 80,000 square feet. The message, no room for Burlington or Wards. TL:kjl Attachment xc: Planning Commission Shirley Dettloff; City Council Member Scott Hess,Principal Planner Herb Fauland, Senior Planner Jane James, Associate Planner-- . c:\KWv &dm / ' • I '/ • / I I • /I/ I I / I S " • I S I / I / " I I " pa E rs s r x:� • G��''�' rt ', y{¢�{t y�' � fnt��du:I1' �•},��{� y c�rOR ME '�:Lvi tM.xwA<iit`. ,'w"rIN. . i NA x �� A �1 M P ;r !•>Yh t YS t#A 7 ice£ t J 1t �E t l S t o .: ^r'4' xt' yl. r f $f j f�;� .3z a �!M1 � ' . ■_� ��.x.��. � ��.�3� r�: ri.�.z.�„s�.'a! 3 ��e2'.a•. ,ik�a t'..�t�..k r =r w.r+• aaa P•sf.S�6'•.R,•3•1s" s T"y 7..'»'[2�r'.`t,s�'i"?* .'�°w"t"� y +rs �� .......:.wt�-`f.:.'�x...,..�.n.nf.rvhis..�'.:wn.':4dAb.�'ficc'Y.ui�,�=z'�«s.,..ut....�;.;P'i.'f ..�.xr�rlwMt...�a,2..vws.,..SSr�.sf,�C uf...�.t.e�,u...�.�ur�f�u�..Fr�s8E4:J:.. .n x�s�k.ShZ rY�n��z�'✓'.N�`...�.���X/.'=� • i • i i 2 ,Ipr lal'afi`rt +M�`5' !t ** } ><�cN.: i-�ri yzrf""i�¢yl,"'ts ;�,` s�sar �.Y ��mf�, ;tz h1r�' "� ''� �F '�Y+, r�t";.',v�;z!.ft fj�f 3'��t,•;�,:s; NZ '� .7 �., u,�:�x,...�::i�..<'J• .£rt+s. 5bxwt�1'u.sz�.aw.aE,.,2,a.;�,xt.r�u;i�z?."lrv.�ka,�.;c`sils�,:.l;....,<;.hi..r.Y..G,ft���.�o-,!'i3.cY. ksfa.,�Azr.��thC.itir-���u£`�l-kz:: FEW '{�yldgl Q����1„,�..�,�Yq"• v QFaf1{.• V1�$ '�.r�/�.f[�; �.f/'j '� rl' • -./ i{'dw I ,•»��� ����Fa�J taxi.(:?'e:�.'.:..Yw2:._�Nu,'°a o„ :.t.� s3.LL:.i a3:8i V `• J ... .�S:iWd ;,.. ,.�I w^.i.,*�'`..w'� - `O..t�44 .w"r�":ita,5L r1G� M'1 R116-1 '�xrt3^£i.i • / / • :I I • / - / • / I I / i EXHIBIT B �P r(TY CF �.B. .:GM-1 ie/ GEP7 FAX NU. : 714 =74 1540 A&r. 07 20M @1:31Pr9 P2 quo °1a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TO: Howard Zelefsky, Director offtaning FROM: Ray Silver, City Adavnistrator/Exec utive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beacb 04? SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13—HL'NTINGTON BEACH(MALL PROPERTY DATIC: huge 5, 2000 As required by the City of Huntington Beach General Pisa, adoption of a Specific Plan is nec muy to establish zoning and developumit standards for the 63 we Huntington Canter property. The Specific Plan allows the city to est,&W6 unique design and aarhitactu al guidelines to govern future devetopmeent of the site. Adoption of the Specific Plan re Tjim processing of a zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment. The Ezralcw Company is the property owner of the majority of the site, while Moatgow y Wards owns approximately 13 aaes, and SouRdwrn California Edison Company retains owns-ship beneath the high tension wires on the north side of the property. Ahhough an application for a zone change was submitted by the Fsralow Company on March 30, 2000, it is mete appropriate for the city and the Redevelopment Agency to be designated as actual sppficants for the proposal because the Specific.Plan is a city-initiated protect. Therefam this meats=vW any signature, as City Administrator and Executive Director of the Redevelopmew Agency of the City of Huntington Beach serve as application authorization for the procc=ng of Zoning Map AnmKi ent No. 00-01 and Zoning Tom Aotertdment No 00-02(Specific Phm No. 13) Please update the Plarnwg Department records to this effect cc: Honorable Mayor and City Counciil Meinbers Ply Conunissionm David Biggs,Economic Development Director (Gins Duran,Housing and Redevelopment Manager Scott Hess, Principal Player Herb Faular4 Senior Plaaaer Jane Jtmcs, Associate Planner FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:12PM Pi TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES _ ATTORNEYS AT LAW o ...I 14)5 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD ATH FLOOR LOS ANGELES.CALIFOKNIA 90o1 o PHONE 213 395$000•FAX 213 33S 0505 — '- FAX COVER SHEET z Z- FAX TO: �! G. t FIRM NAME: aur-3T1 0 Tad FAX NO.: S J 0) L -7 FROM: A y c v TV c-(-4 r\A aL,,, REGARD TO: C ( T`7 Go y N G c L OUR FILE NO.: l DATE & TIME: -7 y r NO. OF PAGES (Including this page) : Per Your Request Response Requested._ Per Our Conversation Response Not Required._ For Your Information Please call us upon Receipt SPECIAL COIvIIv1ENTS THIS FACSIMILE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON TO WHOM rr IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY.OR OTHER DATA PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. ff YOU ARE NOT THE ADDRESSEE OR THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING TI-BS TO THE ADDRESSEE.YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT COPYING OR DISTRIBUTING THIS TRANSMISSION IS PROHIBITED. ff YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSOAU IN ERROR PLEASE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATELY AND RETURN IT BY MAIL TO THE.PERSON AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. THA.NK+YOU. RECEIVED r �' g�� 5 2000 'r-- Csomjm\off (J of v ECONOMIC THEDEV O UIT JUL-04-2000 17:25 2133850595 97% P.01 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:12PM P2 TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 30TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90010 PHONE 213,385.8000 - FAX 213.385.0595 July 5, 2000 HAND DELIVERED AND SENT VIA FAS=LE (714)375-5087 City Council City of Huntington Breach 2000 Main Street c ° Huntington Beach, California 92648 ' Re: City Council Meeting on Tuesday.July 5,200 Re Adoption of the Specific Plan for the HUI tinQtov Center- .' Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach: rj This Firm represents Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc. ("Burlington") in connection with the above-referenced matter. As you may know, Burlington is a tenant in what is commonly known as the"Huntington Center Mall" ("Huntington Center"). Huntington Center is owned by Huntington Center Associates, which is a subsidiary of Ezralow Retail Properties and The Ezralow Company(collectively referred to as "HCA" Today,the City Council will consider whether to adopt the Specific Plan as the zoning for the entire Huntington Center. Burlington objects to the adoption of the Specific Plan on the grounds that certain City administrators and officials for the City of Huntington Beach (the"City") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach(the "Redevelopment Agency'l engaged in a scheme and course of conduct wherein they acted outside the scope of their authority, including without limitation,declaring the Specific Plan to be a"City-initiated project,"without giving any notice to Burlington(and other interested parties),and without following the City's own rules and regulations relating to the proper procedures when seeking to establish the Specific Plan as the new zoning for Huntington Center. In addition,Burlington objects to the Specific Plan because it is in direct contravention to the Redevelopment Act and established law, and which,if passed, seeks zoning which calls for the demolition of Burlington's leased premises, which,therefore,amounts to a"taking" of property without"due process"of law. The events and circumstances that led to the City application for adoption of the Specific Plan has caused Burlington to file two lawsuits--one in federal court and the other in state court-- against the City and Redevelopment Agency,and HCA,respectively. Briefly stated, the Redevelopment Agency and HCA have conspired to engage is a scheme and course of conduct to strip Burlington of its rights as a tenant in the Huntington Center unless Burlington agreed to a rent increase of almost four times that for which it is required to pay under the Burlington Lease. MTIE C2MM'V\N� (_A3N P.02 JUL-04-2000 17:26 2133e50595 97% FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:13PM P3 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 2 The purpose of the letter is familiarize the City Council with the chronology of events which led Burlington to seek redress from the courts in an effort to preserve and maintain its status as a tenant in Huntington Center. The first suit(as explained in further detail below) was filed against the owner/landlord' of Huntington Center for Breach of the Burlington Lease. The second suit was filed in Federal Court against the City and Redevelopment Agency. Both lawsuits concern the redevelopment of Huntington Center and the combined efforts of HCA and the Redevelopment Agency to strip Burlington of its long-term leasehold interest as a tenant in Huntington Center. Finally, as further discussed below, this letter with apprise the City Council of the legal ramifications and liabilities that the City and Redevelopment Agency will incur in the event this particular Specific Plan is adopted by the City Council, as well as the legal ramifications and liabilities which the City and Redevelopment Agency have exposed themselves to as a result of the June 5, 2000 memorandum authored by Ray Silver. It is not Burlington's intention to prevent the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Burlington wants to be a part of it. When Burlington first became a tenant of Huntington Center, it was assured by Former Landlord that Huntington Center would undergo redevelopment with the participation of Burlington. Indeed, Burlington's lease expressly preserved Burlington's tenancy in the event of redevelopment. In a June 22, 2000 memorandum, Tom Livengood, Planning Commissioner for the City,stated it best when he wrote that a Specific Plan should be adopted that"provides more flexibility and provides some protection for the three (3)existing anchor stores." Mr. Livengood further stated that the Specific Plan which calls for "[o]nly 80,000 square feet . . . for existing anchors" sends"[t]he message, no room for Burlington or Wards.' The City Council should not reward HCA and the Redevelopment Agency for their surreptitious backroom negotiations, but rather instruct and direct the Redevelopment Agency to work with Burlington,Montgomery Ward,'and HCA in order to reach common ground as to how each respective tenant, as well as HCA and the citizenry of Huntington Beach, will benefit from the redevelopment of Huntington Center. In the alternative,the City Council decision should be continued in order to consider the legal issues raised in this letter. ' Huntington Center Associates(HCA")is the ownerllandlord of Huntington Center. Z Mr. Livengood's June 22, 2000 memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and is also attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit"16". 3 Burlington joins and concurs with the objections raised by Montgomery Ward in its letter to the City Council. JUL-04-2000 17:26 2133850595 97% P.03 FROM : 'TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:13PM P4 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 3 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS IF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS THE SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUNDFACTS.............................................................................................................6 BurlingtonLease. .............................................................................................................6 Earalow and HCA Purchase HuntinZon Center............................. ...........7 Burlip" on's Negotiations With HCA. .............................................................................8 Redevelopment Ag_enaand HCA Hold Secret Closed Door Meetings to Discuss Redevelopmettt. ..............................................................................9 The Redevelopment Agency Gets Involved in the Redevelopment of Huntington Center. .............................................................................9 HCA Elects to Raze Burlington's Demised Premises. ...................................................I I Burlington Files Lawsuit Against Ezralow and HCA to Enforce Lease.........................11 City Administrators and Officials Interfere With Burlin:2ton's Lawsuit.........................12 1. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT.........................................-12 A. Overview of the California Community Redevelopment Act.............................12 B. The Redevelopment Agency Has Failed to Provide Burlington with a Reasonable Opportunity to Participate ip the Redevelopment ofHuntin"on Centez. .........................................................................................I 3 II. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S ACTIONS AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA..................................................is JUL-04-2000 17:27 2133850595 96% P.04 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05: 14PM P5 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 4 A. The Redevelopment Agency's Actions and the Specific Plan Are In Violation of Equal Protection Substantive Due Process and Procedural Due Process as Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Co titution...................... ............................................................15 B. The Redevelopment Agenc's Actions Amount to Tortious Co duct Under California's Statutory and Decisional Law.................:.........................................17 1. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfered With Burlington's Contractual Relationship With HCA..................................17 2. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfered With Burlington's Prospective Economic Relationship with HCA..................18 3. City Administrators and Officials Conspired to Induce HCA to Breach its Contractual Relationship With Burlington.............................19 111. EZRALOW'S RESPONSE TO THE RFP CANNOT BE LEGALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT PROPOSES A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT VIOLATES THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND ESTABLISHED LAW............................................................19 A. The Specific Plan Is NQt in Compy. nce with the General Plan..........................20 B. The Specific lap Does Not Comply with State Law and Municipal Code Require=nts for Specific Plans..................................... .......20 C. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Will_V_iQlate the California Environmental Quality Act; an Environmental Impact Report Must Be Prepared......................21 1. The Cily must prepare and certify an EIR for the Proposed specificPlan............................................................................................21 a. Overview of—CEO .....................................................................21 b. Fair Argument Test Requires an EIR..........................................23 2. The Specific Plan Is a Project under CEQA............................................24 3. The City and the Redevelopment Agency Must Undertake CEQA Review Before Proceeding with tly Adoption of-the Specific Plan........24 JUL-04-2000 17:27 2133850595 97% P.05 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05: 14F'M F'b City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 5 4. The Elements of Tiering Are Not Met.....................................................25 5. The City and the Redevelopment Agency Have Unlawfully"Split"_ the Pr ject for Purposes of Environmental Review.................................26 6. The Adoption of the Specific Plan As Currently Contemplated Without Envi onmental Review Would Unlawfully Defer EnvironmentalReview............................................................................28 7. The e Adoption o the Specific Plan As Currently Contemplated without Environmental Review Will Result in an Unlawful Failure to Undertake a Cumulative Analysis of the Project's Environmental Impacts................29 W. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................29 JUL-04-2000 17:28 2133850595 97% P.06 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:15PM P7 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 6 BACKGROUND FACTS The Huntington Center is part of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan', which was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City on or about December 16, 1996 by Resolution No. 3343. "Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project," dated August 1996 ("Owner Participation Rules"), were adopted as required by California Community Redevelopment Act to govern the participation of property owners in connection with redevelopment under the Redevelopment Plan. Burlington Lease On April 28, 1995, Burlington entered into a long-term lease agreement ("Burlington Lease") with MCA Huntington Associates, L.P. ("Former Landlord") whereby Burlington would occupy 133,500 square feet of space as a tenant in a portion of Huntington Center for a term of thirty(30)years. In addition, Burlington has other property rights pursuant to certain Reciprocal Easement Agreements ("REA'). At the time the Burlington Lease was being negotiated, Former Landlord advised Burlington that Huntington Center would undergo redevelopment in the near future,and that the Redevelopment Agency would be involved in the redevelopment because Huntington Center was located within a City designated Redevelopment Project Area. With that in mind, the Burlington Lease was specially drafted to include certain provisions addressing Burlington's rights in the event Landlord elected to redevelop Burlington's demised premises. In particular, the Burlington Lease provides that Landlord reserves the right at any time during the term of the Burlington Lease to renovate,reconfigurd and/or modemize Huntington Center, including Burlington's structure. The lease further states that Burlington si have the right to approve the conceptual design(the "Design")of the reconfigured Huntington Center in the event Landlord elected to raze Burlington's structure. The following lease provision sets forth the procedures to be followed by both Burlington and Landlord in the event Landlord elects to redevelop Burlington's demised premises: Landlord shall, at its sole cost and expense, prepare and deliver to Tenant a conceptual design (the "Design") for the reconfigured Shopping Centex showing the approximate location of the New Premises as well as the location of other buildings and other improvements to be located in the reconfigured Shopping Center. Tenant shall have the right to approve the Design of the reconfigured Shopping Center including the location of the New Premises which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If Tenant JUL-04-2000 17:28 2133850595 97% P.07 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:15PM P8 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 7 shall not approve the Design,Tenant and Landlord shall use their best efforts to cooperate and agree on all of the modifications necessary to obtain the approval of Tenant to the Design, and Landlord's project architect(the"Center Architect")shall promptly revise the Design to incorporate all such modifications which are mutually acceptable to Landlord and Tenant. In the event Landlord and Burlington(despite their best efforts) are unable to agree upon the Design for the reconfigured Huntington Center including the location of Burlington's structure,Article XVII of the Burlington Lease provides for arbitration of all "Unresolved Issues". The lease states, in pertinent part,that: The Unresolved Issues shall be submitted-tQ final and binding arbitration as follows:Landlord and Tenant shall each within twenty (20) days of receipt of the Center Architect's Notice designate one person, as hereinafter provided, to represent it as an arbitrator. The arbitrators so appointed by Landlord and Tenant shall within ten(10) days following the aforesaid twenty (20) day period designate one additional person as arbitrator to the end that the total number of arbitrators shall be three(3). The appointment of all arbitrators under this Section shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the other party. Any person designated as an arbitrator shall be knowledgeable and experienced in the development and design of regional shopping centers, but shall not be in the employment of either Landlord or Tenant, directly, indirectly or as an agent,except in connection with the arbitration then proceeding. The arbitrators shall meet or otherwise confer as deemed necessary by the arbitrators to resolve the Unresolved Issues and a decision of a majority of the arbitrators will be final and binding upon Landlord and Tenant. The decision of the arbitrators shall be in writing and shall be made as promptly as possible after the designation of the third (3'd) arbitrator, but in no event later than thirty(30)days from the date of the designation of the third(3`d)arbitrator. A copy of the decision of the arbitrators shall be signed by at least two(2)of the arbitrators and given to each party in the manner provided in Section 2 1.10 of this lease for the giving of notice. Ezralow and HCA Purchase Huntington Center Prior to August 1999,Huntington Center was owned by Macerich Huntington Limited Partnership("Macerich"). Macerich purchased the Huntington Center from Former JUL-04-2000 17:29 2133850595 97% P.08 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133e50595 Jul. b4 bee e5:lbr'M ry City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 8 Landlord. On or about August 5, 1999, The Ezralow Company and Ezralow Retail Properties (collectively referred to as"Ezralow") entered into an agreement with Macerich for the purchase of Huntington Center. Prior to closing of that transaction,Ezralow assigned all of its rights and obligations under that purchase agreement to HCA, a subsidiary of Ezralow. After the assignment from Ezralow, HCA proceeded with the purchase transaction, which closed on or about November 16, 1999.° Ezralow and HCA acquired Huntington Center for the purpose of redeveloping it into a retail and entertainment center pursuant to prospective redevelopment agreements with the Redevelopment Agency. HCA seeks to redevelop Huntington Center with the help of Ezralow, which is in the business of developing commercial real estate. As indicated in the Specific Plan, HCA's redevelopment plan will require the demolition and removal of much of the existing improvements on the site, including Burlington's demised premises. Bur lin on's Negotiations With HCA In the later part of 1999,Douglas Cray, the President of Ezralow Properties, sent to Burlington a large 100 scale preliminary site plan for the proposed redevelopment of Huntington Center. The plan proposed Burlington's participation as a tenant in the redeveloped Huntington Center. On or about September 23, 1999, Mr. Gray, on behalf of Ezralow, contacted Burlington in connection with opening discussions regarding Burlington's interest in participating as a tenant of the redeveloped center. Mr. Gray offered Burlington space within the redeveloped shopping center only if Burlington leased space at a cost of$22 per square foot, plus taxes, CAM charges, and insurance. In addition, Mr. Gray's proposal sought to decrease Burlington's space within the redeveloped mall by approximately 50,000 square feet. Notwithstanding Mr. Gray's offer to increase Burlington's rent to $22 per square foot, the Burlington Lease states that Burlington's rent shall remain the same ($6 per square foot which includes CAM charges) in the event Landlord elects to raze or redevelop Burlington's demised premises. In particular, the Burlington Lease states, in pertinent part, that: The Fixed Minimum Rent and Common Area Costs for the New Premises shall be the same as the Fixed Minimum Rent and Common Area Costs applicable to the Existing Premises. Ezralow's offer was not acceptable to Burlington due to the proposed rent increase of almost four times that of the rent provided by the Burlington Lease and the proposed Pursuant to that transaction, HCA purchased all right, title,and interest of Macerich in and to the land on which Huntington Center is built and the improvements located on such land, and HCA was assigned all right, title, and interest of Macerich as landlord under the leases in effect for Huntington Center. One such lease is the Burlington Lease. JUL-04-2000 17:30 2133e50595 97%, P.09 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133950595 Jul. 04 2000 05:16PM P10 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 9 decrease in Burlington's square footage. Accordingly,Burlington rejected Ezralow's offer. On or about November 1999,Burlington requested that Ezralow and HCA deliver to Burlington any proposed redevelopment plans concerning the redevelopment of Huntington Center or proposed alterations of Burlington's demised premises. Ezralow and HCA, however, refused to deliver such plans. In addition, HCA refused to consult with Burlington concerning the nature of the plans being submitted by HCA to the Redevelopment Agency. Redevelopment Agency and HCA Hold Secret Closed Door Meetings to Discuss Redevelop t The Redevelopment Agency,HCA, and Ezralow held several secret closed door meetings relating to HCA's purchase and redevelopment of Huntington Center. One such meeting occurred on or about November 15, 1999,the day before HCA actually took title to Huntington Center. No tangible evidence(e.g.,minutes)were kept of said meetings, even though the Brown Act requires that public entities keep a record of any meetings with third parties relating to the business of the public entity. Mr. Murray Kane,of Kane Ballmer& Berkman was present at this meeting. Burlington was not invited, nor was it informed at the time that such a meeting was going to take place. In December, 1999, Burlington met with Mr. Gray and other representatives of Ezralow in order to discuss redevelopment of Huntington Center as well as Burlington's location within the shopping center. Mr. Gray advised Burlington that if it did not accept Ezralow's rent increase from $6 to$22 per square foot, the Redevelopment Agency has assured Ezralow and HCA that Burlington's leasehold interest would be condemned. Mr. Gray further stated that Burlington had no redevelopment rights once the Redevelopment Agency was brought in to condemn Burlington's lease. Simply put,unless Burlington accepted Ezralow's extortionate rent increase, the Burlington Lease--which preserves Burlington's tenancy in the event the shopping center undergoes redevelopment-- would be condemned by the Redevelopment Agency. As alleged in Burlington's federal lawsuit against the City and the Redevelopment Agency, Ezralow made such threats after it received assurance from the Redevelopment Agency that Burlington's leasehold interest would be condemned. From the time period of December 1999 to the present, Ezralow has cut off all communications with Burlington,and refuses to abide by the provisions set forth in the Burlington Lease. The Redevelopment A eg. ncv Gets Involved in the Redevelopment of Huntington Center On or about March 3, 2000, the Director of Economic Development for the City of Huntington Beach sent a Request For Proposal ("RFP")to all persons or entities that qualified as an owner within Huntington Center. The RFP's requested that said owners submit Statements of Interest and Requests for Development Proposals in connection with entering into a Owner JUL-04-20 00 17:30 2133850595 97% P. 10 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133950595 Jul. 04 2000 05:17PM P11 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 10 Participation Agreement("OPA") with a qualified owner.' Within the time required by the RFP, Burlington submitted to the Redevelopment Agency its Statement of Interest and Response to the RFP (`Burlington Response"). HCA also submitted a response to the RFP by a letter from their attorneys, Whitman Breed Abbott&Morgan LLP, by letter dated May 2, 2000("HCA Response"),which included as its alleged redevelopment concept the City of Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13, entitled "The Crossings at Huntington Beach"(the "Specific Plan"). Prior to HCA submitting the HCA Response, HCA submitted an application to the City for the establishment of the new Specific Plan as the zoning for the entire Huntington Center. This application is dated March 31,2000, but,oddly,acknowledged in the"Official Use Only"box as received by the City on March 30, 2000 and distributed by the City on March 16, 2000. The City's Planning Commission held study sessions on May 9,2000 and May 30, 2000 to consider the Specific Plan, and a formal Planning Commission hearing was held on Tuesday,June 13, 2000, which was continued to a special Planning Commission hearing that was held on June 20,2000. Burlington received written notice-- in which HCA is referenced as the "applicant" for the Specific Plan--of a Planning Commission hearing for Tuesday,June 13, 2000. However, on June 5,2000,Ray Silver,City Administrator and Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, unilaterally declared by memorandum dated June 5, 2000,that the City and the Redevelopment Agency were the"applicants"for the Specific Plan because it was a "city-initiated project." Despite the fact that Burlington has operated its business in Huntington Center since 1995, under one of the proposed Specific Plan exhibits,Burlington's building is excluded from the new Huntington Center. The RFP that was sent to Burlington does not mention the Specific Plan and, rather,requests that any submission in response to the RFP provide for a redevelopment concept for the site which includes a"(d]escription of proposed uses and the arrangement of these uses." Neither the City, nor the Redevelopment Agency, nor HCA ever contacted Burlington in connection with the development of the draft Specific Plan even though HCA is obligated to seek Burlington's approval in connection with any proposed redevelopment or razing of Burlington's demised premises. S Section 20OF of the Owner Participation Rules defines"Owner"as"any person, persons, corporation, association,partnership,or other entity holding recorded fee title to or a long-term lease of real property in the Project Area for so long as such Owner hold such title or long-term lease." JUL-04-2000 17=31 2133e50595 97% P.11 F RUM I UC;HMHN & H55UL I H I E5 HHUNE NU. Jul. 04 2UWU b5:lbrlm F112 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 11 HCA Elects to Raze Burlin on's Demised Premises On or about March 20, 2000, HCA submitted to the Redevelopment Agency a Specific Plan 12 which showed that Burlington's demised premises would be razed and that Burlington would no longer be a part of the redeveloped Huntington Center. On or about March 31, 2000, HCA submitted an application with the Planning Commission for the establishment of the new Specific Plan as the zoning for the entire Huntington Center. Thereafter, and starting on or about April 4,2000,combined with numerous letters and requests in writing, during April and May, 2000,Burlington undertook to obtain as much information as possible from the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Such information included a request for information as to any meetings,notices,plans submitted,and documentation relating to Huntington Center which the Redevelopment Agency was required to produce upon request, as required under the Brown Act. The Redevelopment Agency,however, engaged in a scheme and course of conduct to conceal documents specifically requested by Burlington and failed to disclose scheduled meetings between the Redevelopment Agency and Ezralow in relation to the redevelopment of Huntington Center, including, but not limited to,intentionally not informing Burlington of a Staff Meeting on April 13, 2000,a Planning Commission meeting(or sometimes referred to as Study Sessions)dated May 9, 2000, and a Design Review Board Meeting on June 1, 2000. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency intentionally withheld and continues to withhold documents which were requested by Burlington. Burlin on Files Lawsuit Against Ezralow_and-HCA to Enforce Lease On or about May 24, 2000, Burlington filed a lawsuit against HCA and Ezralow in the Superior Court of Orange County--Central Justice Center, for breach of the Burlington Lease. The lawsuit alleged that Ezralow and HCA were in breach of the Burlington Lease when it refused to deliver to Burlington conceptual plans in connection with the redevelopment of Huntington Center, and when it submitted development plans to the Redevelopment Agency without seeking Burlington's approval to said plans. In addition, the complaint sought injunctive relief in order to prevent Ezralow and HCA from submitting plans that have not been approved by Burlington. On June 1, 2000,Burlington gave notice to Ezralow and HCA that Burlington would seek ex parie6 relief from the court in order to obtain a temporary restraining order to G All parties appeared on June 2, 2000 but the judge assigned to the case was unavailable. The matter was put over to the following Wednesday June 7,2000 at the request of Ezralow. The judge heard the ex parte on June 7, 2000. JUL-04-2000 17:31 2133850595 96% P. 12 FROM TUCHMAN 8 ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:18PM P13 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5,2000 Page 12 prevent Ezralow and HCA from submitting development plans and zoning applications relating to the razing of Burlington's demised premises without seeking Burlington's approval to said plans. HCA represented to the court that it was no longer the applicant for the Specific Plan,but that the Redevelopment Agency and the City were the new applicants. The judge requested that= the Agency provide a supplemental declaration stating that it was the new applicant. City Administrators and Officials Interfere With Burlinzon's_Lawsuit In anticipation that a temporary restraining order would be granted by the court due to the fact that Ezralow submitted a development plan that was.in contravention to the Burlington Lease,on June 5,2000,Ray Silver,the City Administrator and Executive Director of the Agency,wrote a memorandum wherein he,in his capacity as the City Administrator,declared that the Redevelopment Agency and the City would be the applicants for the Specific Plan which was initially submitted by HCA.' After considering Mr.Silver's memorandum and the accompanying declaration of Mr.Zelefsky,the Court deemed Burlington's ex part¢application for a temporary restraining order to be moot considering that HCA was no longer the applicant. Mr. Silver's June 5,2000 memorandum was the impetus for Burlington's lawsuit filed in federal court. The claims for relief sought in the lawsuit against the City and Redevelopment Agency are described in detail in Section lI below. I. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT. A. Overview of the California Community Redevelopment Act. The California Community Redevelopment Act(Health and Safety Code,sections 33000,et seq.)("Redevelopment Act")was established to provide local officials with the ability to form redevelopment agencies that would be responsible for the planning and implementation of programs designed to rehabilitate blighted areas in American cities. The fundamental documents governing a redevelopment agency's activities is the redevelopment plan. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affmned that the redevelopment plan should be a very general document,providing the redevelopment agency with great flexibility to accommodate changing market conditions,development opportunities and the desires and needs of owners to participate in the redevelopment program. County of Santa Cruz v. City of Watsonville, 177 Cal.App.3d 831 (1985);see also,In re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill,61 Cal.2d 21 (1964). i I ' Attached as Exhibit"B"is a true and correct copy of the June 5,2000 memo authored by Mr. Silver. property in the project area in conformity with the redevelopment plan adopted by the legislative body for the area. Moreover,while a redevelopment plan is not required to have provisions granting JUL-04-2000 1?:32 2133850595 82% P.13 FROM .: TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:19PM PIS t City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 13 As noted in County of Santa Cruz v. City of Watsonville, supra,at 841: By exercising certain of its powers to implement redevelopment, a redevelopment agency may induce private investment in an area. The success of any redevelopment project is dependent upon whether private lenders,developers,owners,and tenants can be persuaded to - participate in the process. Thus,a redevelopment agency is unique among public entities since in order to achieve its objective of eliminating blight it must rely upon cooperation with the private sector. Redevelopment is also a process which occurs over a period of years. These realities dictate that a redevelopment plan be written in terms that enhance a redevelopment agency's ability to respond to market conditions, development opportunities and the desires and abilities of owners and tenants. The Redevelopment Agency's power to implement redevelopment,however, does not give the Agency carte blanche authority to set aside constitutional guarantees of"due process of law,"nor does it give the Redevelopment Agency plenary power to stray from its own rules and regulations which govern redevelopment. B. The Redevelopment Agency has Failed to Provide Burlington With a Reasonable Opportunity to Participate in the Redevelopment of Huntington Center. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33339,a redevelopment plan must include a provision for participation by owners conditioned upon their agreeing to develop or rehabilitate their property in conformance with the redevelopment plan. Health and Safety Code section 33339 provides, in relevant part: Every redevelopment plan shall provide for participation in the redevelopment of property in the project area by the owners of all or party of such property if the owners agree to participate in the redevelopment inconformity with the redevelopment plan adopted by the legislative body for the area. In addition, section 33380 of the Health and Safety Code provides that: An agency shall permit owner participation in the redevelopment of property in the project area in conformity with the redevelopment plan adopted by the legislative body for the area. Moreover, while a redevelopment plan is not required to have provisions granting JUL-04-2000 17:33 2133950595 96% P.15 FROM TUCHMAN 8 RSSOCIATES PHONE NO. 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:20PM P16 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 14 priority to current business owners of the property subject to redevelopment,pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 33339.5,the redevelopment agency is required to adopt rules for owner participation and for preferences to businesses prior to the adoption of the redevelopment plan. Section 33339.5 states, in pertinent part: Every redevelopment agency shall extend reasonable preference to persons who are engages in business in the project area to reenter in business within the redeveloped area if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed by the redevelopment plan. Indeed, section 302 of the Owner Participation Rules,which were adopted by the Redevelopment Agency, mandates that"Business Occupants engaged in business in the Project Area shall be extended reasonable preference to reenter in business within the redeveloped area if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed by the Plan and these Rules." The Redevelopment Agency,however,has failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for Burlington to participate in the redevelopment of Huntington Center in spite of the fact that Burlington has requested a right to participate in such redevelopment. As stated above, on March 3, 2000,the Redevelopment Agency sent out its RFP to Burlington and other owners and tenants located within the Mall. The deadlines for the owners and tenants to submit a Statement of Interest and Development Proposal in response to the RFP were April 17,2000 and May 2, 2000, respectively. In accordance with the time limits set forth in the Redevelopment Agency's RFP, Burlington submitted a Statement of Interest by April 17,2000—expressing its interest in participating in the redevelopment of Huntington Center. Prior to and during this time,however, the City and the Redevelopment Agency were having meetings with HCA and Eztalow regarding HCA's specific development proposal and,apparently, developing an elaborate scheme and schedule to exclude Burlington and others,but at the same time give the appearance of complying with the Redevelopment Act and its own Rules. For example, beginning on March 30, 2000 (one day prior to Burlington's Petition to Compel Arbitration,and one day prior to HCA's application and more than one month prior to the HCA Response to the RFP), City staff began having meetings with HCA regarding its RFP—specifically the proposed Specific Plan —without any written notice to Burlington. Thus,at least two weeks before the Redevelopment Agency had received any other Statements of Interest or Development Proposals and prior to the expiration of the Redevelopment Agency's self-imposed deadline for those documents,the Redevelopment Agency was already implementing a scheme with HCA for HCA's development of Huntington Center and the taking of Burlington's demised premises. Such actions were in direct contravention of the Redevelopment Act. Indeed,the Redevelopment Act requires that once owner participation is invited,the Redevelopment Agency JUL-04-2000 17:34 2133850595 96% P.16 FROM : TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:20PM P17 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5,2000 Page 15 has a legal duty to treat all project applicants,including current owners,with"reasonableness" and"in good faith." In re Redevelop ent Plan for Bunker Hill.61 Cal. 2d 21, 60(1964): The Redevelopment Agency's actions, however, were neither reasonable nor in good faith. In fact, the Redevelopment Agency's actions were especially egregious considering the RFP was vague in its requirement for a development concept, and since we now know that the HCA Response to the RFP(the proposed Specific Plan) is an alleged"city-initiated project." This"city-initiated project"of the Specific Plan was never disclosed or made public until after a formal Planning Commission hearing had been noticed. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Redevelopment Agency and the City have been in collusion with HCA for HCA to take Burlington's demised premises through the Redevelopment Agency's power of condemnation,and thereby allow HCA to escape the Burlington Lease,which requires that HCA seek the approval of Burlington before electing to redevelop Burlington's demised premises. These actions are in direct violation of State and local law and should not be further condoned by the City Council. II. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S ACTIONS AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. The power of state and local governments to regulate land use is expressly limited by the"due process" and"taking"clauses of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides that"[n]o person shall . . .be deprived of life, liberty, property, without due process and wall; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" In addition, state and local land use regulations are also, of course, subject to the Fourteenth Amendment's"equal protection"clause. Consequently,denial of equal protection may be the basis of a successful challenge to land use regulations which are alleged to single out the challenger for more onerous treatment than other landowners who are similarly situated. A. The Redevelopment Agency's Actions and the Specific Plan Are In Violation of Equal Protection. Substantive Process and Procedural Due Process as G anteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals against government deprivations of property without due process of law. U.S. Const., 14'Amend. And Cal. Const., Art. I § 7. If a governmental action is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable,such action will be declared unconstitutional and a violation of substantive due process. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 47 S. Ct. 114 (1926); see also. Lockary v. Yayfetz, 917 F.2d 1150(9'Cu. 1990) (noting that government conduct that JUL-04-2000 17:34 2133850595 96% P.17 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:21PM P18 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 16 is malicious, irrational or plainly arbitrary will not be sustained). The premise behind the equal protection clause is that no person shall be denied the same protection of law that is enjoyed by another person is similar circumstances. See Hawn-v. County of Ventura, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1009 (1977). Here,as set forth in detail above, by engaging in negotiations with HCA and considering HCA's Specific Plan before receiving any other development proposals, by"hiding the ball"that the Specific Plan was actually a"city-initiated project,"by pursuing an improper RFP process to give the appearance of complying with the Redevelopment Act and the Redevelopment Agency's own Rules, the Redevelopment Agency will unfairly discriminate against Burlington and deny Burlington a reasonable opportunity ity to participate in the redevelopment of Huntington Center. See,g;g, Hawn v. Coggty of Ventura, 73 Cal. App. 3d 1009 (1977). These action are malicious, irrational and plainly arbitrary in clear violation of the equal protection and substantive due process protections provided by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the insufficient notice and lack of ability to participate also constitute denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. See,e.g., Carey v. Piphus, 98 S. Ct. 1042(1978). By adopting the Specific Plan,the City Council is condoning and furthering the illicit application process that was undertaken by the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Indeed, the City's own Zoning Ordinance requires that all property owners be included on the application. In particular,section 215.08 of the Zoning Ordinance states,in pertinent part,that: An amendment to reclassify property to a SP District may be initiated by a property owner or authorized agent,the Planning Commission, or the City Council. If the property is not under a single ownership, all owners sha11 join in the application,and a map showing the extent of ownerships shall be submitted with concept plans and materials. As it stands now, the City and the Redevelopment Agency are the only applicants. The law is clear,Burlington,HCA,and Montgomery Ward should also be included on the application. As a matter of fact, HCA initiated the application process for the Specific Plan,but it was replaced as the applicant via the June 5,2000 memorandum that was authored by Mr. Silver. Mr. Silver did not have the authority to initiate the application on behalf of the City and the Redevelopment Agency because section 215.08 mandates that all owners join in the application, including HCA, Montgomery Ward, and Burlington. In furtherance of a conspiracy to interfere with Burlington's lawsuit and the Burlington Lease, Mr. Silver intentionally excluded Ezralow as an applicant. In the event the City Council approves the Specific Plan, it would be putting its stamp of approval on a City-initiated zoning document for which the City does not have the statutory or legal authority to initiate without naming all owners as co-applicants. Because the City and the Redevelopment Agency are applying for the zoning change(in violation JUL-04-2000 17:35 2133850595 96% P.18 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. 2133950595 Jul. 04 2000 05:22PM P19 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 17 of their own rules and regulations), both the City and the Agency have exposed themselves to liability. The foregoing actions are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and should not be condoned or allowed to continue by the City Council. B. The RedevelopmentAgency's Actions Amount to Tortious Conduct Under California's Statutory and Decisional Law. 1. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfered With Burlington's Contractual Relationship With HCA. Tort liability may be imposed upon a defendant who intentionally and improperly interferes with the plaintiffs rights under a contract with another person if the interference causes the plaintiff to lose a right under the contract or makes the contract rights more costly or less valuable. 52g Allen v. Powell,248 Cal. App. 2d 502(1967). The acts which induce the breach need not be unlawful. It is sufficient if they are lawful, but without justification. Id. The actions of Mr. Silver in the instant case were both unlawful and without justification. First, Mx. Silver's unilateral act of substituting the City and the Redevelopment Agency as the applicants for the Specific Plan was an ultra vires act done for the sole purpose of interfering with Burlington's efforts to enforce its lease with its landlord. Second, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for the City of Huntington Beach ("Zoning Ordinance")clearly sets forth the law with respect to initiating the process to reclassify property to a Specific Plan District. In particular, section 215.08 of the Zoning Ordinance states, in pertinent part, that: An amendment to reclassify property to a SP District may be initiated by a property owner or authorized agent,the Planning Commission, or the City Council. If the property is not under a single ownership, all owners shall join in the application,and a map showing the extent of ownerships shall be submitted with concept plans and materials. Mr. Silver did not have the authority to initiate the application on behalf of the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Moreover, Section 215.08 mandates that all owners join in the application, including Ezralow. In furtherance of a conspiracy to interfere with Burlington's lawsuit and the Burlington Lease, Mr. Silver intentionally declared the City and the Redevelopment Agency as the applicants for the Specific Plan. JUL-04-2000 17:36 2133950595 97% P.19 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133950595 Jul. 04 2000 05:22PM P20 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 18 2. City Administrators and Officials Intentionally Interfered With Burlington's Prospective Economic Relationship with HCA. The tort of Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage protects those expectancies involved in ordinary commercial dealings. See Youst V. Longo,43 Cal. 3d 64 (1987). The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are(1)an economic relationship containing the probability of future economic benefit; (2)knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship; (3) intentional wrongful acts by the defendant to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship;and(5) plaintiff is damaged by such actions. Zimmerman v. Bank of America, 191 Cal. App. 2d 55, 57 (1961). In the instant case,there is an economic relationship between Burlington and HCA in that Burlington is leasing 133,500 square feet of retail space for a term of 30 years (expiring in 2025). The Redevelopment Agency,however,knew of Burlington's Lease with HCA,and interfered with said relationship when it endeavored to commit numerous acts which were both unjustified and illegal. For example, the Redevelopment Agency,HCA, and Ezralow had several secret closed door meetings relating to HCA's purchase and redevelopment of Huntington Center. One such meeting occurred on or about November 15, 1999,the day before HCA actually took title to Huntington Center. No tangible evidence(e.g.,minutes)were kept of said meetings, even though the Brown Act requires that public entities keep of record of any meetings with third parties relating to the business of the public entity. In addition,the Redevelopment Agency concealed (and it continues to conceal) Public documents which they are required to disclose(Pursuant to the Brown nAct upon request. Burlington has asked for such documents for over the past four months only to receive 14 documents and a response that it is holding back documents because it feels it does not have to produce them at this time. Finally, Mr. Silver(and other City administrators and officials) interfered with Burlington's private lawsuit by declaring, in a June 5,2000 memorandum, that the Specific Plan was a"City-initiated project"and therefore declared the City and the Redevelopment Agency as the new applicants. This was done a few days after Burlington sought injunctive relief from the court in an effort to preserve its lease rights as a tenant at Huntington Center. But for the acts of Mr. Silver and Mr. Zelefsky, Burlington would have been granted provisional relief and HCA would have been restrained. The acts of Mr. Silver(as an agent of the City and the Redevelopment Agency)was intentional and pre-meditated. Mr. Silver's June 5, 2000 memorandum was intentionally calculated to directly and illegally intervene in Burlington's pursuit to vindicate its contract rights against HCA. The ultra vires acts of Mr. Silver went against every notion of constitutional due process and fair play. Simply put, Mr. Silver(acting on behalf of the City and the Redevelopment Agency) illegally manufactured evidence that he JUL-04-2000 17:36 2133e50595 97% P.20 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:23PM P21 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5,2000 Page 19 and HCA knew would counteract and defeat the then pending ex parte application for temporary restraining order. The June 5,2000 memorandum by Mr. Silver was orchestrated and fashioned to directly counteract the private suit. For the foregoing reasons,the City and the Redevelopment Agency intentionally interfered with Burlington's prospective economic advantage. 3. City Administrators and Officials Conspired to Induce HCA to Breach its Contractual Relationship With Burlington. The tort action of conspiracy to induce breach of contract applies the general principles of civil conspiracy to the tort of inducing breach of contract(or interference with contractual relations). A tort action will lie against third parties to a contract who,pursuant to a conspiracy,have wrongfWly induced or procured the breach of contract. See Wise v. Southern Pacific Co., 223 Cal. App. 2d 50, 64(1963). Mr. Silver and other City and Redevelopment Agency officials conspired to induce HCA into breaching its contract with Burlington by assuring Ezralow and HCA that Burlington's leasehold interest would be condemned so long as HCA omitted Burlington from its redevelopment plans, by engaging in negotiations with HCA and considering HCA's Specific Plan before receiving any other development proposals,by"hiding the ball" that the Specific Plan was actually a"city-initiated project,"by pursuing an improper RFP process to give the appearance of complying with the Redevelopment Act and the Redevelopment Agency's own Rules,and by concealing public records from Burlington in an effort to conceal the redevelopment process being undertaken by HCA and the Redevelopment Agency. Burlington will have its day in court, and it will establish that the City and Redevelopment Agency conspired to strip Burlington of its rights to participate as a tenant in the new Huntington Center. III. HCA'S RESPONSE TO THE RFP CANNOT BE LEGALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT PROPOSES A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT VIOLATES THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND ESTABLISHED LAW. The HCA Response is a development proposal that is the Specific Plan. As described below, this Specific Plan proposed by HCA violates the City's General Plan,the City's Municipal Code and State law. The Redevelopment Agency cannot now choose HCA as the "developer"based on a proposal (Specific Plan)that is unlawful. To do so would result in the Redevelopment Agency proposing to contract with HCA through an OPA to undertake unlawful acts, and the Redevelopment Agency cannot contract to undertake unlawful acts. If the Redevelopment Agency were to do so, it would violate State law, including the Redevelopment . JUL-04-2000 17:37 2133850595 9?x P.21 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:24PM P22 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 20 Act,and be acting in an arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable manner,which provides additional grounds of violation of each of the principles and laws set forth above. A. The Specific Plan is Not in Compliance witb the General Plan. The City's General Plan requires that"development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character and in accordance with the Development`Overlay' Schedule(table LU-3)." See Policy LU 7.1.2. General Plan Policy LU 15.1.1 requires"the formulation, adoption,and implementation of Specific Plans for areas designated with a Specific Plan Overlay. Table LU-4 of the General Plan specifies the land use category for the Huntington Center as"Commercial Regional (CR)." The Specific Plan does not comply with State law and the City's Municipal Code requirements for specific plans as explained in Paragraph B below. As a result,the Specific Plan is not in compliance with the General Plan,and HCA's response cannot be accepted because it is not consistent with the General plan. B. The Specific Plan Daes Not Comply with State Law and Munici a1Code Requirements for Specific Plans. Section 65451(a)of the California Government Code provides in relevant part as follows: (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: (1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space,within the area covered by the plan. (2) The proposed distribution, location,and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in plan. (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources,where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures JUL-04-2000 17:37 2133850595 97x P.22 FROM TUCHMAN 8 ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:24PM P23 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 21 necessary to carry out paragraphs(1), (2), and(3). The Specific Plan does not meet these requirements of the Government Code because it does not specify in detail the distribution or location of any uses of land. Rather,the Specific Plan has two different"Illustrative Conceptual Master Plan"exhibits which specifically note the following: "This illustrative shows a hypothetical development scenario on the project site." The location and distribution of the uses and other essential facilities(including utilities and other infrastructure) are not specified (they are only"hypothetical')and are merely deferred to another day through potential future environmental review under CEQA and an improper site plan review process under section 2.3 of the Specific Plan,which process is done solely by the Planning Director without any requirement for public hearing or notice. This could result in any and all of the uses and other essential facilities permitted or required under the Specific Plan to be constructed anywhere, which is not consistent with Government Code section 65451. By delegation to a future date of an essential element of the Specific Plan, as required by law,General Plan Implementation Program I-LU4 and Municipal Code Chapter 215 will also be violated by not having the Planning Commission and City Council consider the location and distribution of uses. Section 2.0 of Specific Plan similarly violates this Implementation Program and Municipal Code Chapter 215 by allowing modifications of the Specific Plan by the Planning Director when determined by the Planning Director to be minor. By allowing this, all notice and hearing procedures under this and other Chapters of the Municipal Code are ignored and violated for amendments to the Specific Plan. In summary, the Specific Plan should be a tool to provide certainty regarding the location and distribution of future development in Huntington Center in compliance with State and local law. However, as currently proposed, the Specific Plan would create complete uncertainty regarding the development of Huntington Center in violation of law and unlawfully delegate the authority to determine the location and distribution of land uses and essential facilities to the Planning Director. C. The Adoption of the Specific Plan Will Violate the California Environmental OwdijX Act,an Environmental Impact Report Must Be PreRared 1. The City must ptepare and certify an EIR for the Proposed Specific Plan. a. Overview of CEQA. CEQA was enacted in response to the well- documented failure of state and local governmental agencies to consider fully the environmental implications of their actions. Selmi,The Judicial Department of the California Environmental JUL-04-2000 17:38 2133850595 97% P.23 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133e50595 Jul. 04 2000 05:25PM P24 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5,2000 Page 22 Quality Act, 18 U.C.D.L. Rev. 197(1984).g The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that CEQA must be interpreted liberally"to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language."Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. The Regents of the University of California("Laurel Heights I"),47 Cal. 3d 376, 390 (1989), guotina from Friends of Mammoth v. Board_Qf SpRervisors, 8 Cal. 3d 247, 259 (1972). Two of the central purposes of CEQA are to inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project and to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(1)and (2). The EIR is the heart of CEQA. Guidelines § 15003(a). As noted by the California Supreme Court,the EIR: is the primary means of achieving the Legislature's considered declaration that it is the policy of this state to `take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state.' (§ 21001, subd. (a).). . . Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is the document of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed,can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees. (Citations). The EIR process protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. Laurel ei hts I.supra,at 392.9 CEQA provides for a three-tiered environmental analysis. First,the lead agency s The Office of Planning and Research has promulgated guidelines to implement CEQA. 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000,et seq. (the"Guidelines"). 9 An EIR serves"to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has in fact analyzed and consider the ecological implications of its action-" No Oil,Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 86(1974). An EIR also allows the public to"determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials,thus allowing for appropriate action on election day should a majority of the voters disagree." People v. County of Kern,39 Cal. App. 3d 830, 842(1974). "The report. . .may be viewed as an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." County of Ingo v. Yorty, 32 Cal. App. 3d 795, 810 (1973). JUL-04-2000 17:39 2133950595 97% P.24 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. 2133e50595 Jul. 04 2000 05:25PM P25 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 23 determines whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. Guidelines § 15061. If the lead agency concludes that the project is not exempt from CEQA, the lead agency then conducts an initial study to ascertain whether to prepare an EIR or a negative declaration in connection with the project. The lead agency may only adopt a"negative declaration"when the initial study concludes that"there is no substantial evidence . . . that the project may have a significant effect ion the environment"and further CEQA review is unnecessary. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(1). CEQA applies only to "discretionary projects." Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(a) and(b)(1); Guidelines § 15268(a). A discretionary project is one which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances,or regulations." Guidelines § 15357. b. Fair Arzmgent Test Requires an EIR. If the administrative record contains substantial evidence that any aspect of a project` nay have a significant effect on the environment," the lead agency must prepare an EIR. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100; Guidelines §§ 15002(f)(1), 15063(b)(1) and 15064(a)(1).10 Put another way, . . . if the lead agency is presented with a fair argument that aproject may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even-thou s7h it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not half a significant effect. (No Oil Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d 68 (1974)). Guidelines§ 15064(g)(1).(emphasis added). See a Jso Friends o `B" Street v. City of Hated, 106 Cal.App. 3d 988, 1002 (1980). A trial court is entitled to independently review an agency's determination that there was no evidence upon which a fair argument could be made that an EIR was required. As the court stated in Friends of"B" Street supra: if there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support the decision to dispose with preparation of an EIR and adopt a Negative Declaration, because it could be `fairly argued' that the project might have a significant environmental 10 Professor Selmi pointed out that one of the reasons that courts are permitted to closely examine CEQA decisions is that public agencies"are subject to political pressure to avoid the full EIR process" which is certainly the case here. Selmi, supra, at 227. JUL-04-2000 17:39 2133950595 97% P.25 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:26PM P26 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 24 impact. Stated another way, if the trial court perceives substantial evidence that the project might have such an impact but the Agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR the Aa ties action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed ` in a manner required by law.' (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5.) 106 Cal.3d at 1002. (Emphasis added). Under the fair argument standard, deference to the lead agency's determination is not appropriate and its decision not to require an EIR can be upheld"only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary." Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma.6 Cal.App. 41, 1307, 1317- 18 (1992). The fair argument standard requires the reviewing court to employ"a certain degree of independent review of the record, rather than the typical substantial evidence standard which usually results in great deference being given to the factual determinations of the agency." Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. Y. City of Encinitas, 29 Cal. App. 4t° 1597, 1602(1994). The Supreme Court has concluded that the interpretation of CEQA"which will afford the fullest possible protection to the environment is one which will impose a low thresholds requirement for preparation of an EIR." No Oil,Inc.v. City of Los Angeles,at 84. Given the magnitude of the proposed development under the Specific Plan and the anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts associated with demolition and construction, the Specific Plan is a`project"under CEQA that will have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, the City and the Redevelopment Agency will half to prepare an EIR. 2. The Specific Plan Is a Project under CEQA. Public Resources Code section 21065 defines project as an"activity which may cause either the direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical activity which is directly undertaken by any public agency." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065; Guidelines § 15378(a); s=also. Goleta Union School District v. Regents of the University of California,37 Cal. App. 4'h 1029, 1030(2d Dist. 1995).,The enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances has been determined to be in activity undertaken by a public agency that are subject to CEQA. See City of Carmel-bathe-Sea v Board of Supervisors 183 Cal. App. 3d 229(1986). Here,the Specific Plan is seeking and amendment to the zoning of the property from CG(General Commercial)and CG-FP2 (General Commercial -Flood Plain)to Specific Plan No. 13. Accordingly,the Specific Plan is a project for purposes of CEQA review. 3. The City and the Redevelopment Agency gust Undertake CEQA Review Before Proceeding with the Adoption of the Specific Plan. Public agencies shall not undertake actions relating to a proposed public project that would have a significant adverse effect on the environment, or limit its choice of alterations JUL-04-2000 17:40 2133850595 9?% P.26 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133e50595 Jul. 04 2000 05:27PM P27 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 25 or mitigation measures,before complying with CEQA. Guidelines § 15004(b)(2). Under this standard, agencies may not make a formal decision to proceed with use of a site without first completing the CEQA review. In the instant case, should the City approve the Specific Plan, or the Redevelopment Agency take any action based thereon, it will be in violation of the aforementioned provision of CEQA. The Specific Plan establishes a master development plan, including without limitation,planning concepts,design and architectural guidelines and other development standards for Huntington Center. There has been no review or analysis in accordance with CEQA of the impacts relating to,among other things, changes and limitations of uses, new permissible heights,utilities,traffic and circulation,and the effect of removing the site from the Flood Plain Overlay District. This and other analyses are all left to another day after the new standards under the Specific Plan are adopted. This will also preclude any consideration of alternatives. Moreover, once approved, any future development will only be subject to site plan review by the Planning Director,rather than a public hearing process before the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Furthermore,the Planning Director can even make amendments to the Specific Plan without any public notice or hearing if he determines they are"minor." Thus,by proposing to approve the Specific Plan before undertaking the appropriate and required environmental review, the City is essentially limiting its ability to have any fiirther drnisinn-making mnthnrity in connection with the future development of Huntington Center. This is in violation of CEQA and is not allowed. 4. The Elements of Tiering Are Not Met. Tiering is a process provided for by the Legislature in order to allow agencies to avoid repetitiveness, wasted time, and unnecessary premature speculation. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21065,21093(a); Guidelines § 15152. To qualify for the use of tiering, leader projects must: (1) be consistent with the program, plan,policy, or ordinance for which an EIR has been prepared and certified; (2) be consistent with applicable local land-use plans and zoning of the city,county, or city and county in which the later project would be located;and (3)not trigger the need for a subsequent EIR See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b). In addition, before deciding that tiering may be used with respect to a later project,the lead agency must prepare an`initial study or other analysis"to assist it in determining whether the project may cause any significant impacts not analyzed in a prior EIR. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21094(b); Guidelines § 15152(f). Here, the City and/or Redevelopment Agency have not prepared an initial study to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts of the Specific Plan. Accordingly, before JUL-04-2000 17:40 2133e50595 97% P.27 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133e50595 Jul. 04 2000 05:27PM P29 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 26 the City can approve the Specific Plan,an initial study will have to be prepared. In fact, to date, there exists no complete or legally adequate environmental analysis of. (i)the proposed conceptual plans contemplated by the Specific Plan; (ii)the development of these specific acres or analysis of the proposed design and architectural guidelines; or(iii)a program of mitigation which if implemented would eliminate any and all potential for adverse environmental impacts. Thus, before any further action is taking on the Specific Plan, an initial study will half to be prepared and the proper environmental review under CEQA must be performed. 5. The City and the Redevelopment Agency Have Unlawfully"Split"the Project for Purposes of Environmental Review. As noted above,the term"project"has been broadly defined under CEQA. "Project"means"the whole of an action,which has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment,directly or indirectly. . . ."Guidelines § 15378(a). All phases of project planning, implementation and operation must be considered in the initial study for a project. Guidelines § 15063(a)(1). The term"project"refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretional approvals by governmental agencies. The term"project"does not mean each separate governmental approval. Guidelines § 15378(c). Under CEQA, a project must be fully analyzed in a sin le environmental document. In agency may not split a project into two or more segments with mutually exclusive environmental documents. Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of 1W 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 165 (1985). Similarly, an agency cannot overlook a project's cumulative impacts by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole. See McQueen v. Board of Directors,202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1144(1988). In Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area, supra,a county split a shopping center project into two segments,the first part consisting of general plan amendments and zoning classifications,and the second part involving a tentative map approval and road abandonment. The public agency prepared a separate negative declaration for each project segment. Because the project applicant had requested related discretionary approvals at different times,the county had failed to understand that it was dealing with a single project. The court overtumed the negative declarations and the project approvals,holding that an agency cannot prepare mutually exclusive environmental documents for a single project. Id. at 165-67. The project description in a CEQA document must include: an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonable foreseeable consequence of the initial JUL-04-2000 17:41 2133950595 97% P•2e FROM TUCHMRN & RSSUC I RTES PHONE NO. 213 iEl5d5y5 Jul. 04 �WUW b5:, dUHM F'c'y City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5,2000 Page 27 project; and(2)the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. Laurel Heights 1, supra, at 396. In Laurel Heights I, the Regents proposed the relocation of a biomedical research facility to a portion of a building located in the residential neighborhood. The EIR for the project failed to analyze the cumulative impacts of the anticipated full use of the building as a biomedical facility within a few years. The California Supreme Court rejected the Regents' argument that, because the proposed expansion had not been formally approved, the EIR's analysis could be limited to the project in its initial form. Evidence in the record indicated that, despite the lack of a formal approval,the Regents' ultimate plans were clear. Therefore, because the expansion was reasonably foreseeable,and was likely to change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects, the EIR should have discussed at least the general effects of the reasonably foreseeable future uses in the anticipated measures for mitigating those effects. Laurel Heights I, sup.at 396-398. "The fact that precision may not be possible . . . does not mean that no analysis is required" U. at 399. Another case that illustrates this principle is Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, 88 Cal. App. 3d 397 (1979). In Whitman,an EIR was prepared in connection with an application to drill an exploratory oil and gas well,which omitted discussion of a contemplated pipeline if the well proved productive. The court found the EIR inadequate and explained that"[t]he record before us reflects that the construction of the pipeline was, from the very beginning within the contemplation of[the] overall plan for the project and could have been discussed in the EIR in at least general terms."Id. at 414-15. (Emphasis added). Under the current circumstances, the Specific Plan suffers from the same problems that occurred in Laurel Heights I and Whitman First, there has been absolutely no environmental analysis performed in connection with development requirements,permitted uses, location of uses and exemptions from City procedures and requirements and all other matters that are set forth in the Specific Plan. Second,any potential analysis,actions and mitigation measures that may be associated with the actual development of the property are deferred to another day, which is an attempt, like Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area,to split the general plan and zoning classification(i.e.,the Specific Plan)from subsequent required approvals (site plan review by the Planning Director,etc.). This is an egregious violation under the current circumstances because of the current attempts of the City and the Redevelopment Agency to say that the Specific Plan was covered by the very general General Plan EIR. As a result, in accordance with CEQA, the City and the Redevelopment Agency need to properly prepare an EIR or other environmental document under CEQA prior to the approval of the Specific Plan. JUL-04-2000 17:42 2133e50595 9?% P.29 F HUM I UC,I-MHN 6 H55UL 1 H I t5 PHUNI= NU. Jul. 04 2000 05:29PM P30 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5, 2000 Page 28 6. The-Adoption of the Specific Plan As CurregIly Contemplated Without Environmental Review Would UnlawfWly Defer Environmental Review. CEQA requires that environmental review and the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures occur at the earliest feasible state in the planning process. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21003.1. CEQA also provides that any proposed negative declaration should only be prepared for a project when"revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment with occur . . . ." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2). The case of Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino,202 Cal.App. 3d 296(1988), illustrates these principles. In Sundstro the public agency approved a use permit for a motel and restaurant that included a private sewage treatment plant. The initial study did not analyze the environmental impacts of the treatment plant, but instead required that the developer prepare a hydrological study after the approval of the negative declaration. The study was to provide a basis for establishing additional mitigation measures for the project. The court held that the public agency violated CEQA by including a condition that contemplated revisions to the project after the final adoption of the negative declaration. The court fin-ther held that the deferral of environmental review for the treatment plant ran counter to CEQA policy, which required environmental review at the earliest feasible change in the planning process. The court also noted that any mitigation measures added by the administrative staff as a result of this study would be exempt from public scrutiny since the public agency had already approved the negative declaration. The entire Specific Plan and the procedures set forth therein are an unlawful deferral of environmental review. First,no initial study was prepared for the Specific Plan to analyze potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures incorporated into the project, since environmental review would only be done with site plan reviews by the Planning Director. As a result, neither the impacts nor the proposed conditions for the mitigation are analyzed, including those for or relating to uses, light, glare, noise,aesthetics,traffic and circulation, geotechnical,hazardous waste,air quality, parking,flooding, construction and utilities,and each are deferred to another day. This type of deferral of environmental review and mitigation is not permitted under CEQA or the Guidelines and forms yet another unlawful proposal that is a part of the HCA Response. JUL-04-2000 17:42 2133850595 97% P.30 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133B50595 Jul. 04 2WO Wt5:2yFM HJ1 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach July 5,2000 Page 29 7. The Adoption of the Specific Plan As Currently Contemplated without Environmental Review Will Result in an Unlawful Failure to Undertake a Culative Analysis of the Proiect's Environmental Impacts. And environmental document must discuss"cumulative impacts"when they are significant. Guidelines § 15130(a). However, even if the cumulative impact is not deemed significant, the document must explain the basis for the conclusion. Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, 176 Cal. App. 3d 421,429(1985). "Cumulative impacts"are defined under CEQA as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b). By failing to prepare an Initial Study and undertake any environmental analysis under CEQA,there will be no analysis of potential"cumulative impacts,"which is not permitted under CEQA. III. CONCLUSION Considering the multitude of legal issues raised by the inadequately prepared Specific Plan and the unlawful acts undertaken by City administrators and officials,the City Council should reject the Specific Plan and require that the Redevelopment Agency work with Burlington, Montgomery Ward, and HCA in preparing and submitting a new Specific Plan that conforms to the Burlington Lease and established law. In the alternative, the City Council decision should be continued in order to consider the legal issues raised in this letter. Respectfully submitted, TUC &AS AV1V L. CHMAN Counsel for Burlington Coat Factory JUL-04-2000 1?:43 2133e50595 9?% P.31 FROM TUCHMAN 8 ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. 2183850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:30PM P32 °AJ offCITY OF HUTNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning FROM: Tom Livengood,Planning Commissione4 DATE: June 22, 2000 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 13- CROSSINGS The Planning Commission deleted Exhibits 4A and 4B (Project Description— Statistical Summary)by straw vote: I believe the attached revision of Exhibit 4B provides a better description of the overall site square footage. New and existing construction is combined. The revised summary provides more flexibility and provides some protection for the three(3) existing anchor stores. This is a request for you to review this and include in the staff report to the City Council. The 4A summary was not acceptable. Only 80,000 square feet was allowed for existing anchors. Mervyn's store is 80,000.square feet. The message, no room for Burlington or Wards. TL:lgl , Attachment xc_ Planning Commission Shirley Dettloff City Council Member Scott Hess, Principal Planner Herb Fauland, Senior Planner Jane James, Associate Planner- . lg� JUL-04-2000 17:43 2133e50595 97% P.32 O _- - � �l�pl.�i v.���i� a�` t 1 �t 16-•�1 � 1� � ii��:�' �• _ IK`�Y���k�))�Va'•�t,MR f. - •,C'>_- - '� a .:��.. ! _ :t�.. .+.... I+� .�..�_- �T!J!a J�•�.�.�Ye aa��.�1E..... _ )(��.a--� -�•��5 FIC��. .lc�ltJt/�.`I�c - - - - ..NF . - .-! _ ._. - - -. - '-, _ •Y... .yr.. ..._,•.>,ti.(`�[r� [n a�;'`f E'��n•x.:�i�,y7s';/.�► �-1 j�M1_���z�J�:.'.Sr.::�iii� • ii � � � �1!:S'nLl•IJ.'iaK:' -fb".'1111a��/>.1,:LJi'.1:�: "=��� '4 .. .�' . !! !3 ::1-il - - -- !4 ;�.��l:�i.lili.Y:�l 'a •-- • •a.• IS ••: �i�'-:::�i'�41:�� _ a '�•}.:�.:^L'T!a' 1�1 !:���1�' • F Hum 'ULHMHN H I ES PHONE NO. 2133850595 Jul. 04 2000 05:31PM P34 r CF -.R. f l Ze, F3- r_k< rU 714 774 15a0 ; n. 07 D1:a121n P2 fa CITY OF HUNTINGTON BLACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TO: How rd Zelefsky,Dirvct.or ofYlznning FROM: Ray Stover, City Ad�mnistrwor1Exautivs Director of the Red"opouat Agency of the City of HuanirVon Beach w.6? SUBJECT: SnCMC ?%AN NO, 13- HVNTINGTON BEACH MALL FROtERTY DA7IC; Jww 5, 2000 As nquued by the City of HundWti Beach Gewml Plan, a4optfm of a Spac&c plan is acccuwy to esublish zoning and dereiopmeft Wadards for the 63 era Hu oa Cewer property The Specific Pisa Dhows the city to estsbh&u:;que design and architecmniLl to govern fugue development of the cite. Adcptm of the Specific Plan requires procews*of a zowig niaA anxndmenR and zo=g tart ameadraou. Tht E=law Company is the property owner of the c ajo ity of the xrW wlde Mou gomery Wanda owsu appr=Lmazeky 13 Acres, sad Soutimm Casa Edison Compsay rctaias owoerjip beneath the high tension wires on the awh ade of the parvpesty. Although, ati appUccafm for a zone change was subu=ed by the Emslow Company on Marrs 30, 2000, it is more appropriate for the cuy and the Redevelopowx Agarcy to be designated as actual appficants for the proposal bwAww the Spe i&Plea is a city-iatiated project Tbwvfom dds mem and cry signature, as City Dad Exectnive Di vaor of the Redevdop,aa=Aiency of the City of Huntington Beams servo as appliesbm aubonza c for the prveeaag of oatiag Map Amendment No 00-01 and Zoe q Two Amandroaat No 00-02(Spoafic Pisa No. 13) Ptease upeata the Pianautg Deparvruwa records to tine wider. x: Honombic Mayor and City Courxl Members r1 David BIER,, Ecortoewc De%dopm nit Dirctor Gus Durzc.Housing sad Rtdevviopmeat Manager Scott Hess. Prisfci runner Herb Faular4 Savior Plamw Jane Itmcs, Associa%c Puna" 2133850595 57 F.34 JUL-04-2000 �'7�45 1 _ c TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES =} ATTORNEYS AT LAW C?Ty 0E- 3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD HUNTls«T01`4 f1EACH, CA 30TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010 PHONE 213.385.8000 • FAX 213.385.0595 1000 JUL _ , June 30, 2000 Sent via United States Mail Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and Facsimile (714)374-1557 City Clerk for the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 At: Connie Brockway City Clerk, Hon. Mavor, Citv Council Members and Redevelopment Agency Members Re: Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc. File No. 9956 Your Ref.:Staff Report to City Council and Redevelopment Agency or.lulu 5. 2000 Public Hearing Re:Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Test Amendment No. 00-02ahe ___Ct'ossings At Huntington Beach Specific Plan No. 13) Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council and Redevelopment Agency Members: As has been stated in various communications between our office and the City of Huntington Beach and its Agencies our office represents Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc.(Burlington)who is a long term tenant at the property commonly known as the"Huntington Center Mall"("Huntington Center"). Burlington will provide a detailed letter setting forth its objections and comments to the July 5, 2000 City Council hearing and the adoption of Specific Plan No. 13 under separate cover. This letter is to correct and clarify a statement contained at page 7 second paragraph of Section C of the Staff Report prepared by Howard Zelefsky and submitted by Ray Silver on June 27, 2000. The Report inaccurately paraphrases the lease obligations Ezralow and Huntington Center Associates has with Burlington. Specifically the statement that"Ezralow is only required to negotiate with the tenant if the landlord proposes demolition of the building" is not entirely accurate. The Burlington lease at Article XVII reserves the landlord's right to "renovate, reconfigure and/or modernize the Shopping Center." The lease at Article XVII, however, establishes specific and detailed criteria that the landlord must follow in any redevelopment project. If Burlington's demised premises is not altered in anyway by the redevelopment then the landlord does not need to seek Burlington's approval of"conceptual design plans." In all other redevelopment situations the landlord is required to obtain Burlington's approval of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency June 30, 2000 Page 2 "conceptual design plans." The term"conceptual design plans" is specifically used in the lease agreement. In summary Article XVII of the lease regarding"conceptual design plans" provides: 1. If the"conceptual design plans" will relocate, reconfigure, redesign and/or realign the existing exterior entrance then Burlington's approval must be obtained and in no event shall the size and dimensions of the new exterior entrance be materially smaller then the existing entrance; and 2. If the"conceptual design plans" razes Burlington's demised premises then the landlord must: 1. construct a"new premises building"with two level and no less than 60,000 square feet on each level; 2. present the"conceptual design plans" for review and approval by Burlington; 3. if approval cannot be obtained than all disputes between landlord and Burlington must be arbitrated; and 4. the rent and common area costs shall remain the same. Attached hereto is Article XVII of the lease which includes pages 33-42 of Burlington's lease. Accordingly, when referring to the lease and its provisions regarding redevelopment its full terms and obligations must be accurately used and set forth. The"conceptual design plans" contained in Specific Plan 13 which raze Burlington's existing premises without providing an adequate new structure are in direct violation of Burlington's lease agreement. The"conceptual design plans" included in Specific Plan 13 developed by Greenberg Farrow Architecture Incorporated were commissioned and paid for by Ezralow and Huntington Center Associates. It is without question that these are landlords "conceptual design plans" which place the landlord in breach of its contract with Burlington. This formed the basis of Burlington's June 2, 2000 application for injunction against Ezralow and Huntington Center Associates. When the City of Huntington Beach and its agents took the unilateral and invalid action to become the sole applicant of Specific Plan 13, only days after Burlington filed and served its injunction papers, the City intentionally interfered with and deprived Burlington of its contractual and constitutional rights. Moreover the City's June 5, 2000 invalid act was even more egregious, because the City failed to follow its own rules and regulations. Code Section 215.08 provides as follows: An amendment to reclassify property to a SP District may be initiated by a property owner or authorized agent, the Planning Commission, or the City Council. If the property is not under a single ownership, all owners shall join in the application, and a map showing the extent of ownerships shall be submitted with concept plans and materials.(emph. added) City Council and Redevelopment Agency June 30, 2000 Page 3 Similarly, Code section 247.02 provides as follows: Amendments to the zoning provisions, standards or map may be initiated by motion of the City Council or Planning Commission, or any other person or agency. If property that is the subject of an application not initiated by the City is in more than one ownership, all the owners or their authorized agents shall join in filing the application.(emph added). Accordingly, as will be more fully set forth in Burlington's objection and comment letter to the July 5, 2000 hearing regarding Specific Plan 13 and Burlington' current lawsuit with the City its Agencies and Agents, the City of Huntington Beach violated its own code provisions by becoming the sole applicant of Specific Plan 13 and made without a motion. Therefore any Specific Plan must be joined with Ezralow/Huntington Center Associates, Montgomery Wards and Burlington and made by motion and not by unilateral action by Mr. Ray Silver. The Staff Report for the July 5, 2000 hearing regarding the exact terms of Burlington's Lease with the developer Ezralow/Huntington Center Associates must be clarified as set forth above. The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency should not adopt Specific Plan 13 as proposed, must rescind the invalid June 5, 2000 memo of Ray Silver and discontinue its continued aiding and abetting on behalf of Ezralow/Huntington Center Associates in its continued breach of its lease obligations. Very truly yours, TUC ASSOCIATES • L. UC FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133e50595 Jun. 30 2000 06:02PM P2 TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD -- 30TH FLOOR o LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90010 c j PHONE 213.365,8000 • FAX 213,385.0595 Cr � C June 30 2000 r. Sent via United States Mail Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and Facsimile I r��.,;, (714)374�-1557 = �7 City Clerk for the City of Huntington Beach cr� ' Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach r, �, 2000 Main Street v Huntington Beach, CA 92648 At: Connie Brockway City Clerk, Hon. Mayor, City Council Members and Redevelopment Agency Members Re: Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of HunfiijgLon Beach, Inc. File No. 9956 Your Ref.:Staff Report to Q&Council and Redevelopment Agency for July S. 2000 Public Hearing Re:Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-01 and Zoning Test Amendment No. 00-02ahe Crnssin s At Huntington Beach Specifrc Plan No. 13) Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council and Redevelopment Agency Members: As has been stated in various communications between our office and the City of Huntington Beach and its Agencies our office represents Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of Huntington Beach, Inc.(Burlington)who is a long term tenant at the property commonly known as the"Huntington Center Mall"("Huntington Center")_ Burlington will provide a detailed letter setting forth its objections and comments to the July 5, 2000 City Council hearing and the adoption of Specific Plan No. 13 under separate cover. This letter is to correct and clarify a statement contained at page 7 second paragraph of Section C of the Staff Report prepared by Howard Zelefsky and submitted by Ray Silver on June 27, 2000. The Report inaccurately paraphrases the lease obligations Ezralow and Huntington. Center Associates has with Burlington. Specifically the statement that"Ezralow is only required to negotiate with the tenant if the landlord proposes demolition of the building" is not entirely accurate. The Burlington lease at Article XVII reserves the landlord's right to"renovate, reconfigure and/or modernize the Shopping Center." The lease at Article XVII, however, establishes specific and detailed criteria that the landlord must follow in any redevelopment project. If Burlington's demised premises is not altered in anyway by the redevelopment then the landlord does not need to seek Burlington's approval of"conceptual design plans," In all other redevelopment situations the landlord is required to obtain Burlington's approval of the FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jun. 30 2000 06:02PM P3 City Council and Redevelopment Agency June 30, 2000 Page 2 "conceptual design plans." The term"conceptual design plans" is specifically used in the lease agreement. In summary Article XVII of the lease regarding"conceptual design plans"provides: 1. If the"conceptual design plans"will relocate, reconfigure, redesign and/or realign the existing exterior entrance then Burlington's approval must be obtained and in no event shall the size and dimensions of the new exterior entrance be materially smaller then the existing entrance; and 2. If the"conceptual design plans" razes Burlington's demised premises then the landlord must: 1. construct a"new premises building"with two level and no less than 60,000 square feet on each level; 2. present the"conceptual design plans" for review and approval by Burlington; 3, if approval cannot be obtained than all disputes between landlord and Burlington must be arbitrated; and 4. the rent and common area costs shall remain the same, Attached hereto is Article XVIT of the lease which includes pages 33-42 of Burlington's lease. Accordingly, when referring to the lease and its provisions regarding redevelopment its full terms and obligations must be accurately used and set forth_ The"conceptual design plans" contained in Specific Plan 13 which raze Burlington's existing premises without providing an adequate new structure are in direct violation of Burlington's lease agreement. The"conceptual design plans" included in Specific Plan 13 developed by Greenberg Farrow Architecture Incorporated were commissioned and paid for by Ezralow and Huntington Center Associates. It is without question that these are landlords "conceptual design plans" which place the landlord in breach of its contract with Burlington. This formed the basis of Burlington's.tune 2, 2000 application for injunction against Ezralow and Huntington Center Associates. When the City of Huntington Beach and its agents took the unilateral and invalid action to become the sole applicant of Specific Plan 13, only days after Burlington filed and served its injunction papers, the City intentionally interfered with and deprived Burlington of its contractual and constitutional rights. Moreover the City's June 5, 2000 invalid act was even more egregious, because the City failed to follow its own rules and regulations. Code Section 215.08 provides as follows: An amendment to reclassify property to a SP District may be initiated by a property owner or authorized agent, the Planning Commission, or the City Council. If the property is not under a single ownership, all owners shall join in the application, and a map showing the extent of ownerships shall be submitted with concept plans and materials.(emph. added) FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jun. 30 2000 06:03PM P4 City Council and Redevelopment Agency June 30, 2000 Page 3 Similarly, Code section 247.02 provides as follows: Amendments to the zoning provisions, standards or map may be initiated by motion of the City Council or Planning Commission, or any other person or agency. If property that is the subject of an application not initiated by the City is in more than one ownership, all the owners or their authorized agents shall join in filing the application.(emph added). Accordingly, as will be more fully set forth in Burlington's objection and comment letter to the July 5, 2000 hearing regarding Specific Plan 13 and Burlington' current lawsuit with the City its Agencies and Agents, the City of Huntington Beach violated its own code provisions by becoming the sole applicant of Specific Plan 13 and made without a motion. Therefore any Specific Plan must be joined with Ezralow/Iluntington Center Associates,Montgomery Wards and Burlington and made by motion and not by unilateral action by Mr. Ray Silver. The Staff Report for the July 5, 2000 hearing regarding the exact terms of Burlington's Lease with the developer Ezralow/Huntington Center Associates must be clarified as set forth above. The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency should not adopt Specific plan 13 as proposed, must rescind the invalid June 5, 2000 memo of Ray Silver and discontinue its continued aiding and abetting on behalf of Ezralow/Huntington Center Associates in its continued breach of its lease obligations. Very truly yours, TUP- Ut "AW S 1 FROM TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 2133850595 Jun. 30 2000 06:01PM P1 TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 30TH("LOOK LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA 90010 PHONE 213.385.8000-FAX 213385.0595 FAX COVER SHEET FAX TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FIRM NAME: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach FAX NO.: (7I4) .274-1557 FROM: _Aviv L._Tuchman, Esq. REGARD TO: Burlington Coat Fa&toxy, Inc. v. Huntington Center As5Qpiates OUR FILE NO.: 9956 DATE & TIME: ,, o, 30, 2000 NO. OF PAGES (Including this page) : Per Your Request Response Requested Per Our Conversation_ Response Not Required For Your Information Please call us upon Receipt SPECIAL COMMENTS THIS FACSIMILE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY,OR OTHER DATA PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF YOU ARE NOT THE ADDRESSEE OR THE.PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS TO THE ADDRESSEE,YOU ARE,HERFBY NOTIFIED THAT COPYING OR DISTRIBUTING THIS TRANSMISSION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMME IN ERROR,PL'EA.SE TEI.F„PHONS US IMMEDIATELY AND F E]'L1RN)TRY MAIL"I"O"rHF,.PERSON AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. THANK YOU. CERTIFIED TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 30TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010 7099 3220 0000 5526 0561 City Clerk for the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I Attn: Connie Brockway City Clerk, Hon. Mayor, City Council Members wid Redevelopment Agency Members ` ? Z, i�Flt!fl�Fj f#1(FF�!l��F3lfif lflhlS{j��f lSff lF�i�:is�f f:ff�f tf[ L -- .. `. .. • 3.d013AN3 30 .. i + + + S�NDERems 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the m ■Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for an m ■Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you. extra fee): d ■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address ■Wdte'Retum Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery rn ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. a d v 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number ,�oodcc d /Ty CG�ic� �O� Ttt� GTY °L pry NUN7�NGTCw Qe�fiC'N E 4b.Service Type ° ICE O�Vf�oPM�ry r /�civcy p ° C/7y p/_ / U/v 7/nrG roN N ❑ Registered C9'Ertined co [3Express Mail ❑ Insured ILI2C�C�C7 l7�/�/n� 5 7, 66 7 a c ,4 v� ri/�v7vn/ ,6� cry,e/} 92G`18 etum Receipt for Merchandise [3 COD a fi-T>/v; ��,,vr� �5 r y 7.Date of Delivery E j it ;1ft 5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested c w and fee is paid) al ¢ H 6.Signature:(Addressee or Agent) X h Ps Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt i